# Baptist error in common with Judaizers?



## non dignus

B.B. Warfield from "The Polemics of Infant Baptism"- 

http://www.mbrem.com/baptism/babybap.htm#top


"So fully did the first Christians -- the apostles -- realize the continuity of the Church, that they were more inclined to retain parts of the outward garments of the Church than to discard too much. Hence circumcision itself was retained; and for a considerable period all initiates into the Church were circumcised Jews and received baptism additionally. 

We do not doubt that children born into the Church during this age were both circumcised and baptized. The change from baptism superinduced upon circumcision to baptism substituted for circumcision was slow, and never came until it was forced by the actual pressure of circumstances. The instrument for making this change and so -- who can doubt it? -- for giving the rite of baptism its right place as the substitute for circumcision, was the Apostle Paul. We see the change formally constituted at the so-called Council of Jerusalem, in Acts xv. Paul had preached the gospel to Gentiles and had received them into the Church by baptism alone, thus recognizing it alone as the initiatory rite, in the place of circumcision, instead of treating as heretofore the two together as the initiatory rites into the Christian Church.

But certain teachers from Jerusalem, coming down to Antioch, taught the brethren 

_"except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be saved." _

Paul took the matter before the Church of Jerusalem from which these new teachers professed to emanate; and its formal decision was that to those who believed and were baptized circumcision was not necessary. 

How fully Paul believed that baptism and circumcision were but two symbols of the same change of heart, and that one was instead of the other, may be gathered from Col. ii.11, when, speaking to a Christian audience of the Church, he declares that 

_"in Christ ye were also circumcised "_-- but how? -- _"with a circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the body of the flesh,"_ 

-- that is, in the circumcision of Christ. But what was this Christ-ordained circumcision? The Apostle continues: 

_"Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."_ 

Hence in baptism they were buried with Christ, and this burial with Christ was the circumcision which Christ ordained, in the partaking of which they became the true circumcision. This falls little, if any, short of a direct assertion that the Christian Church is Israel, and has Israel's circumcision, though now in the form of baptism. 

Does the view of Paul, now, contradict the New Testament idea of the Church, or only the Baptist idea of the Church?

No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. *But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. **Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party!* 

_*Let us take our places in opposition, along with Paul and all the apostles."*_


----------



## Davidius

This was the exact same conclusion I came to after studying the baptism issue, although for one or two other reasons. Thanks for another interesting angle on it.


----------



## reformedman

There are so many suppositions made I wouldn't know where to start. 

But on a side note, mildly related, where did Paul (or anyone) ever ask for believers to bring their infants to baptism. Any scripture reference to baptizing infants? Any early church baptism of infants? Any scripture allusions to baptizing infants?

Every scriptural reference to baptism, to me atleast, seems to be believers.


----------



## Herald

Mr. Rogers talking to the paedos in agreement with the OP:

"Can you say _ad hominem tu quoque_? I knew you could."


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Mr. Rogers talking to the paedos in agreement with the OP:
> 
> "Can you say _ad hominem_? I knew you could."



Bill,

I don't have anything against your _hominem_.  I just see similarities in the Baptists' and Pharisees' thinking. If you are referring to the final statements in the passage copied in the OP itself, then maybe.


----------



## Herald

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Bill,
> 
> It's not _ad hominem_. If someone had called you a Pharisee, it would have been, but no one did that. If someone said that the Baptist position was wrong _because_ it's the same as the Pharisees', it would be _ad nazium_. All that was said was that the arguments are very similar.
> 
> I don't have anything against your _hominem_!



David - I don't know how else to take the OP. It certainly seems to lump all credos in the same boat. Whether it was addressed to a group or individual it boils down to the same thing.


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> "Can you say _ad hominem tu quoque_? I knew you could."



*tries to figure out what the _tu quoque_ addition means*


----------



## Herald

David - but I'll tell you this....if it's not quite ad hominem, it certainly is singing to the paedo choir!


----------



## Davidius

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - I don't know how else to take the OP. It certainly seems to lump all credos in the same boat. Whether it was addressed to a group or individual it boils down to the same thing.



Sorry, I realized that what I originally said may've been innacurate after reading the end of the OP again. Please note that I reworded my statement.


----------



## Herald

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> *tries to figure out what the _tu quoque_ addition means*



It accuses the person making an accusation of being guilty of the same thing he is arguing against!


----------



## Herald

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Sorry, I realized that what I originally said may've been innacurate after reading the end of the OP again. Please note that I reworded my statement.




David - no biggie. Sometimes these posts get so long it is easy to miss things. That is why I love the word "brevity." Or said in another way, "Less is more."


----------



## Iconoclast

*Which baptism*

the verse in col.2 is speaking about Spirit baptism, not water baptism.
It is our union with Christ by virtue of Spirit baptism that places us in Him,,, as in 1 cor 12:13,,,,water on an infant does not do this, or accomplish this.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ironically, I was just thinking about similarities this AM as I was reflecting on the Ishmael thread while I was working out. It reminded me of this post:

http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/11/22.34.41

I've repeatedly noticed that Baptists tend to roll the Abrahamic Covenant into the Sinaitic Covenant and see them as identical in some of their arguments (mind you not all).

The reason I point to this post is showing how Welty takes a term like circumcision and makes it completely physical and actually agrees with the Pharisees in a certain fashion even as he's trying to show that paedobaptists really agree with the Pharisees. 

I have honestly found Baptists to be very uncareful with the word _circumcision_ and not noting the different ways that Paul uses it. As long as a "circumcision means nothing" verse supports their view, they'll throw it in to support a credo formula even where it contextually cannot support what they're trying to get it to say. I've seen it done by both Welty in that article and Piper on another occassion. It honestly shocked me the first time I saw it done.


----------



## Davidius

Iconoclast said:


> the verse in col.2 is speaking about Spirit baptism, not water baptism.
> It is our union with Christ by virtue of Spirit baptism that places us in Him,,, as in 1 cor 12:13,,,,water on an infant does not do this, or accomplish this.



And what does that prove concerning the question of baptism's relationship to circumcision? It's not like physical circumcision ever accomplished spiritual circumcision, yet infants were still circumcised.


----------



## Iconoclast

*what does it prove/*

Carolina calvinist,you said;And what does that prove concerning the question of baptism's relationship to circumcision? It's not like physical circumcision ever accomplished spiritual circumcision, yet infants were still circumcised.
__________________
In col.2:11-12 Paul speaks of spiritual circumcision,that is inward and spiritual,in verse12-13 He is speaking of those in union with Christ,quickened together with Him,whose sins are forgiven
When you baptize an infant neither of these things are true of Him. In 1cor 12:12-18 we are told that Spirit baptism places us in the Body of Christ.
Unsaved persons are not placed in the body,,,,BY God 1cor 12;18


----------



## elnwood

non dignus said:


> No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. *But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. **Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party!*



If the error of the Judaizers in Acts 15 were that they failed to see baptism as the replacement of circumcision, then it would have been easy for the apostles to correct them by saying that -- "circumcision has been replaced by baptism." But the apostles didn't argue that in Acts 15 at all. If anything, this passage is an argument against the paedobaptist view that circumcision replaces baptism.


----------



## Herald

elnwood said:


> If the error of the Judaizers in Acts 15 were that they failed to see baptism as the replacement of circumcision, then it would have been easy for the apostles to correct them by saying that -- "circumcision has been replaced by baptism." But the apostles didn't argue that in Acts 15 at all. If anything, this passage is an argument against the paedobaptist view that circumcision replaces baptism.



Don - hence, _"ad hominem tu quoque"_ to our paedo brethren who bought into the OP.


----------



## Davidius

Iconoclast said:


> Carolina calvinist,you said;And what does that prove concerning the question of baptism's relationship to circumcision? It's not like physical circumcision ever accomplished spiritual circumcision, yet infants were still circumcised.
> __________________
> In col.2:11-12 Paul speaks of spiritual circumcision,that is inward and spiritual,in verse12-13 He is speaking of those in union with Christ,quickened together with Him,whose sins are forgiven
> When you baptize an infant neither of these things are true of Him. In 1cor 12:12-18 we are told that Spirit baptism places us in the Body of Christ.
> Unsaved persons are not placed in the body,,,,BY God 1cor 12;18



I still don't see what you're trying to prove. 

What was the sign of spiritual circumcision? Physical circumcision. What is the sign of spiritual baptism? Water baptism. When Paul talks about spiritual baptism he's talking about what water baptism signifies and when he talks about spiritual circumcision he's referring to what physical circumcision signifies. If spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism are both terms used to signify regeneration, then it makes perfect sense to see baptism as a New Testament replacement for circumcision.


----------



## non dignus

elnwood said:


> If the error of the Judaizers in Acts 15 were that they failed to see baptism as the replacement of circumcision, then it would have been easy for the apostles to correct them by saying that -- "circumcision has been replaced by baptism." But the apostles didn't argue that in Acts 15 at all.


Because the assumption at Jerusalem was that one needed to be baptised to be saved. Thus only the negative was given: Gentiles do not have to be circumcised. Apparently circumcision and baptism were coupled together as initiation rites by the primitive church _and it was OK for a transitory period of time_. 



> If anything, this passage is an argument against the paedobaptist view that circumcision replaces baptism.



Could you elaborate, Don? I don't see how Warfield didn't know he was actually arguing for the Baptist view.

PS I don't see baptism as identical to circumcision but one has definitely replaced the other.


----------



## non dignus

BaptistInCrisis said:


> It accuses the person making an accusation of being guilty of the same thing he is arguing against!




Bill, do you mean, "It accuses the Baptists of being guilty of the same error of the Judaizers, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"

Or, "It accuses the Baptists of being guilty of the same error as Dr. Strong, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"

Or, "It accuses the Judaizers of being guilty of the same error as the Baptists, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"

Or, "It accuses the Primitive church of being guilty of the same error of the Judaizers, of whom Baptists are arguing against?"

'much appreciated- good to see you again!


----------



## Herald

non dignus said:


> Bill, do you mean, "It accuses the Baptists of being guilty of the same error of the Judaizers, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"
> 
> Or, "It accuses the Baptists of being guilty of the same error as Dr. Strong, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"
> 
> Or, "It accuses the Judaizers of being guilty of the same error as the Baptists, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"
> 
> Or, "It accuses the Primitive church of being guilty of the same error of the Judaizers, of whom Baptists are arguing against?"
> 
> 'much appreciated- good to see you again!



David - your wit aside, I think you know exactly the context in which I used that phrase. 

Good to see you again too.


----------



## elnwood

non dignus said:


> Because the assumption at Jerusalem was that one needed to be baptised to be saved. Thus only the negative was given: Gentiles do not have to be circumcised. Apparently circumcision and baptism were coupled together as initiation rites by the primitive church _and it was OK for a transitory period of time_.



I don't understand your point. How do we know that those at Jerusalem (including Paul and the apostles?) assumed that baptism was necessary for salvation? I hope we both agree that this is not true.



non dignus said:


> Could you elaborate, Don? I don't see how Warfield didn't know he was actually arguing for the Baptist view.
> 
> PS I don't see baptism as identical to circumcision but one has definitely replaced the other.



I never said that Warfield was arguing for the baptism view. I am saying that the passage he used against baptists actually supports the Baptist position. Warfield argues that the Judaizers assumed that baptism did not replace circumcision, but the apostles and elders, in refuting the Judaizer's position, said or did nothing to refute that assumption!

Assume for a moment that you are uncircumcised. If I were to tell you as a paedobaptist, "You must be circumcised," what would you say? Probably something along the lines of "No I don't. I've been baptized, and baptism replaces circumcision in the New Covenant." In other words, you would argue based on the replacement of circumcision by baptism, and that circumcision has been rendered obsolete by baptism. This would be the correct answer for your position as a paedobaptist.

And it would have been very easy for the apostles to make that argument when making a decision. But they don't. And it would have been easy also to say "what is important is that you have been baptized, not circumcised," when they wrote letters to the Gentile churches. But they don't.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

David, I think, beat me to the punch--If you don't understand the argument being made, that itself is not sufficient to dismiss the argument. Warfield 1) is no slouch, and 2) he's not arguing in a vacuum; he is addressing specific arguments put forward by "Dr. Strong" (probably Augustus H. Strong, president and professor of Biblical theology at the Rochester Theological Seminary around the turn of the 20th century).

So, if there's something missing, its probably because we haven't heard the rest of the conversation. Which makes concentrating on the material at hand all the more important.

The excerpt is narrowly focused:
How many "initiatory acts" were there to get in the church at the beginning? TWO, or so it appeared. Circumcision and baptism. 

Is this point really debatable? No. Which is why Warfield passes over it cursorily. This is not a point in dispute. The church was "Jewish", comprised of Jews. Jews who were Jews already were not stopping the practice of circumcising their 8-day old children. And converts to this "Jewish sect" (coming from the outside) were from the beginning becoming "Jewish," and obviously there were grown converts who were receiving circumcision. _If there weren't, there wouldn't be a debate!_ True, even if not 100% of them were being circumcized.

The question at Jerusalem (Acts 15) isn't "does baptism replace circumcision?" but "do converts to the faith need to keep the rituals of Moses, the Jewish OT rites, diet, separation, etc., in order to be saved?" (vv.1, 5). Circumcision was the beginning of such obedience to God, it was initiation into covenant with him. *Hence, it is undoubtedly the case that the Judaizers were maintaining TWO initiation rites into Christianity, baptism and circumcision.*

Until Gentiles were more than a blip on the radar screen, this wasn't even a serious question or issue, because <99.9% of believers (males) were already circumcized, and their male children were also being circumcized. Outsiders? Its possible that the practice with them (the >.1%) was mixed. And without the mission into the Gentile world, this question barely makes a ripple.

But it is simply _out of the realm of possibility_ to suggest that the question of Acts 15 represents an attempt by _remonstrants_ in the church to introduce a new practice into the church. Rather, it is plainly the effort of a faction in the church (the "We're Jewish!" faction) to *make ritual law-observance normative for ALL converts.* They are obviously trying to standardize their practice _which at this point is most certainly the NORM in the church,_ or at least the DEFAULT. They want a "deliverance" from the leadership. "If not circumcision, then no salvation,... IT IS NECESSARY to circumcise." And circumcision is the beginning of ritual law-observance. It is initiation.

It is Paul who sees most clearly that the major influx of Gentiles demands rethinking of the OT "order". The OT rituals and symbols are inadequate for the new situation. So, in the new context he makes no reference to circumcision, but initiates the Gentile converts by baptism alone. (The accusation--that he teaches them to despise Moses, or does not uphold the moral essentials which are before Moses and incorporated by Moses--this is untrue). And Paul goes to Jerusalem to defend his practice.

Warfield's argument is that evidently in the minds of many in the early, predominantly Jewish church, circumcision and baptism were not functionally equivalent, but complementary. Thus, both were necessary. Paul (and eventually the church qua the church) said "no, these two were conceptually and functionally equivalent," thus demonstrating that circumcision was unnecessary and could be discarded. *And if circumcision could be discarded, so could the rest of the Israelite OT ritual.* Get rid of the first rite, and the rest of the rites are also done away.


Warfield says that the Baptist agrees with the Judaizer that baptism does not replace circumcision. Isn't this true?

He is NOT saying "Baptists promote the equivalent of the Judaizing heresy."
(which is where Bill got his tu quoque blast--i.e. the common charge from the Baptist side is that Presbyterians are "going back to Jewish ritualism," and so Warfield supposedly represents a Presbyterian counter-charge that it is the Baptists who are Judaizing).

The closest he comes to saying anything like that is when he says "denial of this substitution...leads them into the error." Unless I miss my guess, this statement only says that the Baptist's conclusion causes him to agree with the first serious errorists in the church. If there is anything more to his statement, the rest of the article would have to be referenced in support of it. Which is why I said at the beginning that this excerpt must be read as a-contextual, and therefore only capable of proving a very focused point.

No, what Warfield is saying is that to say that "baptism replaces circumcision" is manifestly NOT Judaizing, but rather puts us alongside Paul _against_ the Judaizers. And it is a _perverse sort of argumentation_ that would accuse US of promoting a Judaizing tendency, when our position is directly in the face of the Judaizers as they opposed Paul, who clearly substituted baptism *in place of* circumcision as the SOLE initiation rite into the NT church.


----------



## MW

reformedman said:


> But on a side note, mildly related, where did Paul (or anyone) ever ask for believers to bring their infants to baptism. Any scripture reference to baptizing infants? Any early church baptism of infants? Any scripture allusions to baptizing infants?



Given the OP, and the supposition that there were two initiatory rites at the beginning, shouldn't the question be, Where did Paul (or anyone) ever ask for believers to withhold their infants from baptism? Any Scripture references to baptising infants of believers only after they have made a profession of faith? Any early church deference of the baptism of infants? Any Scripture allusions to non-baptising of infants?


----------



## non dignus

Wow! Thanks Bruce.

Now I know why we call you guys 'Reverend'.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bruce,

That was well said.


> He is NOT saying "Baptists promote the equivalent of the Judaizing heresy."
> (which is where Bill got his tu quoque blast--i.e. the common charge from the Baptist side is that Presbyterians are "going back to Jewish ritualism," and so Warfield supposedly represents a Presbyterian counter-charge that it is the Baptists who are Judaizing).


I think what is missed by Reformed Baptists is very subtle as they make this charge. In fact, Welty repeats this charge that Warfield is re-buffing - that is that the manner in which paedobaptists practice baptism is a form of the Judaizing heresy.

Now when the rejoinder to their criticism comes to them they tend to see it in the way that Bill has put it. Why? Because they have trouble seeing how we see they have erred.

Baptists tend to deprecate circumcision in a way that makes it merely familial and national. They see us performing Baptism in a familial way and project their view of circumicsion upon us and conclude that we're like the Pharisees that are putting stock in the flesh.

Their mistake begins in their apprehension of circumcision and, as you have aptly pointed out, what Paul is criticizing. The Ishmael thread is complementary here in fact.

Paul is critical of the Judaizers, especially in Galatians, for corrupting the meaning of the Abrahamic promise and turning the covenant into Torah keeping. He demonstrates that the Abrahamic promise is of the nature of faith - always has been and always will be. Yet when Judaizers wanted to circumcise they thought in terms of Torah fulfillment and committed a fatal error.

If one is not paying attention then they miss the senses in which Paul uses the term circumcision. In one place it is promise and in another place it is a corrupted ritual of the flesh that Jews are taking pride in. In one place it signifies Christ, in another it means nothing.

It is rather like Church of Christ baptisms where the formula and trappings are instrumental to salvation and then the person is joined to pietistic law keeping. I would say that their baptism means nothing because the thing they attempt to signify with it has no power to save.

Thus, as Baptists are trying to attack the paedobaptist position, they will take a circumcision means nothing passage (as Welty did in my critique) and try to apply that broadly to the meaning of circumcision. In that sense, Baptists are committing a form of the mistake that the Pharisees did by corrupting the meaning of the sign while ignoring Paul's references to Abraham's faith and the fact that circumcision was established in the light of a promise and not of Law.


----------



## non dignus

elnwood said:


> I don't understand your point. How do we know that those at Jerusalem (including Paul and the apostles?) assumed that baptism was necessary for salvation? I hope we both agree that this is not true.


Of course. I don't mean it in an absolute sense. That baptism was initiatory was not in dispute in the Jerusalem council. It certainly stands to reason that they didn't have a thorough framework for covenant theology at that time.


> I never said that Warfield was arguing for the baptism view. I am saying that the passage he used against baptists actually supports the Baptist position. Warfield argues that the Judaizers assumed that baptism did not replace circumcision, but the apostles and elders, in refuting the Judaizer's position, said or did nothing to refute that assumption!



"_ And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. *And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them*...."_

Certainly there was much said that is not recorded in Acts. The 'minutes' from Acts 15 pertained to the greater issue of the matter of law keeping, as Bruce and Rich pointed out.



> .......
> And it would have been very easy for the apostles to make that argument when making a decision. But they don't. And it would have been easy also to say "what is important is that you have been baptized, not circumcised," when they wrote letters to the Gentile churches. But they don't.



This is an argument from silence isn't it? There was much discussion. The natural assumption is that _God put children in the Abraham covenant _and there is as yet no word _that He has taken them out_, to borrow from B.B.'


----------



## satz

> The natural assumption is that God put children in the Abraham covenant and there is as yet no word that He has taken them out, to borrow from B.B.'



Even if this were to be true, does it follow that they are to be baptized?

I read the comments by Rich above with much interest, perhaps I have been guilty of using 'circumcision is nothing' verses as a sound bite in the past. However, even if you say that baptism is a replacement for circumcision, don't we still have to admit that the sign has _changed_? One sign was a surgical act performed on male children, the other something done with water done to both males and females. So given that the sign has not gone completely unaltered between the Old and New Testaments, why is it so unbelievable that God would change the _timing_ of its application as well?

Why does saying children are in the covenant seem to mean necessarily that they must be baptized?


----------



## elnwood

Bruce, I agree with much of what you wrote, esp. this part:



Contra_Mundum said:


> The question at Jerusalem (Acts 15) isn't "does baptism replace circumcision?" but "do converts to the faith need to keep the rituals of Moses, the Jewish OT rites, diet, separation, etc., in order to be saved?" (vv.1, 5). Circumcision was the beginning of such obedience to God, it was initiation into covenant with him. *Hence, it is undoubtedly the case that the Judaizers were maintaining TWO initiation rites into Christianity, baptism and circumcision.*



While I agree that the question is not "does baptism replace circumcision?", but the solution to the question "do converts to the faith need to keep the rituals of Moses, the Jewish OT rites, diet, separation, etc., in order to be saved?" could certainly be answered by "baptism (and other NT ordinances) replace OT rituals." But this isn't the answer given at all. Baptism isn't even mentioned.

I think you start to go astray here:



Contra_Mundum said:


> Warfield's argument is that evidently in the minds of many in the early, predominantly Jewish church, circumcision and baptism were not functionally equivalent, but complementary. Thus, both were necessary. Paul (and eventually the church qua the church) said "no, these two were conceptually and functionally equivalent," thus demonstrating that circumcision was unnecessary and could be discarded. *And if circumcision could be discarded, so could the rest of the Israelite OT ritual.* Get rid of the first rite, and the rest of the rites are also done away.



As I said, baptism isn't even mentioned, so Warfield's argument about the Judaizers saying that they were complementary, and Paul saying that baptism replaces circumcision because it is functionally equivalent, is simply not there.

And again, here.



Contra_Mundum said:


> No, what Warfield is saying is that to say that "baptism replaces circumcision" is manifestly NOT Judaizing, but rather puts us alongside Paul _against_ the Judaizers. And it is a _perverse sort of argumentation_ that would accuse US of promoting a Judaizing tendency, when our position is directly in the face of the Judaizers as they opposed Paul, who clearly substituted baptism *in place of* circumcision as the SOLE initiation rite into the NT church.



Again, where does Paul clearly substitute baptism *in place of* circumcision in Acts 15? Even if you use Colossians 2, there is no language of substitution or replacement, and it doesn't seem to be written in the context of Judaizers.


----------



## elnwood

non dignus said:


> This is an argument from silence isn't it? There was much discussion. The natural assumption is that _God put children in the Abraham covenant _and there is as yet no word _that He has taken them out_, to borrow from B.B.'



Re: argument from silence, I suppose it is. Arguments from silence aren't always invalid.

My argument from silence is that apostle never said that baptism replaces circumcision, but your/Warfield's argument is that the Judaizers were wrong for the reason that baptism does replace circumcision, thus reading into the passage something that isn't stated. I would think that this is eisegesis.

An argument from silence, in my opinion, is preferable to an eisegetical interpretation.

Re: Abraham Covenant, that's why the scripture speaks of the "new covenant." There are no pre-existing new covenant members, so there is no taking out of members. They were never included in this new covenant.


----------



## non dignus

satz said:


> Even if this were to be true, does it follow that they are to be baptized?


 Yes, because similarly to circumcision, members of the covenant are to be marked out for ownership by the Lord.


> I read the comments by Rich above with much interest, perhaps I have been guilty of using 'circumcision is nothing' verses as a sound bite in the past. However, even if you say that baptism is a replacement for circumcision, don't we still have to admit that the sign has _changed_? One sign was a surgical act performed on male children, the other something done with water done to both males and females. So given that the sign has not gone completely unaltered between the Old and New Testaments, why is it so unbelievable that God would change the _timing_ of its application as well?


 Good thoughts. We agree that the sign has indeed changed. But what is the nature of that change? Has it been made more restrictive, or less restrictive? A less restrictive assessment would favor including infants since they were included before. 

To the timing of it, I suppose infants may be baptised earlier than the previous 8 day limit. Again, this would be an expansion.



> Why does saying children are in the covenant seem to mean necessarily that they must be baptized?



One reason is the command in the great commission in which discipleship and baptism go together. 

Thanks for a great discussion, Mark!


----------



## non dignus

elnwood said:


> Re: argument from silence, I suppose it is. Arguments from silence aren't always invalid.
> 
> Re: Abraham Covenant, that's why the scripture speaks of the "new covenant." There are no pre-existing new covenant members, so there is no taking out of members. They were never included in this new covenant.



I've never heard this argumentation before. The patriarchs and saints of old were not justified by faith in the coming Christ? The CoG was introduced in Gen 15 if not Gen 3.

Thanks, Don. 
Blessings,


----------



## turmeric

Are we back to "2 peoples of God?" I think you'll get some strong argument about that!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

non dignus said:


> I've never heard this argumentation before. The patriarchs and saints of old were not justified by faith in the coming Christ? The CoG was introduced in Gen 3 if not Gen 15.
> 
> Thanks, Don.
> Blessings,



Interesting that we're called children of Abraham and he is called the father of the faith and that we're heirs to his promise.

He even had the Gospel preached to him beforehand.

Two peoples of God? Hardly.


----------



## Iconoclast

*Pre-Abrahamic saints?*

What covenant sign was for believers before Abram?
What Nt. verse do you believe shows water baptism,is now a "covenant sign",
rather than a Part of New Covenant worship,in obedience to the charge ,,,,,,,Believe #1 and be baptized #2,,,,that is found throughout Acts.
Why do you not see it as regenerate church membership,upon a persons profession of faith?


----------



## satz

> Yes, because similarly to circumcision, members of the covenant are to be marked out for ownership by the Lord.



Thanks for your comments.

My point is, though, why must members of the covenant be marked out? Where does it say so in the New Testament?

The principle might have been established in Genesis, but since the sign has changed, how do we know that this is one of the things that has not changed? 

It just seems to me many paedobaptist make the jump from saying a child is in the covenant to saying they must have the sign applied. How is this proven?


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> What Nt. verse do you believe shows water baptism,is now a "covenant sign", rather than a Part of New Covenant worship,in obedience to the charge ,,,,,,,Believe #1 and be baptized #2,,,,that is found throughout Acts.



Circumcision represented cutting off the sins of the flesh. Baptism represents washing away the sins of the flesh. Both were done in obedience to God's commandment, but also in confirmation of the promise that He will be our God. As for Acts, it repeatedly puts baptism in this very light. E.g., Acts 2:38, 39. Commandment + Promise = Covenant.


----------



## elnwood

non dignus said:


> I've never heard this argumentation before. The patriarchs and saints of old were not justified by faith in the coming Christ? The CoG was introduced in Gen 3 if not Gen 15.
> 
> Thanks, Don.
> Blessings,



The Covenant of Grace is not identical the New Covenant. If it were, why does Jeremiah speak of it in the future tense?

The "new covenant" is not in Genesis 3 or 15. It's in Jeremiah 31 speaking of a *future, new* covenant. It's inaugurated by Christ's blood at the Last Supper. It's further exposited in Hebrews.

[bible]Jeremiah 31:27-34[/bible]
[bible]Luke 22:20[/bible]
[bible]1 Corinthians 11:25[/bible]


----------



## non dignus

satz said:


> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> My point is, though, why must members of the covenant be marked out? Where does it say so in the New Testament?


 "Be baptized everyone of you...for the promise is to you and to your children."



> The principle might have been established in Genesis, but since the sign has changed, how do we know that this is one of the things that has not changed?


I think because the nature of the covenant family has not changed. The promise is still to our children, even as Gentiles, for there is no difference.


> It just seems to me many paedobaptist make the jump from saying a child is in the covenant to saying they must have the sign applied. How is this proven?


 I think the burden is on the baptist to prove the contrary. Why? Because families of faith have not changed. Our relation to Abraham has not changed. Transition between old and new covenants was very gradual, as we have seen. Suddenly excluding children would have been a rupture so great it would have been documented I assume.

I don't see how a 'better covenant' would exclude a tangible sign to parents somewhat anguished over their children's future.


----------



## Herald

> I don't see how a 'better covenant' would exclude a tangible sign to parents somewhat anguished over their children's future.



David - what you call a "better covenant" is actually the New Covenant, and the answer to the question of baptism will come from a proper understanding of the New Covenant. 

The fact that parents would be anguished over their children (re: tangible sign) has nothing to do with the New Covenant. The New Covenant (In my humble opinion) is not a refreshed or renewed covenant. It is a brand new covenant. It contains shadows of the old, but it is new. If you want to know where I am coming from in regards to the New Covenant, read *New Covenant Part I *and *New Covenant Part II.* 



> Transition between old and new covenants was very gradual, as we have seen.



Really? If true, why do think the transition between covenants was gradual?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> I've repeatedly noticed that Baptists tend to roll the Abrahamic Covenant into the Sinaitic Covenant and see them as identical in some of their arguments (mind you not all).....I have honestly found Baptists to be very uncareful with the word circumcision and not noting the different ways that Paul uses it. As long as a "circumcision means nothing" verse supports their view, they'll throw it in to support a credo formula even where it contextually cannot support what they're trying to get it to say.



Rich,
Reformed Baptist make the distinctions between the Abrahamic and Sinia Covenants. and concerning the Colosians 2:11,12 passage, I believe Rich Barcellos does a bang up job on it. http://www.reformedreader.org/RBTRII.1.Col.2.Barcellos.RPM.doc

Circumcision isn't an empty term to us as you seemed to imply in the same post. And you are correct that we are heirs and children of Abraham. But we are regenerate and that is what makes us heirs. We are justified with faithful Abraham by faith alone. That is what makes us children of Abraham. OT Circumcision was done away with as Paul notes, "Circumcision avails nothing." 

This thread looks interesting..... I just may revisit the board a little more often and jump in after fully reading the thread.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - what you call a "better covenant" is actually the New Covenant, and the answer to the question of baptism will come from a proper understanding of the New Covenant.
> 
> The fact that parents would be anguished over their children (re: tangible sign) has nothing to do with the New Covenant. The New Covenant (In my humble opinion) is not a refreshed or renewed covenant. It is a brand new covenant. It contains shadows of the old, but it is new. If you want to know where I am coming from in regards to the New Covenant, read *New Covenant Part I *and *New Covenant Part II.*
> 
> 
> 
> Really? If true, why do think the transition between covenants was gradual?




Read John Owen on Hebrews Chapter 8. You all would benefit greatly from it.
http://www.godrules.net/library/owen/131-295owen_v2.htm


----------



## elnwood

non dignus said:


> "Be baptized everyone of you...for the promise is to you and to your children."



[BIBLE]Acts 2:39[/BIBLE]

Why do paedobaptists like to leave off the end of that verse? Because then they would have to say that, if this is teaching that promise is to ALL of their children, they would have to also apply the promise to ALL who are far off.

But no, the promise is to the children whom the Lord will call and those who are far off, whom the Lord will call.



non dignus said:


> I think because the nature of the covenant family has not changed. The promise is still to our children, even as Gentiles, for there is no difference. I think the burden is on the baptist to prove the contrary. Why? Because families of faith have not changed. Our relation to Abraham has not changed. Transition between old and new covenants was very gradual, as we have seen. Suddenly excluding children would have been a rupture so great it would have been documented I assume.



There was a large group excluded -- physical Jews! That is the thrust of the end of Romans 2. Once that barrier was overcome, and the new Christians understood that circumcision of the flesh not was the important thing, and that the physical Jews were not going to be included in the New Covenant if they did not have faith, it is natural to apply that principle to children. Physical descent means NOTHING in terms of Jews inheriting the promises of God, and yet in baptizing their infants, paedobaptists are still holding on to some principle that physical descent means something as far as the promises of God.



non dignus said:


> I don't see how a 'better covenant' would exclude a tangible sign to parents somewhat anguished over their children's future.



So you would say that giving a tangible sign to an infant would make parents feel less anguished over their children's future? What difference does applying the covenant sign make as far as someone's eternal destiny? It sounds like you are advocating either presumptive regeneration/election or a form of baptismal regeneration.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

puritancovenanter said:


> Rich,
> Reformed Baptist make the distinctions between the Abrahamic and Sinia Covenants. and concerning the Colosians 2:11,12 passage, I believe Rich Barcellos does a bang up job on it. http://www.reformedreader.org/RBTRII.1.Col.2.Barcellos.RPM.doc
> 
> Circumcision isn't an empty term to us as you seemed to imply in the same post. And you are correct that we are heirs and children of Abraham. But we are regenerate and that is what makes us heirs. We are justified with faithful Abraham by faith alone. That is what makes us children of Abraham. OT Circumcision was done away with as Paul notes, "Circumcision avails nothing."
> 
> This thread looks interesting..... I just may revisit the board a little more often and jump in after fully reading the thread.


I will grant that not all so abuse it but there are some luminaries that do. I've even seen Piper use Gal 3:29 in this fashion. If the shoe fits then wear it but I'm trying to point out that the criticism is valid for some.


----------



## non dignus

elnwood said:


> The Covenant of Grace is not identical to the New Covenant. If it were, why does Jeremiah speak of it in the future tense?


 I don't know what to say. Abraham was to bless all the families of the earth- (apparently not the children though) this is the new covenant in Christ. The newness is in contra-distinction to the old Mosaic covenant I presume, and is not _brand-new _as though disconnected from Abraham.


> The "new covenant" is not in Genesis 3 or 15. It's in Jeremiah 31 speaking of a *future, new* covenant. It's inaugurated by Christ's blood at the Last Supper.


 I am more appreciating Rev. Buchanan's insight from the Ishmael thread wherein he reveals our different approach to old and new testaments. Perhaps a new thread would be in order unless more fodder can be had on the primitive church's use of circumcision and baptism together until the final hour of transition.


----------



## non dignus

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - what you call a "better covenant" is actually the New Covenant, and the answer to the question of baptism will come from a proper understanding of the New Covenant.


 Thanks Bill, I do wish to look at the New Covenant the way you do in order to better grapple with this. Don pointed out also that this is really Brand-new, forcing a divide from most of what went before. Is that correct? It's really a question of continuity eh?



> The fact that parents would be anguished over their children (re: tangible sign) has nothing to do with the New Covenant. The New Covenant (In my humble opinion) is not a refreshed or renewed covenant. It is a brand new covenant. It contains shadows of the old, but it is new. If you want to know where I am coming from in regards to the New Covenant, read *New Covenant Part I *and *New Covenant Part II.*


 Thanks, I will take a look.


> Really? If true, why do you think the transition between covenants was gradual?



Why the transition was gradual is because God is merciful and knows we're a little slow to catch on when new revelation pops up. How it was gradual doesn't dismiss the fact that the new covenant was activated in an instant at the cross. But He patiently allows the faithful a generous learning curve to get up to speed. This is exhibited by circumcision and baptism both being used together along with the full temple cultus continuing for 40 years. 

A gradual transition is shown by the fact that the sacrifice ceased when Christ was sacrificed AND also when the temple was given to the flames. 

A similar transition occured in the test of wills between David and Saul. David became King when he was anointed by Samuel AND he became king when Saul was taken out of the way. 

We live in a transitory time today. The Kingdom is already AND not yet.


----------



## non dignus

elnwood said:


> [BIBLE]Acts 2:39[/BIBLE]
> 
> Why do paedobaptists like to leave off the end of that verse? Because then they would have to say that, if this is teaching that promise is to ALL of their children, they would have to also apply the promise to ALL who are far off.


 No. "you and your children" are one item. Thus if the parent is called then the child is necessarily called. That this is a string of three equal items in Peter's mind is very unlikely. It is _'to the Jew first and also to the Greek.'_



> So you would say that giving a tangible sign to an infant would make parents feel less anguished over their children's future? What difference does applying the covenant sign make as far as someone's eternal destiny? It sounds like you are advocating either presumptive regeneration/election or a form of baptismal regeneration.



No. It's just a measure of comfort we paedo' parents enjoy. No offense-
We dedicate our _buildings_, we baptize our _children_.


----------



## elnwood

non dignus said:


> No. "you and your children" are one item. Thus if the parent is called then the child is necessarily called. That this is a string of three equal items in Peter's mind is very unlikely. It is _'to the Jew first and also to the Greek.'_



Could you elaborate on this? I'm not convinced that "you and your children" can be grouped together separate from those who are far off. The preposition kai, meaning for, precedes both "your children" and "all who are far off." The ESV, for example, translates it "FOR you and FOR your children and FOR all who are far off."



non dignus said:


> No. It's just a measure of comfort we paedo' parents enjoy. No offense-
> We dedicate our _buildings_, we baptize our _children_.



You're being vague, and I still don't get it. What comfort do you have as a paedo parent that a Baptist parent doesn't have?

You said that baptism is a "tangible sign to parents somewhat anguished over their children's future." Aren't you saying that that Baptist parents are necessarily or generally more anguished about their children's future?

By the way, I don't advocate infant dedication, and many (most?) Reformed Baptist churches don't.


----------



## Herald

> Why the transition was gradual is because God is merciful and knows we're a little slow to catch on when new revelation pops up. How it was gradual doesn't dismiss the fact that the new covenant was activated in an instant at the cross. But He patiently allows the faithful a generous learning curve to get up to speed. This is exhibited by circumcision and baptism both being used together along with the full temple cultus continuing for 40 years.
> 
> A gradual transition is shown by the fact that the sacrifice ceased when Christ was sacrificed AND also when the temple was given to the flames.
> 
> A similar transition occurred in the test of wills between David and Saul. David became King when he was anointed by Samuel AND he became king when Saul was taken out of the way.



David - I understand your logic in trying to defend a gradual transition, I just don't see it in scripture. The conflict between circumcision and baptism had more to do with the issue of Jew and Gentile than it did with a divine "breaking in" period. I believe the council at Jerusalem and the Apostle Paul both recognized the obsolescence of circumcision and addressed it as opportunity presented itself. 

The need for a blood sacrifice ended in the mind of God upon the death of our Lord, but the practice did not cease until Titus sacked Jerusalem. The fact that the sacrifices were performed by and unbelieving priesthood and the fact that post-crucifixion sacrifices were futile seems to eliminate a transition period. A thorough reading of Hebrews 9 should make this clear.

David - the wrath of God against sin was settled for the elect at Calvary. Transition? τελέω (teleo), "it is finished." The veil of the temple was not partially torn, it was rendered from top to bottom. When Paul writes, "therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come" he is accenting the immediate dichotomy between the old and the new. If there was a transition it was in the hearts and minds of men, not God.


----------



## non dignus

elnwood said:


> Could you elaborate on this? I'm not convinced that "you and your children" can be grouped together separate from those who are far off. The preposition kai, meaning for, precedes both "your children" and "all who are far off." The ESV, for example, translates it "FOR you and FOR your children and FOR all who are far off."


The assumption for all who are far off is that THEIR children are included as well. The children below age come with their parents. Why didn't Peter say, "for you and all who are far off"? That would essentially say what you are saying.



> By the way, I don't advocate infant dedication, and many (most?) Reformed Baptist churches don't.



Thanks for the correction.


----------



## elnwood

non dignus said:


> The assumption for all who are far off is that THEIR children are included as well. The children below age come with their parents. Why didn't Peter say, "for you and all who are far off"? That would essentially say what you are saying.



I think Peter is meaning spiritual children, not physical, for only spiritual children can receive the promises.

In what sense are physical children who are not spiritual children recipients of the promise? None. Are the promises to the "children of Abraham" to physical children (i.e. Jews) or spiritual children? The children of Abraham are spiritual children, as Jesus teaches the pharisees in John 8:39-40.

[BIBLE]John 8:39-40[/BIBLE]

What is the promise in Acts 2:39? I think if you look back one verse, you see that the promise is the Holy Spirit, which, of course, only believers receive.

[BIBLE]Acts 2:38[/BIBLE]

Galatians 3:14 and Ephesians 1:13 also refers to the Holy Spirit as the promise.

[BIBLE]Galatians 3:14[/BIBLE]

[BIBLE]Ephesians 1:13[/BIBLE]

But why did physical children get circumcised if they weren't necessarily recipients of the promise? Therein lies the difference between the old and the new. The recipients of the promise is made clearer in the New Testament, and the practice of baptizing only those who are thought to be recipients of that promise (i.e. professing believers) is a manifestation of that.

Note that Ephesians 1:13 refers to the Holy Spirit as a "seal." 2 Corinthians 1:22 and Ephesians 4:30 also refer to the Holy Spirit as a "seal." Circumcision in the Old Testament is referred to as a "sign" and "seal," and baptism is a sign, but never called a seal. That's because the Holy Spirit, not baptism, is the seal of the New Covenant. Circumcision and baptism are not completely analogous because baptism no longer serves as a seal!

There is a consistent pattern of Old Testament using physical as a type to point to spiritual, and New Testament manifesting the spiritual as opposed to the physical. In the Old Testament, the covenant was to physical Israel, who were promised a physical land. In the New Testament, physical is shown to be nothing but a sign to the spiritual. Physical, ethnic Israel is just a type for spiritual Israel.

Yet, as I have said before, paedobaptists agree with Covenant Baptists that Physical Israel is not the recipients of the promise, but they still hold to physical descent (i.e. children) as recipients of the promise. That, to me, seems inconsistent. There is no sense in which baptized children of believers who are not elect are recipients of the promise any more than a baptized adult who is not elect is the recipient of the promise.



non dignus said:


> Thanks for the correction.



Happy to oblige. ARBCA puts out a publication called "Baby Dedications Ancient & Modern: Are They Biblical?" by Richard Barcellos. His answer is, of course, "no."

http://65.71.233.194/arbca/publications.htm


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'll offer a disagreement with David (even though we are on the same side).

We don't "forget" the last half of that verse (Acts 2:39). It happens that it isn't especially relevant to the point we're usually trying to make from that verse.

First note the *3* parts of the promise contained in that verse:

The promise is
1) to as many of YOU as the Lord our God will call ("These are not drunk as YOU suppose")
2) to as many of YOUR CHILDREN as the Lord our God will call
3) to as many WHO ARE AFAR OFF as the Lord our God will call

The promise is contained in both the _general_ call, and the _effectual_ call. Reformed paedobaptists have never separated the efficacy of the promise from faith. Reason? Because the promise was NEVER separated from faith!

We connect Peter's promise-language to the language of the _earlier_ declaration of the *same* promise because..., well..., it's the SAME promise. The thing about Genesis 17 is that it is not separate from Genesis 12 and Genesis 15.

1) The promise is to YOU (Gen. 17:2; 12:2; 15:1)
2) The promise is to YOUR CHILDREN (Gen. 17:7; 12:2; 15:4)
3) The promise is to THOSE WHO ARE AFAR OFF (Gen. 17:4; 12:3; 15:5)

The promise has ALWAYS been conditioned on faith, never apart from it. That fact never affected whether the children of the believer should receive the sign of the covenant (promise) or not. They were to receive it because God said so. Those coming into the family of faith, the visible church, from out-of-bounds came in by profession of faith in God and in his Word of covenant (promise). And they were subjected to circumcision as a sign of their faith.

Our argument is: Nothing of *substance* has EVER CHANGED regarding the promise itself, the persons to whom the promise is made, and the persons incorporated outwardly in the visible representation of the promise (the church). And Peter's language reflects this attitude. He self-consciously appropriates the OT language of covenant inauguration.

As we keep asking, _what are these devout Jews--steeped in the OT literature, breathing a covenant-atmosphere--going to make of Peter's words?_ How are these people, who clearly understood the necessity (all the way from Abraham's day) of faith in the promise for its efficacy, going to interpret "...and to your children" ? Where in the Bible (NT or OT) do we find God *removing* the children of the faithful from the church? Or does it sound very much as though Peter indicates in Acts 2:39 that basically nothing has changed?


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'll offer a disagreement with David (even though we are on the same side).



Thanks for this, Bruce. You're always a pleasure to discuss and debate with.

I feel much more comfortable with the paedobaptist who says that the promise is conditioned on faith regardless of the application of the sign. The paedobaptist who says that their children are necessarily recipients of the promises, and that parents who baptize their children have greater assurance ... frankly, that view scares me because it seems to presume election.

Okay, on to the points of our disagreement:  



Contra_Mundum said:


> Our argument is: Nothing of *substance* has EVER CHANGED regarding the promise itself, the persons to whom the promise is made, and the persons incorporated outwardly in the visible representation of the promise (the church). And Peter's language reflects this attitude. He self-consciously appropriates the OT language of covenant inauguration.



I feel like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth because in one sense you say that "nothing of substance" has changed, and then you say Peter is using "covenant inauguration" language. So which is it? If it is a new, inaugurated covenant, why are we assuming that the elements of a previous covenant still apply?

And if it's a new, inaugurated covenant, why do you speak of "removing" children from the visible covenant? Jews were in the previous visible covenant, but they still needed to be baptized to be incorporated into this new, inaugurated visible covenant. Thus, there is no "removal" of children from the new visible covenant community. In my mind, it's a fundamental error to look to the Old Covenant to see how the New Covenant functions.



Contra_Mundum said:


> As we keep asking, _what are these devout Jews--steeped in the OT literature, breathing a covenant-atmosphere--going to make of Peter's words?_ How are these people, who clearly understood the necessity (all the way from Abraham's day) of faith in the promise for its efficacy, going to interpret "...and to your children" ? Where in the Bible (NT or OT) do we find God *removing* the children of the faithful from the church? Or does it sound very much as though Peter indicates in Acts 2:39 that basically nothing has changed?



This is where I think the historical-grammatical method can go too far. For one, it's impossible to prove what the people at the time were thinking, especially 2000 years later, and even if you could with some reasonable accuracy, the people could have been wrong.

This method has been used by dispensationalists (most recently by John MacArthur) to show premillennialism because the Jews interpreted the prophecies to be fulfilled to national Israel literally.

The fact is that the listeners just didn't get it. Peter talked about the promise (the Holy Spirit) being to those who are far off, and yet in the same book the people are astonished when the Holy Spirit comes upon the Gentiles. historical-grammatical is a good, useful way of studying the bible, but it does have its shortcomings.


----------



## non dignus

BaptistInCrisis said:


> David - I understand your logic in trying to defend a gradual transition, I just don't see it in scripture. The conflict between circumcision and baptism had more to do with the issue of Jew and Gentile than it did with a divine "breaking in" period. I believe the council at Jerusalem and the Apostle Paul both recognized the obsolescence of circumcision and addressed it as opportunity presented itself.
> 
> The need for a blood sacrifice ended in the mind of God upon the death of our Lord, but the practice did not cease until Titus sacked Jerusalem. The fact that the sacrifices were performed by an unbelieving priesthood and the fact that post-crucifixion sacrifices were futile seems to eliminate a transition period. A thorough reading of Hebrews 9 should make this clear.
> 
> David - the wrath of God against sin was settled for the elect at Calvary. Transition? τελέω (teleo), "it is finished." The veil of the temple was not partially torn, it was rendered from top to bottom. When Paul writes, "therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come" he is accenting the immediate dichotomy between the old and the new. If there was a transition it was in the hearts and minds of men, not God.



Agreed. It was sin to know the truth and not act accordingly. (Isn't all sin that way?) But not everyone knew at exactly the same time, hence there seems to be something in the record of a grace period. Thanks for your thoughts.
I will make time for those two papers


----------



## non dignus

elnwood said:


> I Are the promises to the "children of Abraham" to physical children (i.e. Jews) or spiritual children?



Physical children in households of faith. Not to physical children of non faithful households. Faith is always in the foreground. Obviously if the child grows up to be faithless the promise no longer applies.



> What is the promise in Acts 2:39? I think if you look back one verse, you see that the promise is the Holy Spirit, which, of course, only believers receive.


Believers receive baptism because they have a prior condition of fruit of the Spirit, namely faith. Children raised in faithful households also have a prior condition namely birth into a faithful household. We baptize them because they have holy status in a holy institution: the faithful household.


> But why did physical children get circumcised if they weren't necessarily recipients of the promise? Therein lies the difference between the old and the new. The recipients of the promise is made clearer in the New Testament, and the practice of baptizing only those who are thought to be recipients of that promise (i.e. professing believers) is a manifestation of that.


 I think God puts certain children in faithful households to be recipients of the promise. That is enough evidence for me. But the Baptist says, "Yes, this child is born into a Christian home, but how do I know God is calling Him?" This sounds a little absurd since we are dealing with the sovereign almighty God.



> Note that Ephesians 1:13 refers to the Holy Spirit as a "seal." 2 Corinthians 1:22 and Ephesians 4:30 also refer to the Holy Spirit as a "seal." Circumcision in the Old Testament is referred to as a "sign" and "seal," and baptism is a sign, but never called a seal. That's because the Holy Spirit, not baptism, is the seal of the New Covenant. Circumcision and baptism are not completely analogous because baptism no longer serves as a seal!


 This is an interesting point which I will study. It seems like a small technicality however.



> There is a consistent pattern of Old Testament using physical as a type to point to spiritual, and New Testament manifesting the spiritual as opposed to the physical. In the Old Testament, the covenant was to physical Israel, who were promised a physical land. In the New Testament, physical is shown to be nothing but a sign to the spiritual. Physical, ethnic Israel is just a type for spiritual Israel.


 This seems a little overly Platonic. I think you're extrapolating 'physical Israel' into physical begetting of any kind. Faith alone doesn't mean spirit alone.



> There is no sense in which baptized children of believers who are not elect are recipients of the promise any more than a baptized adult who is not elect is the recipient of the promise.



Yes, but this sort of approach prys into the secret will of God. Is this wise? If someone makes a profession of faith we still don't 'know' if he's included in the promise, do we? 

This is why we say, "we _believe_ we are saved", and not, "we _know_we are saved".


----------



## Contra_Mundum

elnwood said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll offer a disagreement with David (even though we are on the same side).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for this, Bruce. You're always a pleasure to discuss and debate with.
> 
> I feel much more comfortable with the paedobaptist who says that the promise is conditioned on faith regardless of the application of the sign. The paedobaptist who says that their children are necessarily recipients of the promises, and that parents who baptize their children have greater assurance ... frankly, that view scares me because it seems to presume election.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't know any decent theologian who asserts the promise is unconditional, or ever was unconditional. That may be an error needed to be guarded against, but the concern itself is no argument against paedobaptism--any more than it would have been effective against paedocircumcision. Presuming _justification_ is the real bogeyman.



elnwood said:


> Okay, on to the points of our disagreement:
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our argument is: Nothing of *substance* has EVER CHANGED regarding the promise itself, the persons to whom the promise is made, and the persons incorporated outwardly in the visible representation of the promise (the church). And Peter's language reflects this attitude. He self-consciously appropriates the OT language of covenant inauguration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth because in one sense you say that "nothing of substance" has changed, and then you say Peter is using "covenant inauguration" language. So which is it? If it is a new, inaugurated covenant, why are we assuming that the elements of a previous covenant still apply?
> 
> And if it's a new, inaugurated covenant, why do you speak of "removing" children from the visible covenant? Jews were in the previous visible covenant, but they still needed to be baptized to be incorporated into this new, inaugurated visible covenant. Thus, there is no "removal" of children from the new visible covenant community. In my mind, it's a fundamental error to look to the Old Covenant to see how the New Covenant functions.
Click to expand...

Sinai was a "new, inaugurated covenant," and it kept many of the previous covenant's (Abraham's) features. It incorporated and expanded and built upon the former's foundation. So I do not see how you think the above is a cogent argument against my position; how you think I am "assuming" certain things to be true without warrant.

I do not predicate that the Christ-covenant era is inaugurated on a radical disjunct with the past. The previous covenant-dealings are the preconditions for what comes after, and the connections between them prove their organic unity. How do the Jews NOT have a case against the NT church if they can demonstrate that the Christians follow a fundamentally different faith? The pattern set at Sinai is the _basis_ for my _reasoning_ (not "assuming") that the covenants are fundamentally unifed.

I ask about the "removal of children" because in the OT, children are a part of the visible church. Inauguration at Sinai didn't change that. And if you want to speak of baptism, the NT tells us that the OT (circumcised!) saints were later baptized (1 Cor. 10:2) even multiple times (Heb. 9:10) with various substances (Heb. 9:19, cf. Ex. 24:8; 30:17-21; Lev. 16:19; 14:7; etc.). So, there we have Jews who are circumcised still being baptized. So baptism isn't a purely NT concept introduced for the first time by John. My point is that *the children are already IN the church in the OT.* You are suggesting that due to this penultimate inauguration of covenant, in which we now partake, they have been _removed._ There is no _continuity_ between the OT church and the NT church. What you are saying is simply that the New Covenant wipes the slate clean. You are radically dichotomizing the Covenant of Grace, even before you deny there is now in this era NO VISIBLE ADMINSTRATION of it.

Is there ONE church or TWO? Were the 12 disciples in the OT church? When did they put their faith in Messiah? Wasn't it even before Jesus arrived? And when he did arrive, Their faith made the transition from "coming" Messiah, to Messiah "come." So did they have to be REMOVED from one covenant with God, in order to be PUT BACK IN to the other? Because if you do, then you are saying that there is no continuity between the OT and NT eras. There is a clean break. This is the real difference between "expansion" theology and "replacement" theology. However, if the transition between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is seamless, and if children were IN the Old Covenant church _and now they are OUT, then you are saying that in the transition they were REMOVED from the New Covenant church.

In my view, it is a fundamental error to fail to see how the baptist view removed believers' children from the church at the beginning of the NT era. As to not looking to the Old Covenant to see how the New Covenant functions, all I can say is: I consider that an impoverished evaluation of the OT. I don't actually believe you really think that, because I can't see you ignoring, for example, the Monarchy (in its better moments) as explaining and teaching the nature, elements, and functions of King Jesus' reign. Or the Priesthood as doing the same for his mediation. I think it might be more accurate to say that you disagree with SOME of the principles that our side is extracting from the OT for use today (with appropriate modifications). But that is a far cry from abandoning the use of the Old Testament as a source of instruction.



elnwood said:





Contra_Mundum said:



As we keep asking, what are these devout Jews--steeped in the OT literature, breathing a covenant-atmosphere--going to make of Peter's words? How are these people, who clearly understood the necessity (all the way from Abraham's day) of faith in the promise for its efficacy, going to interpret "...and to your children" ? Where in the Bible (NT or OT) do we find God *removing* the children of the faithful from the church? Or does it sound very much as though Peter indicates in Acts 2:39 that basically nothing has changed?

Click to expand...


This is where I think the historical-grammatical method can go too far. For one, it's impossible to prove what the people at the time were thinking, especially 2000 years later, and even if you could with some reasonable accuracy, the people could have been wrong.

This method has been used by dispensationalists (most recently by John MacArthur) to show premillennialism because the Jews interpreted the prophecies to be fulfilled to national Israel literally.

The fact is that the listeners just didn't get it. Peter talked about the promise (the Holy Spirit) being to those who are far off, and yet in the same book the people are astonished when the Holy Spirit comes upon the Gentiles. historical-grammatical is a good, useful way of studying the bible, but it does have its shortcomings.

Click to expand...

Don, this portion of your post really surprises me. You start off saying that you think I'm pressing G-H hermeneutics too far. Brother, it is a vital part of interpreting Scripture to attempt to understand the first writer, his audience, and the culture about which he writes, especially when his writing is presented as an eyewitness or contemporary account, and ought to be accepted by us as authentic and reliable testimony.

I'm not asking you to read minds. I'm merely asking that you approach the text from the vantage point of Old Testament believers. And if we want to know what they believed in their minds, we should look at the OT prophets and what they wrote. All that "filler" in the Old Testament, surrounded by the "scaffold" of history, i.e "the interesting parts"? All that stuff is the verbal expression of the interpretation of the facts, the descriptions, and the chronology of the revelational record, as inspired by God. They are expressing the mind of the Old Testament church. They are theologically reflective as well as occasionally predictive.

The NT witness itself tells us how vitally the Jews took their connection to Abraham. The OT Torah (Moses) was the core of their religious identity. The Exodus and Sinai continued for centuries as pivotal identity-making events. Due to the dearth of books for the commoners, most people had vast portions of Scripture memorized. And certain key texts we know from the NT, as well as Jewish tradition, were fundamental (e.g. the Shema).

Now, to say that they were wrong, or could have been wrong, in terms of their concentration--in either case, that's less important than the fact that Peter and the others meet them where they are. It is natural to the teacher or preacher to link to some piece of the TRUTH that the hearers already admit, and then to lead them by that pre-commitment onto solid ground, and away from the pitfalls of error.

For you to make a connection between a "literalist" hermeneutic, and this historic, covenantal reading of Acts 2:39, is once again to ascribe to paedobaptists a FALSE, PHARISAICAL, LEGALISTIC view of the whole notion of both circumcision and baptism. Its as if we've never had any conversations here before about the way we paedobaptists understand the whole matter SPIRITUALLY. As if the ERRORISTS of Jesus' and the apostles' day were correct, or occupied the default position on Covenant Inclusion.

Until you begin to understand that we do not think ANYONE had a scintilla of the substance of the OT covenant apart from faith; until you begin to see that we make a distinction between those only OUTWARDLY in the covenant starting with ISHMAEL and EASU, and continuing with KORAH, DATHAN, and ABIRAM, followed by ABSOLOM, AHAB, and ZEDEKIAH and countless others--the difference between them, and those who partook of the SUBSTANCE of the Covenant (Promise) by faith... you will keep burning the straw man.

We do not baptize anyone *fundamentally* because they made a profession of faith, or because they are children of believers, or because Acts 2:39 is a command to baptize. We baptize because we believe GOD has commanded that certain people be given the objective sign of his Covenant with his people. And no one knows, neither on paedobaptist principles nor credobaptist principles, whether that objective sign has been applied to one for whom subjectively the sign points to the reality, namely: "this is one of my spiritual children."

Determining who those people are who are to receive said sign is taught by an appeal on our side to the entire witness of revelation, OT and NT. I said the OT promise and the NT promise were the SAME promise--Salvation by Grace through Faith. I showed the correlation between the promise to Abraham (Gen. 12, 15, & 17) and Peter's declaration on Pentecost. All by itself that statement doesn't teach anything about covenant sign. But wholistically it asserts covenant continuity, which continuity implies other ties which must be investigated, to see where they lead, and if they are true.


In the last analysis, Don, I don't think you want to disparage G-H interpretation in an attempt to weaken the other side's argument. You will only cut out your own legs underneath you. Because get rid of it and what's left? "Literalistic" interpretation is not accurate G-H treatment. It is an abuse of it._


----------



## non dignus

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'll offer a disagreement with David (even though we are on the same side).



Please disagree! I am learning so much here. 
It is truly an honor to be archived with all you gentlemen in the baptism forum. 
Except for Trevor.


Just kidding!


----------



## Larry Hughes

I suppose I'm a sucker for a beating. Oh well it's better than TV! Well sometimes.


The “believers only” position is at the end of the day a self inflicted legal wound that confounds the Kingdom in eschatological tension, the same tension that defines saving faith that is the suffering IN faith alone TODAY, in spite of what I see, experience or measure with my eyes with faith’s final and consummate coming along with the consummation of the kingdom at the second advent. All of these things are linked together, baptism, faith, Gospel, the church here and now and to be. For the believers only position says fundamentally we are to have a “regenerate church”, at least hypothetically speaking, “HERE and NOW”. It attempts to “drag” the Kingdom into today as quasi consummate and final status, just like the Judiazer’s did and just like Rome attempted with “Christendom”, hence a hypothetical pure regenerate Kingdom. But no faith is needed in a consummate kingdom, and that is a key thing, the eschatological tension becomes resolved and thus no suffering of faith is needed. Yet the passage of the dragnet among others shows the Kingdom dragging in ALL kinds and the angels ALONE charged by Jesus as Jesus’ alone give such authority to separate out the “good and bad” at the END OF THE AGE. 

It is important to note that the MANIFESTATION here and now of the Kingdom IS the church militant, the suffering church, the church IN the mode of faith, not the church glorified in consummation and reality at the end of the age when the Kingdom is in full and final bloom revealed and then and only then is purity possible, all truly regenerate and elect separated out, and at that by Jesus’ authority only being exercised by His angels so charged. But that MUST await the return of Christ, His second advent. Then and then alone will there be a “believers” only church/kingdom. And we should note very well that “believers” will mean those trusting ALONE in Jesus as righteousness for them. In that time there will be NO need for signs and seals FOR FAITH such as baptism because the Kingdom and the children will BE manifest and faith that suffers in eschatological tension resolves to final and full reality. The Gospel sign of promise, baptism, will not be needed for all things will BE revealed, no eschatological tension of awaiting the promise will EXIST as the promise will consummate finally and fully. Thus, technically speaking, there is never ANY need to baptize “believers only” as in “pure regenerate” when that is (will be) REAL because when there WILL BE believers only TRULY all will know and see, no guess work or faith awaiting as faith finds fulfillment in finality. Thus, in confounding the prophetic and eschatological realities pulling them into one ‘mish mash’ here and now, believers only leads to a very problematic doctrine that we’ve seen repeated time and time again before by the people of God; namely the attempt of man to bring down the Kingdom of heaven here and now as opposed to wait in faith as God will bring it about, first and second advent…there IS a second advent.

This is not a new struggle and we have seen too many times before. We saw it with the Judiazers and Rome and many in between sects over the kingdom and end times. The connection between faith, Gospel, Kingdom, the church and sacraments is all interconnected. All the “kingdom here and now” purity types fundamentally attempt to drag the Kingdom into the earth in FULL consummation in some form or another today (today meaning today for the Judiazers of their time and “today”, Rome, and etc…). And the results are always the same, the signs and seals, circumcision/baptism, become Law to be obeyed and not Gospel to be received as gift for the tension of faith that suffers in the here and now without the final reality. 

The Judiazers sought to have Christians be circumcised as “Jews” in order to really be saved and they made it a “work of man” not God’s promise and working because they saw Judaism as the pure kingdom here and now (regenerate church). Paul rebuked this, he did not rebuke trusting in the sign in as much as it was a Gospel sign rather the wrong use of the sign that confused everything and robbed the joy brought about by faith. Rome, did the same thing and ONLY those IN the Roman church were saved (still held today if pressed about it) made their own Roman church THE church or like the Jews the pure kingdom or regenerate purity, and thus they too made the sign of Baptism a law and work of man. And believers only baptism does exactly the same thing but now you are not to be a Jew or a Roman Catholic but Truly Regenerate, the same kingdom “today” on earth thinking, thus making the sign a law and work of man (as man assesses conversion and gives it) because you have to go about the job of “purifying” the church – strictly forbidden by Jesus Himself. 

All three suffer from the same thing, confounding the Kingdom’s, confounding the now and not yet aspect of the prophecies and eschatological tensions, and all three try to ultimately END the suffering of BY FAITH ALONE. Because here and now it IS a suffering faith as is the kingdom a suffering kingdom, the church a suffering church and the Lord of glory in a still seemingly suffering, foolish and stumbling block Cross. The Christian faith, people, church and kingdom here and now suffers to WAIT without reality IN HAND. 

On the earthly level of a faith/trust we see this easily, this suffering versus end result consummation (eschatology) from an example of an earthly promise given. Someone promises you a great gift, a gift to solve all your problems, your debt, your failing health or even your forgiveness of a crime. Yet, you must trust ONLY FOR NOW in the promise for the time. You must wait and trust only without the having in fullness. And the yearning for the resolution, the IN THE MOMENT TENSION of waiting, passively, by passion IS suffering. This is how true saving faith SUFFERS. Yet, the flesh cannot live in this passion and suffering but must bring about resolution, the flesh eschews suffering at every turn. So the flesh tries to “get it done” some how. And its not just the Baptist, WE ALL struggle with this as God’s people. E.g. we see this in Abraham who rushed to have the promise kingdom child (Isaac) and produced a law child Ishmael. It was a zeal, but a zeal WITHOUT faith, a suffering until, and apart from faith in a promise suffered by faith laying within an eschatological tension of “now and not yet”, he tried to “do it”, bring it about. It is the flesh’s attempt to DO the work of God rather than WAIT upon God to work and do as He promised. It is a temptation we all struggle with. The result is always an expression of “working our way to heaven” and a law “child” if you will is produced, a legal church, a legal sacrament and so forth. This is EXACTLY what happened with the impatient Judiazers of the time and so they egregiously changed the sign of circumcision from promise/Gospel in God’s Word and name by God TO DO, to an execution of/Law by man to do here and now and bring about (like bringing about a regenerate church, an obsession among believers only). The RCC did the same thing attempting to BRING ABOUT the promise here and now and thus egregiously changed the sign of baptism from promise/Gospel in God’s Word and name by God TO DO, to an execution of/Law by man to do here and now. Slowly over time it led that church, Rome, out of the Gospel and ultimately to deny it just as the Jews did. And so does believers only baptism attempt to bring about the kingdom consummation here and now, this time as a purely regenerate church (after all you have to detect this some how if it HAS TO BE, even if one theologically ‘punts’ the question when asked ‘how you do it’), and similarly egregiously changing the sign of circumcision/baptism from promise/Gospel in God’s Word and name by God TO DO, to an execution of/Law by man to do here and now and bring about the desired kingdom purity.

This is why ultimately eschatology, faith, suffering, tension, patience, and sacraments are wrapped up into one and one’s view of the sacraments affects everything else. This is why its so hard to “argue” one to the other, the ENTIRE paradigm is out of wack not just a piece here and there needing repair. It’s how the Kingdom is seen, rightly or wrongly, faith understood rightly or wrongly, end times rightly or wrongly and the sacraments rightly or wrongly and ultimately the Gospel rightly or wrongly in the present here and now as opposed to Christ’s second and final return. And it results in either God doing the work as promised WHEN HE is pleased to do it producing faith and Gospel, versus us vainly throwing in our chip to “help him out” and producing new Ishmaels and law.


Larry


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> Frankly, I don't know any decent theologian who asserts the promise is unconditional, or ever was unconditional. That may be an error needed to be guarded against, but the concern itself is no argument against paedobaptism--any more than it would have been effective against paedocircumcision. Presuming _justification_ is the real bogeyman.



I was objecting to the theologian who says that the promise to the children does not depend on them having faith. There are plenty of paedobaptists who say children are recipients of the Acts 2:39 promise even if they are not regenerated yet.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Sinai was a "new, inaugurated covenant," and it kept many of the previous covenant's (Abraham's) features. It incorporated and expanded and built upon the former's foundation. So I do not see how you think the above is a cogent argument against my position; how you think I am "assuming" certain things to be true without warrant.



I would say that Sinai is not a "new, inaugurated covenant," but a continuation of the old. It is not referred to as a new covenant, and there wasn't even a changing of the signs and seals.

It's ironic that the OP said that the Judaizers are like the Baptists, but to me, I think the Judaizers are more like the paedobaptists because they want to assume continuity between the covenants and still apply circumcision.



Contra_Mundum said:


> I ask about the "removal of children" because in the OT, children are a part of the visible church. Inauguration at Sinai didn't change that. And if you want to speak of baptism, the NT tells us that the OT (circumcised!) saints were later baptized (1 Cor. 10:2) even multiple times (Heb. 9:10) with various substances (Heb. 9:19, cf. Ex. 24:8; 30:17-21; Lev. 16:19; 14:7; etc.). So, there we have Jews who are circumcised still being baptized. So baptism isn't a purely NT concept introduced for the first time by John. My point is that *the children are already IN the church in the OT.* You are suggesting that due to this penultimate inauguration of covenant, in which we now partake, they have been _removed._ There is no _continuity_ between the OT church and the NT church. What you are saying is simply that the New Covenant wipes the slate clean. You are radically dichotomizing the Covenant of Grace, even before you deny there is now in this era NO VISIBLE ADMINSTRATION of it.



This is a different discussion, but Old Testament washings are NOT baptism. In fact, if you do a study on John's Baptism, the baptisms of John were strange in that baptisms were at the time usually for Gentile converts, but John was baptizing Jews!

If Old Testament washings were baptism, then wouldn't those baptized by John be "rebaptized"? I thought "rebaptism" was a cardinal sin to paedobaptists!



Contra_Mundum said:


> Is there ONE church or TWO? Were the 12 disciples in the OT church? When did they put their faith in Messiah? Wasn't it even before Jesus arrived? And when he did arrive, Their faith made the transition from "coming" Messiah, to Messiah "come." So did they have to be REMOVED from one covenant with God, in order to be PUT BACK IN to the other? Because if you do, then you are saying that there is no continuity between the OT and NT eras. There is a clean break. This is the real difference between "expansion" theology and "replacement" theology. However, if the transition between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is seamless, and if children were IN the Old Covenant church _and now they are OUT, then you are saying that in the transition they were REMOVED from the New Covenant church._


_

In my view, the OT "church" is part of the shadows that is passing away and is realized in the NT church, but not all of the OT church get brought into the NT church. There is no "removal" from the Old Covenant because the Old Covenant simply passes away.

Were the Pharisees in the OT "church"? I think they were, but they were never brought into the NT church. You, I suppose, would say that they were removed, but I say that they were never brought into the new in the first place.



Contra_Mundum said:



In my view, it is a fundamental error to fail to see how the baptist view removed believers' children from the church at the beginning of the NT era. As to not looking to the Old Covenant to see how the New Covenant functions, all I can say is: I consider that an impoverished evaluation of the OT. I don't actually believe you really think that, because I can't see you ignoring, for example, the Monarchy (in its better moments) as explaining and teaching the nature, elements, and functions of King Jesus' reign. Or the Priesthood as doing the same for his mediation. I think it might be more accurate to say that you disagree with SOME of the principles that our side is extracting from the OT for use today (with appropriate modifications). But that is a far cry from abandoning the use of the Old Testament as a source of instruction.

Click to expand...


I look to the Old Testament for principles but not for practice. For example, you're right in regarding the monarchy, I see elements of Jesus' reign. However, in practice, I don't advocate a monarchy, or a restoration of Old Testament civil laws.

In the same way, I see in the Old Covenant the sign given to physical children, and on the whole, a physical nation, and the promise of a physical land, as pointing to the ultimate fulfillment given to spiritual children, and on the whole, a spiritual church, and the promise of a spiritual land. This seems far more consistent to me.




Contra_Mundum said:



Don, this portion of your post really surprises me. You start off saying that you think I'm pressing G-H hermeneutics too far. Brother, it is a vital part of interpreting Scripture to attempt to understand the first writer, his audience, and the culture about which he writes, especially when his writing is presented as an eyewitness or contemporary account, and ought to be accepted by us as authentic and reliable testimony.

Click to expand...


I don't want to dwell on this so much. I thought I made it clear that G-H is good and necessary. My point is simply that it can be taken too far, and in this case I think you are assuming too much in terms of what the Jews would have assumed, and even if they did assume this, they could have been wrong.




Contra_Mundum said:



We do not baptize anyone *fundamentally* because they made a profession of faith, or because they are children of believers, or because Acts 2:39 is a command to baptize. We baptize because we believe GOD has commanded that certain people be given the objective sign of his Covenant with his people. And no one knows, neither on paedobaptist principles nor credobaptist principles, whether that objective sign has been applied to one for whom subjectively the sign points to the reality, namely: "this is one of my spiritual children."

Determining who those people are who are to receive said sign is taught by an appeal on our side to the entire witness of revelation, OT and NT. I said the OT promise and the NT promise were the SAME promise--Salvation by Grace through Faith. I showed the correlation between the promise to Abraham (Gen. 12, 15, & 17) and Peter's declaration on Pentecost. All by itself that statement doesn't teach anything about covenant sign. But wholistically it asserts covenant continuity, which continuity implies other ties which must be investigated, to see where they lead, and if they are true.

Click to expand...


I agree with you that the promise of salvation is one and the same, but continuity of the promise of salvation does not imply continuity of the covenant sign OR the recipients of it. Most paedos admit that the covenant sign has changed, but they even admit some discontinuity on the recipients. Now females are baptized, and most paedos don't baptize household servants.

Where is the command to circumcise female children in the OT, or baptize female children in the NT? There is no command on either side, yet paedos still do it.

Even within the signs themselves there's an emphasis on physical versus spiritual. Circumcision is a physical sign on an organ that is used to further physical lineage. Water is a symbol of spiritual life. Even the sign itself speaks to the sign not being by physical lineage any longer._


----------



## elnwood

Larry, just going to reply briefly to your main ideas because of the length of your post ...

Baptists are not attempting to drag the kingdom into today. There are very few postmillennial baptists, in fact. Most are futurist in their eschatology, meaning that they don't see the fulfillment of the kingdom until Christ comes back. There are far more paeedobaptists who are trying to inaugurate a postmillennial earthly kingdom.

Nor do we presume all that we baptize and take into membership are regenerate. "Regenerate church membership" is the ideal we strive for, but not what we claim to have.

Baptists are merely trying to make the present church the best witness possible. We unite with conservative Presbyterians in the acts of church discipline in that we want to keep the purity of the church by putting out those who are not living by faith.

But in addition, Baptists are also guarding the front door as well as keeping the back door open in that we are (or should be) just as cautious who we take into church membership. Thus, we aren't going to just baptize someone just because of who their parents are. This is how unbelievers get into the church.


----------



## non dignus

Larry Hughes said:


> For the believers only position says fundamentally we are to have a “regenerate church”, at least hypothetically speaking, “HERE and NOW”. It attempts to “drag” the Kingdom into today as quasi consummate and final status, just like the Judiazer’s did and just like Rome attempted with “Christendom”, hence a hypothetical pure regenerate Kingdom.




Dr. Scott Clark has a term for this: 

The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty 
or 
QIRC

We all have this _quirk_ as you pointed out. It is a temptation of man to make everything nice and tidy. It's really a kind of fig leaf isn't it?
Good post sir.


----------



## Herald

elnwood said:


> Larry, just going to reply briefly to your main ideas because of the length of your post ...
> 
> Baptists are not attempting to drag the kingdom into today. There are very few postmillennial baptists, in fact. Most are futurist in their eschatology, meaning that they don't see the fulfillment of the kingdom until Christ comes back. There are far more paeedobaptists who are trying to inaugurate a postmillennial earthly kingdom.
> 
> Nor do we presume all that we baptize and take into membership are regenerate. "Regenerate church membership" is the ideal we strive for, but not what we claim to have.
> 
> Baptists are merely trying to make the present church the best witness possible. We unite with conservative Presbyterians in the acts of church discipline in that we want to keep the purity of the church by putting out those who are not living by faith.
> 
> But in addition, Baptists are also guarding the front door as well as keeping the back door open in that we are (or should be) just as cautious who we take into church membership. Thus, we aren't going to just baptize someone just because of who their parents are. This is how unbelievers get into the church.



Don, you saved me the trouble of responding. Thank you!  

If the discussion is about regenerate church membership then yes, all who are members of the invisible church are regenerate. The visible church? Only God knows the heart. As and elder in a Baptist church I strive (along with my fellow elders) to determine that all who desire to join our church are regenerate and scripturally baptized. We are fallible and therefore quite capable of errors in judgment. That is why I like Don's comments on the front door and back door.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Even within the signs themselves there's an emphasis on physical versus spiritual. Circumcision is a physical sign on an organ that is used to further physical lineage. Water is a symbol of spiritual life. Even the sign itself speaks to the sign not being by physical lineage any longer.



Wrong. Circumcision was a sign and seal of the *faith* that Abraham had while still uncircumcised. It did not signfiy or emphasize the physical but the spiritual.

Frankly, Don, you need to be careful here on how you deprecate the significance of circumcision and make something with profound spiritual significance into a physical act.

In fact, I recommend that you read the end of Romans 3 through Romans 4 completely to get the context for the significance of circumcision. Paul labors the fact that the promise of Abraham is not according to strength of the flesh whatsoever.


----------



## non dignus

Trevor,
By the way, I thought your contribution was hilarious!


----------



## aleksanderpolo

By treating circumcision as a mere physical sign devoid of spiritual significance, it turns circumcision into an instrument by which we are justified, and hence the error of the judaizer. I didn't understand the title of this discussion at the beginning, but the unfolding of this discussion has really been proving the point.  

On the other hand, if both circumcision and baptism are signs of the covenant of grace, we are not justified by the sign itself, but what it signified. Only in this understanding will 1 Peter 3:21 and Romans 3-4 make sense.

Blessings,


----------



## Herald

aleksanderpolo said:


> By treating circumcision as a mere physical sign devoid of spiritual significance, it turns circumcision into an instrument by which we are justified, and hence the error of the judaizer. I didn't understand the title of this discussion at the beginning, but the unfolding of this discussion has really been proving the point.
> 
> On the other hand, if both circumcision and baptism are signs of the covenant of grace, we are not justified by the sign itself, but what it signified. Only in this understanding will 1 Peter 3:21 and Romans 3-4 make sense.
> 
> Blessings,



What is the spiritual significance of circumcision (under the Abrahamic Covenant) to an individual who did not believe?


----------



## aleksanderpolo

BaptistInCrisis said:


> What is the spiritual significance of circumcision (under the Abrahamic Covenant) to an individual who did not believe?



Brother, similar to the spiritual significance of baptism to an individual who was baptized but do not believe - covenant curse signified by the covenant sign. (i.e. Mark 10:38-39, 1 Cor 11:29)

I think the key is to see that in the covenant of grace, there are external administration of the covenant sign and the internal reality signified. Not everyone who receive the external administration have the corresponding reality. Not everyone circumcised have the internal reality, just as not everyone baptized have the internal reality.

Am I drifting into another baptism discussion?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> What is the spiritual significance of circumcision (under the Abrahamic Covenant) to an individual who did not believe?



A promise rejected. Again, the significance does not change based on the individual. Circumcision was the sign and not the reality. It always pointed to a work of God to bring Christ and save His people which is why Abraham received it in conjunction with his belief in the Gospel. Don't confuse the sign with the thing signified.


----------



## Larry Hughes

David,

Thanks I appreciate your kind words.



> It is a temptation of man to make everything nice and tidy. It's really a kind of fig leaf isn't it?



Yep, that's what it is a legal approach at the end of the day. It's a tendency no matter how nice we "put" the language to attempt to justify the 'purification process' of the kingdom here and now, which is the confounding of the kingdom. The very attempt to ‘make a regenerate church no matter how much you caveat the language about ‘heart reading’ is the thing that confounds the kingdom/church that suffers here and now verses attempting to bring it about in a more pure way. Even the Judiazers knew the kingdom was still to come but the STILL attempted to bring it about on earth. This is expressly forbidden by Jesus the Lord of the church Himself in the kingdom parables, in spite of the apparent 'laudableness' of such an idea to do so by anyone. It sounds laudable but it’s actually not, that’s Jesus’ point about us suffering evil here and now amidst our selves. The one's that actually 'get' hurt the most in this are ironically the true believers as Jesus also points out, and it blows right past most hypocrites the theoretical it is aimed at.

Unbelievers "get into the church" not because infants are baptized and Jesus makes clear who is of the kingdom of God. Unbelievers ‘get into’ the church because God allows unbelievers to “get in” here and now, not because our manmade invented systems of screening fail. They fail because they are never authorized as such. Unbelievers also "get into the church" because Law and Gospel are not maintained and sacraments are misused, not because infants are baptized as the Anabaptist said. Infants are horribly blamed like escape goats for the apish buffoonery of men’s misuse of the Sacraments. It's notable that Luther and the earliest reformers saw the problem the loss of the Gospel, that constituted start to finish the ENTIRE reformation. But then the Anabaptist saw the baptism of infants as the problem a return ironically to Rome. Luther saw the similarity between the two because he clearly saw the issue regarding justification, the laymen had become the new monk.

Once again we find believer’s only policy in direct contradiction to Jesus who explicitly upholds the infant and child as the exemplar of the kingdom of grace and equally specifically not adults. Jesus says, "you must be as one of these infants", He did not sit an adult on His lap and say, "you must be as an adult". No amount of glaze can cover this up. Nothing could be more obvious than this.

Something else seems increasingly clear to me as a Christian that relates to these debates, an observation if you will:

When Christians broadly, and I mean those within the church walls, perceive something as law or (the) Law whether it is in reality law or the Law or not (only perceived as a law, like making the gospel a law, sacraments as law), they always divide, fight and split. But when it is perceived truly as Gospel, naked grace, by all involved they unit. The exception is when a true Gospel thing is indeed perceived in some things but is feared due to a “law” mindset afraid of it in other things (like sacraments), then a split still occurs again, but it is the legal mindset always driving the splitting away from Grace.

This is most significantly true when we all unite, denominationally around something very simple like the statement, “you are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone”. In and of itself we all hear that Gospel and unite around it and even fight together for it. The Gospel unites the body of Christ when it is heard in Word and for those Gospel in Sacrament. But when it is an issue of law/the Law or something implicitly perceived as law, whether it is or is not or even if we don’t perceive ourselves “living under the law” that way though we are in fact ACTING it out as law, then division must occur. This sets forth the fallen man’s ENTIRE problem with ‘doing the law’ in any form. It’s as old as Cain and Able, trying to ‘do’ for God rather than “receive” from God so that God is God and man is truly man, that is dependant upon God. God is not God if he needs from man, but is truly God when He is giving to man. It’s hard to pull us out of “doing” our way to heaven, it’s hard to actually HEAR the Gospel, in fact it’s impossible for the old man.

E.g.s:

1.	If the sacrament of baptism is perceived as only do it ‘this way’ or ‘that way’, two laws, then a split is inevitable because we are trying to “do” the law. This is an example of the first item concerning law/Law causing a split.
2.	If a sacrament is perceived by one as Gospel while another retains a ‘legal’ strain or grain within it, then a split will result. Again the issue is mostly a law issue and our misuse of it.
3.	When a sacrament is perceived as Gospel by all, then unification occurs.

We even see principle #1 under very specific denominational use of law. E.g. the Baptist broadly do not agree on how exactly to apply baptism as law under their own system. They agree in principle as to “believers only” but begin splitting within themselves over how, when and why into the various camps. Broadly between Calvinistic leaning Baptist and arminian leaning Baptist, but even the “reformed” Baptist are not in unity as they should be and today many types of strains of reformed Baptist have formed and continue to form, disunity rather than unity. And its not JUST Baptist lest I be accused of “picking on Baptist”. This is even evident with some legal strains within the Reformed, narrower sense of the term, communities where the sacrament is not as much a Gospel sacrament as it was back in the earliest days of the reformation. Thus, reformed groups split out within themselves. Every split is predicated upon one of two or both parties, whoever they be, having a legal strain in their doctrine, a hidden working their way to heaven. One may actually be attempting to protect the Gospel and the other legal, and the split thus arises. The Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians of Jesus time are an example of the people of God going legal and loosing it all and being split all over the place. A brief period of unity began at the on set of the Gospel at Pentecost, but it wasn’t too many centuries later that the devil began working afresh. EVEN the reformation’s first breakout Luther against Rome was predicated on at least ONE party having a legal doctrine, Rome, even while the other party was pure Gospel, Luther. The later splits among the reformed broadly speaking where just legal strains causing this. This is why at the fundamental level if you read Luther and that history he understood the two, Rome and the Anabaptist as two sides of the same coin.

The sum of which is that law/Law always divides both inside and outside of the church, because man cannot use the law rightly and the splitting proves it. Islam, well outside of the church, for example is fractured all over the place, ‘my law is better than your law’, or the Cain principle of worship is the rule of the day. And so they kill not only outsiders but each other.

In the church, though, the Gospel unites when both or all parties actually “hear it” on an issue, BUT it does divide when one party may hear Gospel but the other party still retains some law/Law. The jest of the later is we always go wrong with the law/Law, we cannot handle the holy Law or law without violating it which proves the fallen nature of man as impossible in pleasing God as to the Law. Which is the very nature of “doing law” and why the split occurs, a “you are more pleasing to God than I am” or “your law is more pleasing to God than my law”, or vice versa, again the Cain principle.

It’s as simple as this to fallen man’s evil: If one way is right as fallen man thinks to return to God (meaning law) and another way is wrong (meaning law) then we need to do it the “right” legal way, so we think, to please God. Hence, the splitting apart or sectarianism and murder within the heart of fallen man, ironically trying to do the Law it is violated utterly as Cain himself did. However, if a thing, sacrament or message, is pure unadulterated Gospel, then there is no reason for the split which is murder in the heart…since free food is food for one dying beggar just as much as it is for another dying beggar. But it must be food (Gospel) and not poison (sin’s incurable nature as to Law), that is Gospel and not law (man made) or the Law (God’s).

Earthly analogy: 

Two men are starving to death and they are utterly destitute.

Situation number 1: Life giving food is presented before them. But both perceive it as law, for they fail to see their destitution truly! Man A says, “You must eat it with a fork” or you cannot live. Man B says, “No, a spoon.” They divide and go away eating with fork and spoon respectively, both thinking their legal method of eating, fork or spoon only, is what is saving them. Both are blind to the real food and both are blind as to their real destitution. Ignorantly they miss it’s the food itself and neither have a damn thing to do with it. This is two Cain principles of worship (doing for God) and murdering each other.

Situation number 2: Life giving food is presented before them. One perceives the food as life giving food and another perceives it still as Law. Man B says, “It’s the food that saves us not eating it with a fork or a spoon only, we are destitute…it’s the food brother.” However, man A retains his legal burden, “NO, you must eat it with a fork or you are not being fed truly.” Man A still thinks the fork is the saving thing, Man B is beginning to see that it is in fact the food itself and trying to awaken man A, his brother to this so they are strong together. Alas, due to the residual legal burden/strain on one side, they remain divided. One Cain principle of worship and one Abel principle of worship coming about (doing for God versus receiving from God, respectively or worshipping Moloch thinking it to be God versus worshipping God – the direction of how things flow earth to heaven Vs. heaven to earth shows forth idolatry or not even if the name “God” is retained).

Situation number 3: Life giving food is presented before of them. Both perceive it as Gospel, both begin to see their destitution and dire need as beggars. Man A and B both come to realize, “Hey it’s the food!” They come together in true love as mutual starving beggars needing that very same food. A food they both legally perceived and divided over at various times and many ways (religious ideals, interpretations and paradigms on a subject/sacrament or item of worship). Both now are receiving from God respectively and NOW God is truly God to them in which they find, alone, life and the sustaining of it, not just in mouth profession but in reality and walk of life; AND both are now truly man as man is created and related to his Creator. As God gives to them, they now give to each other in true love. As to where before they had to hate each other because God was not God to them, but one they thought they gave worship UP to rather than receiving from, from which arose Cain to slay Abel.

When men realize in all things Word and Sacrament God in Christ has given all to you and NOTHING is lacking AT ALL, really and truly given to you forgiveness of sins and ALL His righteousness so that you DON”T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, THEN one can in turn just give to all themselves how ever one wants, desires from the heart to do so. This is how the Christian is the servant of none but the dutifully loving servant of all. How? God doesn’t need your works as you supposed since Christ did it all, it is finished for Christ’s sake. And you/I don’t need your/our works as you/we supposed since Christ did it all, it is finished for Christ’s sake. When we, thus, quit the Satanic competition for God’s love which is TRULY satanic we are THEN truly free to give as you’ve been given! God’s love is truly creative and shows Him as God in that it, love, doesn’t seek its own. God’s love creates what it will love. Thus, as Luther pointed out, the sinner (the truly unattractive, ugly and evil) is attractive and beautiful to God because God first loves the unattractive (true love and true God), the sinner is not loved because he is attractive and beautiful (satanic fallen love which is false love or no love at all, in fact hatred).

As we grow in Christ to realize this more and more, true sanctification is knowing more and more Christ for you, then you will love more and more and more as the true fruit of this faith that fixes and steels it’s eyes upon Christ crucified and risen FOR YOU.

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## non dignus

Amen. A hearty Amen, Sir.

And I love a good Kentucky accent.

So which is true, spoon or fork?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Great post Larry. I wish more understood what you're getting at.

Because the mode and recipient is so divisive _a priori_, when I'm teaching the brethren at the Church I attend I don't even mention my views on recipient and mode. I just try to get them to understand the surety of the thing signified.

I've had a young brother in the Lord who struggles mightily with sin. When I taught on Romans 4 and 5, I could see his head nodding as he began to understand that our baptism signifies something _extra nos_ and, because of that, the promise is unassailable.

In some ways, it's not even the mode or the recipient issue that is really the sad part about the whole thing for me but it's the fact that many are not able to see the promise in the Sacrament because they've always implicitly understood the meaning of their baptism to be found within themselves.

Again, this is one of those issues where the shoe fits some better than others but this impoverishment is very heartbreaking to see among people who get conflicting messages week in and week out, especially when Sacrament does not reinforce Word. They may hear with their ears Gospel but then see with their eyes a Lord's Supper that is a mere symbol, a Baptism that begins with them, and, in the worst case, an altar call that beckons to them to be more sincere in their faith.


----------



## non dignus

SemperFideles said:


> They may hear with their ears Gospel but then see with their eyes a Lord's Supper that is a mere symbol,* a Baptism that begins with them*.......



Very good point, Rich. Certainly a child could misconstrue this very easily. I believed this for years. But when I became Reformed, the issue of infant baptism clicked for me in about two seconds because I understood for the first time that it was God who was doing the work- we are passive. 

Taking our sacramental cues from the will and whim of young children didn't seem right either.


----------



## Herald

> I've had a young brother in the Lord who struggles mightily with sin. When I taught on Romans 4 and 5, I could see his head nodding as he began to understand that our baptism signifies something extra nos and, because of that, the promise is unassailable.
> 
> In some ways, it's not even the mode or the recipient issue that is really the sad part about the whole thing for me but it's the fact that many are not able to see the promise in the Sacrament because they've always implicitly understood the meaning of their baptism to be found within themselves.



Rich - I've said this before (previous thread) and never received an adequate response. In my struggle with sin I do not look to my baptism 'extra nos.' I look towards the cross and the shed blood of Christ for 'the remission of sins.' I don't look towards the promise in the sacrament, I look towards the promise provided by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13-14). How this translates to my finding baptism within myself is something I do not see.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I don't look towards the promise in the sacrament, I look towards the promise provided by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13-14). How this translates to my finding baptism within myself is something I do not see.



Brother, please allow me to interrupt again. Perhaps the reason that you don't look towards the promise in the sacrament is because you see baptism as primarily a sign of your faith, rather than a sign of God's faithfulness in His promise? Your refusal to trust in your own faith is probably out of a good instinct. But what is a sacrament? Isn't it a visible sign signifying the promise provided by the Holy Spirit? God has designed the sacrament this way to strengthen our faith, to view it otherwise is to neglect a gift from God, and would only weaken us. Do not our hearts burn within us with thankfulness and grief for our sins when we see the bread broken in front of our eyes?  

Blessings,


----------



## Herald

aleksanderpolo said:


> Brother, please allow me to interrupt again. Perhaps the reason that you don't look towards the promise in the sacrament is because you see baptism as primarily a sign of your faith, rather than a sign of God's faithfulness in His promise? Your refusal to trust in your own faith is probably out of a good instinct. But what is a sacrament? Isn't it a visible sign signifying the promise provided by the Holy Spirit? God has designed the sacrament this way to strengthen our faith, to view it otherwise is to neglect a gift from God, and would only weaken us. Do not our hearts burn within us with thankfulness and grief for our sins when we see the bread broken in front of our eyes?
> 
> Blessings,



Brother, I'm trying to keep my view of baptism and the promise of heaven biblical. My heart is often stirred during the Lord's Supper. But that is not a biblical argument. My emotions are aroused in others areas of worship (singing, prayer and preaching of the word), but I don't view those items as sacraments. 

Water baptism is not salvific. Spirit baptism is. I am not trying to dismiss or minimize baptism. It is a biblical command. I have no problem in stating that baptism represents (or is a sign) of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Additionally I have no theological dispute with baptism representing believers sharing in Christ's death, burial and resurrection spiritually. But the efficacy of baptism is found in the actual events, not the water. 

And as far as God's faithfulness in His promise, that is the role of the Holy Spirit who has been given to us as a down payment of what is to come.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Rich,

Exactly, it’s a self inflicted sad thing far too often that actually hurts the one’s needing it most. Faith then becomes something somehow “generated” from within rather than fed objectively. It’s just like the issue with the Lord’s Supper and the fact of the real presence. Reformed and Lutheran differences regarding the mode of that presence aside, there should be tight unity against all ideas of “no real presence”. Because it’s no small thing to know that what you “see” and taste the bread (body) and wine (blood) of Christ. It provides strong Gospel to us personally. From an exert from an article, cannot recall the article all I have is these exerted quotes, but it was a Lutheran paper show this even the covenantal significance:

“The double significance of the Supper as sacrifice and sacrament is suggested by the accounts of Matthew and Mark, on one hand, and Luke and Paul, on the other. Matthew and Mark see the institution of the Supper primarily as a conclusion to the sacrifice for sin as required by the Old Testament. The use of the terms "body" and "blood" signify that death as sacrifice is already accomplished. Reference to the blood as concluding the terms of the covenant emphasizes the idea of sacrifice even more. The old covenant, which cried for satisfaction by blood, has been satisfied by the blood of Christ. Now in the Supper Christ's blood is PRESENTED (emphasis added –ldh) to God's people as EVIDENCE and PROOF (emphasis added –ldh) that the former covenant can make no claims upon them. The Lucan and Pauline accounts stress the Supper as the sacrament which is the new covenant. Since the terms of the old covenant have been satisfied, God is able to establish a new relationship with man commemorated in the sacramental celebration. The sacrificial blood of the Supper becomes evidence for faith in the sacrament.” - end quote

Thus, the whole idea that the bread and wine presenting the body and blood of the sacrifice of Christ to the people of God as a “see here it is, the proof, in the here and now” that the Old Covenant is fulfilled and we need not fear the necessity of the old covenant (the law covenant in the OT, not the grace covenant shadowed there) is powerful REAL Gospel. Here it is not as Rome suggests a reoffering of the sacrifice but the testimonial evidence of “see here the body and blood already sacrificed” very REAL and BEFORE the very eyes of the people of God, this they eat and drink. The Lord’s Supper then becomes strong evidence for faith, not just a memorial, that Christ was indeed crucified to fulfill the old covenant. So equally is it that the bread and the wine are presented as the body and blood as a sacrament gift in which faith may look and rely as the New Covenant promises life by trust alone in Christ alone. That’s powerful and tangible Gospel, and NOT a vain memory I have to drum up…it is in a word, right IN MY FACE. This is why the mere 'memorial' position is empty of Gospel, it requires the works righteousness of mind and imagination drumming it up, an event none of us today actually witnessed. That is counter to Gospel given as gift. It's like a "receipt" for a bill paid. The receipt presents evidence that my bill was paid and I can rest easy, the receipt is a presentation of it in REALITY, not an empty memorial or exercise of the intellect or facilities of imagination (works). But its more, it’s a living presentation for the believer in times of trial and suffering. "Am I really saved we ponder in the darkness of our souls and sins”. How do I know since I see myself no better or so sinful. We vainly try to work up a better life but the Law will slaughter that to pieces and as such it is a double dry well for the Law of God, the Old Covenant is clear. So, we have the trial from the devil, 'are you really saved seeing how you are so sinful, surely God has abandoned you.' Then comes the sacrament of the bread and wine, 'here is the sacrifice of the blood that fulfilled what you fear, the Law/Old Covenant...you eat it, trust it, it comes TO YOU FOR YOU and it is finished! Just like, “no Satan, I am baptized into God’s name, I am baptized not another, the Gospel is ON me and I trust it…God baptized me. Gospel, pure unadulterated Gospel.

The article powerfully concludes,

“…The discussion of the Real Presence immediately involves Lutherans and Reformed disputants in the philosophical possibilities of the finitum non capax infiniti, with final discussion centering in different understandings of incarnation. This discussion is vital to sacramental and incarnational theology…nevertheless, the discussion on the nature of the Real Presence should not prevent us from recognizing the presence of Christ in the Supper not only as a sacramental, but also as a sacrificial presence. He is not present as the "whole Christ," or as "Christ with body and soul" or as "Christ by the power of the Spirit." He is present with His body and blood, those evidences indicating that His sacrifice is for us accomplished but for God present and continued reality. The distinction between the body and blood means that life has ceased, death has occurred, and the sacrifice has been offered to the Father. Today we call the element of bread the host, i.e., the victim of sacrifice. The blood of the sacrament is poured out as sacrificial blood. The sacramental elements of body and blood need no further blessing from an omnipotent God. The elements are present in the sacrament not as a demonstration of God's omnipotence, but as the presence of the eternal sacrifice of Christ within the context of the worshipping congregation. The appropriation of the forgiveness of sins does not depend on the form in which it comes, but the word, baptism, and the Supper must be distinguished in regard to form. The word proclaims what God has done in Christ. Baptism involves the baptized in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Supper presents to the believer the actual sacrifice, i.e., Christ's body and blood. Here is more than simply another form of the word of God, since the sacrament conveys to Christians the actual elements sacrificed to God. “

Is that not some of the most powerful Gospel testimony you’ve ever heard. Think about that the next time you take the bread and wine, there it is before you FOR YOU. That’s eternal life enough to be even tortured for! I tell you brother it gives me chills of GREAT joy!

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## MW

Larry Hughes said:


> It’s just like the issue with the Lord’s Supper and the fact of the real presence. Reformed and Lutheran differences regarding the mode of that presence aside, there should be tight unity against all ideas of “no real presence”.



The reformed maintain the mode is everything. It is the Spirit of God Who conveys the benefits of Christ's death, and He does so to the elect alone. There should be tight unity amongst the reformed guarding against Lutheran non-particularism. The Reformed maintain the same "legal" approach with regard to baptism. It carries conditions. Which makes me wonder why the reformed on this board have bought into Larry's Lutheranism so readily.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Polo,

That’s a good point you made, I never thought about it exactly like that. According to that paradigm you wouldn’t find strength in it because you wouldn’t have faith in faith. The unfortunate self inflicted wound analogy. It’s similar to the idea that believer’s only doctrine is not so much biblical as it is reactionary to Rome or anti-Rome. I think Luther actually saw that point to, rather than repair the sacraments to their Gospel position and strength, the over reaction led to the other side of the street error. Given the paradigm I suppose its right not to until you do see it, the Gospel actually in it.

If people could just believe and “get” that, see the Gospel and Cross there and FOR THEM in baptism (and by extension the Lord’s Supper), God’s work, not ours, not the pastor’s the Gospel would be so much richer for them/us. I’ve discussed this with a dear dear dear Baptist friend/brother of mine, who is a pastor and elder, and all the usual stuff over baptism arise. But at last what is not understood is how sure and why it is certain to me that ‘BB’ is in error. It’s not because I’m trying to be mean or trying to ‘be right’ for the sake of winning the argument or even that some arguments are better than others. Arguments alone will NEVER get you there, you have to SEE the Cross for you there, faith alone sees it, not incredulous faith but faith upon an objective reality. Thus, ALL credistic arguments, and I mean the BEST of them, even if better than my own in form and intellect, are at the end of the day like so many dust balls tossed at a Abrams Tank…worthless. Why? Because they are “bad arguments”? Not always, no not at all. Rather, because if you see Christ, the Cross, the blood in the water, the name of God written upon you FOR YOU, the Gospel in baptism objectively real no miserable argument no matter how well formulated and by the greatest of saintly men produced can pull Jesus out of your hands or rather you from Jesus’ hands. God’s name in baptism FOR YOU is so powerful, THAT Gospel is life itself such that the Cross FOR YOU in baptism is worth being tortured to death for before EVER giving it up, even to the best of friends and even well meaning brothers. Because of what it is TO YOU and to others…In short it’s Christ crucified for me, it’s the Christian faith! So, much less are mere arguments of men than the sword on one’s throat to give it up.

I maintain constantly and FIRMLY believe that if a Baptist could just see that and trust it, they’d never turn back, I’m convinced of it. But the legalism strain blinds people from it, just as I was and we all struggle in various ways with it, and we all have that “legal” bone still in us, it’s the old man for goodness sake. Legalism darkens not enlightens scripture, I cannot plead that enough with people. 

E.g. In the account in the Acts of the Apostles where the Ethiopian Eunice is reading in Isaiah, that very OT passage as Gospel, even as the Ethiopian Eunice saw it, is just like a blacked out page to “believers only”, the doctrine’s legal stain effectively blacks it out, blacks out the Gospel in it. If you reference the passage he’s reading it ends in the preceding chapter where it says that I (God) will sprinkle the nations (of which the E. Eunice is, a Nations/Gentile person, i.e. not of the Jews). Believer’s only doctrine misses, due to the view, as I too did, the great Gospel there in the OT – namely that the EE rejoiced over and how he understood to be baptized and Who was doing it. Because in that OT passage it clearly states that it is God doing the sprinkling (baptizing) and that it will, in that day, go out to the nations (Gentiles) FOR THEM. To this the EE says, “what prevents me”. Indeed and amen! And then he went away rejoicing MOST assured of salvation because of his ‘profession”, no, he KNEW God just baptized him, it was FOR HIM the Gospel. WHO WOULDN”T go away REJOICING having known what God just did, there’s the ‘voice’ of Jesus, the FOR ME/YOU, saying, “_____, your sins are forgiven YOU, YOU specifically”! But in ‘believers only’ thought, due to the legal strain in the doctrine this passage as the Gospel is as if it was never written, blackened out and useless, even though the physical words are still “visible” to the eye. Two reasons show this legal black paint over the text: 

1.	The legalism of “immersion” blackens it out because surely “sprinkling” has nothing to do with baptism since ‘surely’ real baptism is by immersion only (you must become a Jew first by circumcision) as the Scriptures are searched so that ‘by them we think we have life’ (they went down and came back up - legalism). See how clever the devil indirectly attacks the Gospel! Something as simple as a legalistic ‘mode of baptism’ inserted shuts out the Gospel there for the reader since the it certainly cannot be baptism and surely the Spirit works unmediated. Yet, it is that very thing the gentile/nation EE saw and the reason he said ‘what prevents me’, a gentile heretofore not allowed in, from receiving the gift of God NOW post first advent and thus TOO receiving like the Jew’s alone before God’s very name in baptism, and specifically the blessed name of “Jesus” written upon him meaning “He will save His people from their sins”, upon his OWN body. That is the Gospel of Jesus Christ FOR HIM ON HIM.
2.	The legalism of “believers only” itself kills the Gospel doubly in this OT passage again. Since the OT Isaiah passage on God sprinkling the gentiles is not about baptism, it cannot be that God does the work in baptism which is contained in that very same verse on “sprinkling”. So, the believer only doctrine forces one to again take up and “search the scriptures and think that by them one has life”. And not surprisingly at all such a legal search for method and mode leads back to the Acts passage in which the EE actively believing becomes a NEW work and the “great” thing to be shown in the passage, the active moving of faith, and upon that subjective basis the EE is baptized. Again the cleverness of the devil is here as he shifts the object of faith from the Gospel and the Gospel in baptism as the word of God upon and FOR YOU to “faith” itself and the EE’s confession itself. Then we are to supposedly believe this is why the EE greatly rejoices. 

Thus, not reading the scriptures knowing, “…but these continually testify to Me (Jesus)” the OT passage is locked and blackened out for what it is and the Gospel is obscured as the EE and his profession of faith and mode become the “thing”. Thus, by this believers only understanding the EE does not rejoice because God worked ENTIRELY upon him FOR HIM in spite of him, but supposedly because he intellectually was made to understand it and affirmed his faith by confessing it. The EE rejoices because, “Wow I was immersed after I showed my faith”?

Which is truly preaching Christ in baptism, the whole point? God sprinkling/baptizing Gentiles as He prophesied He would for the surety of the truth of His Word/promise to do so. GOD not man doing the baptizing (sprinkling here) with very real otherwise ordinary water into His name by the hands of the pastor who is a mere instrument or ink pen for baptismal ink (water). God taking this “pen” and writing His name, Gospel and promise upon YOUR OWN BODY and primarily writing upon you the name of “Jesus” which means “He will save His people from their sins” and this water does and WILL bear open witness of God’s will toward and FOR you in Jesus and thus faith is created and sustained and strengthened. OR is this “really” preaching Christ: That what we are led to believe that what is primary here is that they “went down and came up” proving immersion and that the profession of the EE’s faith is the Gospel. Is “going down and coming up” Gospel? Is any man’s own confession/profession of the faith Gospel? No! Simply put it’s the difference in pointing and saying, “Look at that mode and look at that profession of faith” and “look at that Cross as He is lifted up for you”, in the view of baptism. Thus, Jesus words are vicariously true, “you search the scriptures and think that by them you have life, BUT, BUT (emphasis added) it are these that continually bear witness/testimony to ME (Who IS life)”. Or as Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life”, NOT “I show you the way, the truth and the life”.

And here I’m not talking about the Word preaching of Gospel itself, many good Baptist preach that clearly, better than some Reformed. Rather, the view of baptism (and the Supper by extension), for one can have the naked Word right, even better than some infant baptizing pastors, but one can simultaneously err on the Sacraments though one’s Word of Gospel is beautiful. Would it be that if we could mingle the preaching of Spurgeon and Luther with the Sacramental grasp of Luther and Calvin we’d have a MIGHTY preacher of Gospel in Word and Sacrament in our day…and SURELY the devil would attach most viciously for that man letting the ‘cat out of the bag’.

Blessings always,

Larry


----------



## Larry Hughes

David,

Hahaha, tis true!

My poor kids are already inheriting their good ole dad and mom’s KY accent. It’s funny though, depending upon which part of KY one is from one can actually pick up on the variances within the accent, north vs south vs east vs west. My “neck” of the woods Louisville is “Leweyville”, my wife’s “Looaville”, Louisville area itself “Luvul”. My area “eggs” (real short e), my wife’s “eeeggzzz”, far western KY “aiyggs”. There are parts of southern and far western KY that it’s hard for someone from my area to follow, I’m sure likewise for them. Outside of KY, we all sound the same! 

Another funny note: Once on one of my adventure trips to Montana we stopped in at an Applebee’s to eat, ordered “ice tea”, immediately the waiter said, “You all are from the south aren’t you, we don’t get that a lot hear.”



> So which is true, spoon or fork?



I’m fork man myself. Gotta watch out for those spoon folks, but it’s the chop stick heretics that are the real danger;-)

Larry


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rich - I've said this before (previous thread) and never received an adequate response. In my struggle with sin I do not look to my baptism 'extra nos.' I look towards the cross and the shed blood of Christ for 'the remission of sins.' I don't look towards the promise in the sacrament, I look towards the promise provided by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13-14). How this translates to my finding baptism within myself is something I do not see.



You seem to miss the point. Baptism points to those things. "Extra nos" means outside of ourselves. The shoe fits some baptists better than others (hence I stated that).

Ultimately, however, credo-baptism is unstable because it makes the promise dependent upon the recipient and points the significance of the sacrament away from the promise of God to the believer. It also places undo emphasis upon mode. Together, insistence on mode and the idea that the sincere response is the arbiter of efficacy is what makes the baptism deficient and leads to something that people cannot look to even though, Biblically, we are encouraged to look to our baptism for strength. That you see no meaning in that encouragement points to the poverty of your view of the Sacrament that was given for our strengthening. It's not the water or the recipient but the Promiser that makes it sure for all who believe.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Matthew,

I wasn’t arguing that the mode is not important, but the fact of presence is more important than no presence. That was the point as Calvin even says the sacraments are not vain empty signs against the Anabaptist. On this the Reformed and Lutheran have MORE in common than do the Reformed and Memorialist, at least the early reformed did. The Gospel gives what it requires, the Spirit actually DOES GIVE and it is the Gospel which the Spirit testifies to our spirit so that we know we are sons of God, or do you not know that you are a Son of God?

In fact to say


> The reformed maintain the mode is everything


 then to have a greater problem with Lutherans mode of presence (the point of the quote) over the "mode of NO presence" is unreasonable to say the least and shear contradiction at worst. If the mode for the reformed is EVERYTHING, then surely the mode of "no presence" is exceedingly problematic.

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## MW

To the elect, Larry, to the elect. Faith is given only to the elect. The Holy Spirit gives faith to the elect. Gospel and sacraments are only means.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> The reformed maintain the mode is everything. It is the Spirit of God Who conveys the benefits of Christ's death, and He does so to the elect alone. There should be tight unity amongst the reformed guarding against Lutheran non-particularism. The Reformed maintain the same "legal" approach with regard to baptism. It carries conditions. Which makes me wonder why the reformed on this board have bought into Larry's Lutheranism so readily.



Rev. Winzer,

I don't believe I have argued for a form of Lutheranism. Insofar as Larry has stated things I agree with I have agreed with the broader principles of viewing baptism and the Lord's Supper as Gospel. My own writing has been more compact and I don't want it to be misconstrued as Larry has already answered for his own views.

I do not believe in baptismal regeneration. I believe that the Spirit only conveys the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection to the elect alone and that baptism does not unite to Christ but faith alone.

My main point to emphasize over and over again is that baptism points to the promise of God - if you believe then you will be saved. Because the significance is found in the promise and not the person then the adult confessors that are baptized are given the same promise - whether elect or not. I understand, however, that the promises are only sealed to those who actually believe in faith.

Nevertheless, the problem I'm trying to guard against is viewing faith as the object of salvation in the rite. If a man is wavering in his faith because of the attack of sin, ought he to find strength in his baptism on the memory of the genuineness of his faith? I know your answer but some answer that question poorly and baptism is impoverished because of it.


----------



## Larry Hughes

John Calvin:

"Now baptism was given to us by God for these ends (which I have taught to be common to all sacraments): first to serve our faith before him; secondly, to serve our confession before men...Accordingly, they [e.g., the Zwinglians and Anabaptists] who regarded baptism as nothing but a token and mark by which we confess our religion before men, as soldiers bear the insignia of their commander as a mark of their profession, have not weighed what was the CHIEF point of baptism"

"For inasmuch as [baptism] is given for the arousing, nourishing, and confirming of our faith, it is to be RECEIVED as FROM THE HAND OF THE AUTHOR HIMSELF. We ought to deem it certain and proved that it IS HE WHO SPEAKS TO US THROUGH THE SIGN; that IT IS HE who purifies and washes away sins, and wipes out the remembrance of them; THAT IT IS HE who make us sharers in his death, who deprives Satan of his rule, who weakens the power of our lust; indeed, that IT IS HE who comes into a unity with us so that, having put on Christ, we may be acknowledged God's children. These things, I say, HE PERFORMS for our soul within AS TRULY AND SURELY AS WE SEE OUR BODY OUTWARDLY CLEANSED, SUBMERGED, AND SURROUNDED WITH WATER...And HE DOES NOT FEED OUR EYES WITH A MERE APPEARANCE ONLY, BUT LEADS US TO THE PRESENT REALITY AND EFFECTIVELY PERFORMS WHAT HE SYMBOLIZES"

"The FIRST thing that the Lord sets out for us is that baptism should be a TOKEN AND PROOF of our cleansing; or (the better to explain what I mean) it is like a sealed document TO CONFIRM TO US THAT ALL OUR SINS ARE SO ABOLISHED, REMITTED, AND EFFACED THAT THEY CAN NEVER COME TO HIS SIGHT, BE RECALLED, OR CHARGED AGAINST US."

"Baptism also brings another benefit, for it shows us our mortification in Christ, and new life in him...[T]HROUGH BAPTISM Christ MAKES US sharers in his death, that we may be engrafted in it"

"Lastly, OUR FAITH RECEIVES FROM BAPTISM THE ADVANTAGE OF ITS SURE TESTIMONY TO US that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers IN ALL HIS BLESSINGS...Hence, Paul proves that we are children of God from THE FACT THAT WE ARE PUT ON Christ IN BAPTISM [Gal. 3:26-27]."

"But we are not to think that baptism was conferred upon us ONLY FOR PAST TIME, so that for newly committed sins into which we fall after baptism we must seek NEW REMEDIES of expiation in some other sacraments, AS IF THE FORCE OF THE FORMER ONE WERE SPENT...For, though baptism, ADMINISTERED ONLY ONCE, seemed to have passed, IT WAS STILL NOT DESTROYED BY SUBSEQUENT SINS"


----------



## Larry Hughes

Yes, it is because, because, because of the elect, elect and elect that it is given. All things for the sake of the elect, for the ASSURANCE and FAITH of what they are elected TOO! The Gospel is NOT altered just to save hypocrits the trouble of their own hypocrisy, which of course would be to "do all things for the sake of the 'unelect'", contra Paul.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Larry,

I think the point that Rev. Winzer is making is that what Calvin is speaking about is truly efficacious for the elect alone.

I do believe that ministerially, the words of Calvin above are useful to encourage believers and to look with faith upon what has been signified in their baptism. Thus, the minister can rightly enjoin the congregation to look to their baptism in the way above.

The language you have quoted finds its way into the Hiedelberg as well. It is powerful stuff but we ought not forget that, even though some are enjoined to look to their baptism, some never do because they don't believe. And so we conclude that they were never truly united to Christ even though the sacrament was rightly administered and they have been given every injunction to believe and rest on the promise.

I think what I hear Rev. Winzer saying is that you can't press Calvin's language too hard (as the FV has) and neglect him elsewhere as he teaches that the benefits are only truly communicated to the elect.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Sorry, you were responding as I was typing.


----------



## MW

Larry Hughes said:


> Yes, it is because, because, because of the elect, elect and elect that it is given. All things for the sake of the elect, for the ASSURANCE and FAITH of what they are elected TOO! The Gospel is NOT altered just to save hypocrits the trouble of their own hypocrisy, which of course would be to "do all things for the sake of the 'unelect'", contra Paul.



So we come back to saying that NOTHING is GIVEN in the gospel and sacraments to the non-elect. We should therefore modify the language of Lutheranism to conform to the Reformed view.


----------



## Larry Hughes

> So we come back to saying that NOTHING is GIVEN in the gospel and sacraments to the non-elect. We should therefore modify the language of Lutheranism to conform to the Reformed view.



It certainly doesn’t take long for the issues to get off of the Cross, dare we look there too long or much and live, and onto piddling does it? The shame of the Cross is very shameful is it not!

No, we DO NOT modify the Gospel at all for the unelect, not one iota, not one jot, not one tittle, not one single implication, in Word or Sacrament, not for anyone lest we fall under the Apostolic curse. In fact to do so is to hate the very elect one pretends to love. Lutheranism has absolutely nothing to do with it. 

The message communicated is still giving its very message, the unelect simply don’t receive it BECAUSE of the given message that gives. It’s the “giving freely” they reject and NOTHING else. Thus, their condemnation is greater because they have actually heard the message and so rejected it. That is the TRUE and REAL bondage of the fallen will of man because he loves his works he must necessarily reject free grace, whether the means lands upon his ears by the physical means of creation via the creature of air compression from the breath and the creature of the voice of a witness, the creature of metal elements in the creature of a liquid medium of ink upon the creature of carbon atoms strung together to form the creature of paper, the creature of electromagnetic waves of radio translated via the creature of silicon circuitry or the creature of the waters of baptism, the creature of bread or the creature of wine all carrying the Message which is pure and gives life. The hypocrites within the church do not reject mere water, bread or wine nor sound waves or ink or paper, but the Gospel signified and Word of Gospel annexed to them just as they reject the very Cross it gives NEWS of. The Gospel is hated by those who reject it not because it’s not what it is, but because it is EXACTLY what it IS. The unelect, whoever they are, do not reject the Gospel thus, “Well, it’s not for me I’m not elect so being not elect I reject it, I can do no otherwise”. It’s not as if the Word of God fails or is a lie. When I’ve witnessed to a Muslim in the past or an atheist, for example, their rejection of the Gospel was its VERY MESSAGE. They REJECTED the Gospel, not their “unelection” if they at the end of the day are, which I do not know. They may yet come to faith, that is for God to do, I just a worthless clay deliver of the grand treasure of the Message. At the end of the day a preacher or witness to the Gospel is a paper boy, he doesn’t alter the news in the news paper he is to be busy about delivering. They reject it, as I once did as an atheist, because it gives freely grace, as only the nature of NEWS can be, it’s a message GIVEN by its very nature and essence. When I rejected it, I rejected the VERY message of the Gospel and what it GAVE, not some false shadow of it or whether or not I was elect. Was I unelect to the eyes of men in 1996, SURPRISE the PURE message in 1997, not the efforts of men or myself but the Gospel, called me into being and election. It is because it does freely give grace that the fallen old man who wishes to vainly work his selfish hide to heaven, MUST reject it lest the fallen man find himself, well, fallen. He rejects it for the VERY message it IS thus the rejecter says, “I reject free grace because I don’t believe it is necessary for I’m not that beyond repair and can handle my own sins quite nicely thank you very much.”

The spirit does not strike out of the clear blue sky but by the means of creation transmitting the message delivered once for all because we are creatures ourselves, not disembodied spirits. When an unbeliever who will remain an unbeliever - unbeknown to me and you mind you for we cannot know if God’s word at last converts or not even at the last moment and most extreme cases and I refuse to play God – actually hears the Gospel, its not as if he’s not hearing the words spoken, but he’s not receiving it and openly rejecting it, the very very real and pure Gospel itself. All these rejections prove is the total and utter depravity of man - that the natural man will not receive the Gospel of free grace as given, it proves that the natural fallen man has absolutely NO ability within himself what-so-ever to accept it because he beholds the glory of works. Works keeps him from free grace (a redundancy admittedly). Essau actually rejected a thing, his birth right as Paul says.

In order for total depravity to ACTUALLY be real and total, man must reject the real message given, actually given, something is rejected. The fallen man actually throws off the Gospel. And this testifies openly to the reality that man is so fallen and depraved that he throws off a pure gift. Anywhere else in earthly reality we would call this stupidity and it is, its utter pride and depravity to the nth degree.

So the Gospel IS given in the Word and Sacraments, it is what it is and nothing more and nothing less. As Calvin says does God sing to the deaf…that’s the wrong question…no rather natural man is THAT depraved (paraphrased) and gets what he deserves for what he rejects.

I’m spent for the night, suffering a bit of illness too, have a good and restful evening.

Larry


----------



## MW

Larry Hughes said:


> It certainly doesn’t take long for the issues to get off of the Cross, dare we look there too long or much and live, and onto piddling does it?



I would not regard the clarification of the soteriological significance of the cross and its relation to the sacraments as "piddling." The reformed confessions have taken much time and effort to ensure that the matter is stated according to its biblical balance for the express purpose of helping people to centre their believing attention upon the death of Christ and not upon external means. The "real presence" is a distracting and mischievous doctrine which carnalises the cross of Christ. Speak of a spiritual presence of Christ manifested to the believer, and the true virtue of the cross is magnified in the Supper; but to speak of Christ being really present in the elements and giving Himself to all who partake of the elements is to focus attention away from the cross onto the flesh, which profiteth nothing.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Insofar as Larry has stated things I agree with I have agreed with the broader principles of viewing baptism and the Lord's Supper as Gospel.



Sorry that I missed this earlier, Rich. To help us think through the ramifications of what Larry is proposing, may I ask why the gospel is ministered indiscriminately to all but the sacraments are not? I believe the answer will reveal that baptism and the Lord's supper are not gospel, but divine confirmations of the benefits offered in the gospel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Sorry that I missed this earlier, Rich. To help us think through the ramifications of what Larry is proposing, may I ask why the gospel is ministered indiscriminately to all but the sacraments are not? I believe the answer will reveal that baptism and the Lord's supper are not gospel, but divine confirmations of the benefits offered in the gospel.



That's an interesting point. Maybe my language is sloppy. I would only distinguish between the fact that one is a proclamation while the others signify that proclamation to the Covenant community. Insofar as there is a message of promise in the Sacraments there is a Gospel emphasis upon the work of God over and against the work of man. 

I would agree that we don't baptize every man, woman, and child that we encounter so I understand what you're saying. Nevertheless, Paul calls what the Judaizers are doing in Galatians "another Gospel" and much of what they're about is a corrupted sacramentology and not merely a false message. There is a "message" in the Sacraments.

I know you're preparing for a sermon but if you want to tighten down any loose bolts in my thinking then it would be appreciated.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> Nevertheless, Paul calls what the Judaizers are doing in Galatians "another Gospel" and much of what they're about is a corrupted sacramentology and not merely a false message. There is a "message" in the Sacraments.



It appears to me that the corrupt sacramentology pertains to making the sacrament of circumcision "something" in relation to salvation. Hence the apostle has to say that circumcision and uncircumcision availeth nothing, but faith which worketh by love, Gal. 5:6. Again, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature, chap. 6:15. The problem then would seem to be that they were making the sacrament gospel, believing in the need to be circumcised in order to have what the gospel offers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> It appears to me that the corrupt sacramentology pertains to making the sacrament of circumcision "something" in relation to salvation. Hence the apostle has to say that circumcision and uncircumcision availeth nothing, but faith which worketh by love, Gal. 5:6. Again, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature, chap. 6:15. The problem then would seem to be that they were making the sacrament gospel, believing in the need to be circumcised in order to have what the gospel offers.



I don't disagree with this but I think the primary error for the Judaizers was their desire to join Gentiles to the Law and circumcision was their initiation to this False Gospel. Paul's use of the term _circumcision_ in Galatians could be substitued with _Torah keeping_. This is why he cannot just stop with Abraham with whom the rite was initiated but it is necessary for him to underline that the Law only brings about a curse to all those who believe they will be justified by its deeds.

I did not mean to imply that the tenor of Galatians was sacramentology and fully grant that Paul is demonstrating that _faith_ is what has united the Galatians to Christ and they already possessed the inheritance that the Judaizers were trying to make them jealously seek after. I only was pointing out that a defect in sacramentology (mainly the Judaizers here) can cause one to undermine even the message of faith itself. Hence, a proper sacramentology either undermines or undergirds a proper view of the Gospel.

Thus, in the sense that the proper significance of baptism is promise it supports rather than undermines a message of salvation by faith alone.


----------



## MW

Rich, thus far we have the gospel indiscriminately preached to all, whilst sacraments are administered to those in the visible church. We also have faith in the gospel essential to salvation whilst sacramental participation is not essential to salvation. The third and final point I am fairly sure you will concur with is that the gospel offers salvation as a present need, whereas sacraments are administered on the basis that salvation is a reality. Hence, the gospel is really and fundamentally a promise, whilst sacraments point to the fulfilment of the promise. Given these three qualifications, I would say the idea that sacraments are gospel is an unhelpful one, and it is best to distinguish Word (gospel) and Sacraments. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Rich, thus far we have the gospel indiscriminately preached to all, whilst sacraments are administered to those in the visible church. We also have faith in the gospel essential to salvation whilst sacramental participation is not essential to salvation. The third and final point I am fairly sure you will concur with is that the gospel offers salvation as a present need, whereas sacraments are administered on the basis that salvation is a reality. Hence, the gospel is really and fundamentally a promise, whilst sacraments point to the fulfilment of the promise. Given these three qualifications, I would say the idea that sacraments are gospel is an unhelpful one, and it is best to distinguish Word (gospel) and Sacraments. Blessings!



When I think of promise in the Sacraments, I'm thinking along these lines:

WCF Chapter XXVII


> III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, *a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.*



Heidelberg:


> Question 66. What are the sacraments?
> 
> Answer: The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof, he may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel, viz., that he grants us freely the remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross.


Especially in Question 67, the Heidelberg underlines that both word and sacrament ar meant to point us to Christ. I realize that, after reading this, the Heidelberg distinguishes as you do from the teaching of the Gospel and assurance by the Sacraments. I need to be cleaner in my terminology. I won't say they are Gospel but I will say they direct our faith to the same object that the Word does.


> Question 67. Are both word and sacraments, then, ordained and appointed for this end, that they may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation? (a)
> 
> Answer: Yes, indeed: for the Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that the whole of our salvation depends upon that one sacrifice of Christ which he offered for us on the cross.



In Question 69, I love the way the Heidelberg links the sacrament as a visible sign that can be used to help us remember what was done for us by the sacrifice of Christ for us who have faith:


> Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?
> 
> Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (a) adding thereto this promise, (b) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (c) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.


And to anticipate the objections of those who believe too much is being promised here:


> Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism?
> 
> Answer: In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", Matt.28:19. And "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.", Mark 16:16. This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism "the washing of regenerations" and the washing away of sins. Tit.3:5, Acts 22:16. (a)


or from those who think that the water is somehow magical...


> Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?
> 
> Answer: Not at all: (a) for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin. (b)


But yet there is still something fundamentally spiritual going on in the Sacrament.


> Question 73. Why then does the Holy Ghost call baptism "the washing of regeneration," and "the washing away of sins"?
> 
> Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; (a) but especially that by this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water. (b)


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> I won't say they are Gospel but I will say they direct our faith to the same object that the Word does.



Yes -- they direct our faith to the same object.   Robert Bruce's sermons on the sacrament are exceptional on this point:



> But leaving the ambiguity of the word, I take the word Sacrament, as it is taken and used this day in the Church of God, for a holy Sign and Seal that is annexed to the preached word of God, to seal up and confirm the truth contained in the same word: in such sort that I call not the seal separated from the word, a sacrament. For as there cannot be a Seal but that which is the seal of an evidence; and if the seal be separated from the evidence it is not a seal, but simply what it is by nature, and no more. So there cannot be a sacrament except it be hung to the evidence of the word. Was it a common piece of bread? It remains common bread, except it be joined to the evidence of the word. Therefore the word only cannot be a sacrament, nor the element only; but word and element conjointly, must make a sacrament. And so Augustine said well, "Let the word come to the element, and so you shall have a sacrament." In such sort then, the word must come to the element: that is, the word preached distinctly, and all the parts of it opened up, must go before the hanging to of the sacrament; and the sacrament as a seal must follow and be appended thereafter.



http://www.archive.org/details/sermonsonthesacr00brucuoft


----------



## Larry Hughes

> That's an interesting point. Maybe my language is sloppy. I would only distinguish between the fact that one is a proclamation while the others signify that proclamation to the Covenant community. Insofar as there is a message of promise in the Sacraments there is a Gospel emphasis upon the work of God over and against the work of man.



This is a good clarification, and perhaps my language has not been exacting here. But it goes back to what I’m arguing against the Credo position. Because they have to answer, as do we, when an infant is baptized, did a baptism take place? As pointed out on another post its one thing to say infants are not to be baptized, quite another to say no baptism took place at all. If we admit the later, then rebaptism is viable the Baptist position is established and Paedeo is over thrown entirely. For is a baptism didn’t take place then it is manifestly obvious that if they later come to faith as an adult they must really baptized. BUT, I must say emphatically, the GOSPEL IS IN the Sacraments, because that is what feeds and sustains faith its merely a matter of how it is to be used. There are NO elect accept those whom trust alone in Christ alone.

When I refer to the sacraments as Gospel its shorthand for what Rich just quoted here. A confirmation (i.e. corroboration, evidence, validation) is a GIVING, not an offering but an actual giving of a REAL thing, that’s the ENTIRE point of ANY kind of confirmation. If no objective baptism is actually given then NO confirmation is given, it becomes a fake, myth, vain subjective imagination or superstition but not a confirmation. So a thing is actually objectively GIVEN. What I’m getting at is not indiscriminately giving sacraments to all outside of the covenant church like the Word of Gospel, but that the proclamation to the Covenant community as Rich or “divine confirmations of the Gospel” well states it and is what MAKES the sacrament real, true, existing if you will and not the faith of the receiver, else you are taking a baptistic view. 

The point of the Lutheran article I quoted without going into the mode of presence in order to focus on the objective reality of the supper (and by extension baptism) was the same regarding the Lord’s Table. When the bread and wine are given actual real and true evidence is presented before our very eyes (and even the eyes of the world, the world just denies it as they deny the Cross itself) that’s what it means to “proclaim the Lord’s death”, it matters not one wit that anyone believe it or not, it simply is as it is. And evidence and confirmation are not antithetical but analogous. When judgment comes this very evidence will bear witness against those who reject it, because they really reject a real objective thing. When the wine is before us, presented as evidence or confirmation is the blood required to fulfill the Old Covenant of works. When the bread is before us, presented in reality and objectively is the evidence or confirmation that the body of the sacrifice was killed to yield that very blood for the OC. Certainly only faith, naked trust, in that really “sees” it and rests in it, while unbelief says, “Nooo, its just a superstitious ceremony involving mere wine and mere bread…nothing to it.” The objective reality must first exist if the subjective reality is to have anything in which it may be confirmed and evidenced to. Otherwise it is pure fantasy built on a subjectivity with both feet planted firmly in mid air. Thus, again, on the day of judgment two men will stand before God both perhaps having received this bread and wine (or waters of baptism) WITHIN the church, this evidence and confirmation, which has an objective reality, one will have received it by faith and thus trusted and saved. The other will AT LAST see that what they rejected as unreal and false as VERY real and very true. That same bread, wine and water will bear witness AGAINST them because they deny the Word given to those witnesses. Men fail to see that inanimate objects in God’s court actually can and WILL bear witness for or against them, it need not be intelligence. That wine and bread was actually there, you drank it, but you denied it was anything. There is both great comfort and great severity in the sacraments.

If I could shorten the language very very very generically admittedly what MUST be recognized is that baptism, specifically, and the sacraments in general are objective and not subjective based upon the conditions, status or state of being of the receiver. They are not relativistic. It’s not indiscriminately ministered like the Gospel itself outside of the church, but among the covenant community. When Jesus words “this is my blood shed for the forgiveness of sins” are given to wine, there point blank is the Gospel Word and it is Gospel.



> may I ask why the gospel is ministered indiscriminately to all but the sacraments are not? I believe the answer will reveal that baptism and the Lord's supper are not gospel, but divine confirmations of the benefits offered in the gospel.



This is a great partial answer, but not entirely. As Calvin points out an adult unbeliever who rejects the Gospel is not administered baptism because he point blank ALREADY rejects the Word of Gospel itself. Thus, rejecting the Word of Gospel which would be annexed to the water later is of no avail whatsoever to him, it would be to him nothing but a bath of water. There’s no point to baptizing an open rejecter he already rejects it. But if we do baptize what is later to be found a rejecting adult hypocrite, that did not make THAT objective baptism unreal or ‘not baptism’ one wit. Else the Baptist are correct and we need to stop baptizing our children. But they are not and our children must both be taught well the great severity of what befalls them if they reject their very real objective God GIVEN baptism on one hand and the GREAT comfort and surety of the same they have been GIVEN by BOLDLY trusting into the Gospel it has and to NEVER DOUBT IT (unbelief). They are not rejecting or trusting law, but Gospel. Nothing begets greater damnation than rejecting the Gospel, not even the Law itself. And what makes it all the more tormenting in hell, the very very real hell of hell, is the very realization that one rejected a pure love. Nothing points to self guilt more purely than “you yourself by your very own will rejected the gift”, you sought yourself and rejected grace. And that forever status of knowing “I” did it myself, rejected such great charity and love, is the very source of the eternal gnashing of one’s teeth and weeping against one’s self. Then you will receive your desires, yourself, and you will gnash your teeth and weep at this very self you so desired and received. In short you will forever hate what you wanted and the fact you wanted it makes it worse, and the fact you wanted it over pure grace infinitely expands the torment.

Rich and Matthew, thanks I appreciate always your insights, they help me to think, your much appreciated brothers of mine, even in debate. Though my flesh wars with wanting to be right (we all do, its pride), against my flesh it’s always my prayer, truly, that we all, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, other be pulled from our errors we all gravitate toward individually and corporately within our denominations and unto more and more the unity of Christ crucified and risen for us in all things, so we can really love. That’s something I learned from Spurgeon and Luther.

I hope you all have a great Saturday, it is Saturday in Australia isn’t it? If it stops raining I plan on doing some relaxing gardening today, I’m feeling better this morning.

Blessing grace and peace to all,

Larry


----------

