# The Case for "Believer's Only" Baptism



## CalvinandHodges

tellville said:


> One of my favourite jokes!



Greetings:

One must ask where in the Bible does it say "Believers only"? Are we not to disciple our children as well?

Children in the OT were circumcised and brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old. Why are they given special priviledges that the children of the New Covenant (of whom the Bible tells us are "holy" 1 Cor. 7:14) do not receive.

The understanding of "Covenant Theology" by credo-baptists is skewed by their dispensational approach to the subject. And John Owen was an infant-baptist by the way.

Yes, the joke is very funny to credo-baptists, but the reality is that when asked where the Bible tells us "Believers only" they fail to prove it.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## CDM

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> One must ask where in the Bible does it say "Believers only"? Are we not to disciple our children as well?
> 
> Children in the OT were circumcised and brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old. Why are they given special priviledges that the children of the New Covenant (of whom the Bible tells us are "holy" 1 Cor. 7:14) do not receive.
> 
> The understanding of "Covenant Theology" by credo-baptists is skewed by their dispensational approach to the subject. And John Owen was an infant-baptist by the way.



Agreed.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Yes, the joke is very funny to credo-baptists, but the reality is that when asked where the Bible tells us "Believers only" they fail to prove it.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH


----------



## Reformed Baptist

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."—Romans 6:3-4.

"If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done." - C.H. Spurgeon


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Reformed Baptist said:


> "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."—Romans 6:3-4.
> 
> "If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done." - C.H. Spurgeon



Well Spurgeon _is_ capable of imagining it now. Are you asking how you might rightly interpret the passage you cited?


----------



## Reformed Baptist

SemperFideles said:


> Well Spurgeon _is_ capable of imagining it now. Are you asking how you might rightly interpret the passage you cited?



Spurgeon is capable of imagining it now because now that Spurgeon is dead and has realized what you believe is true? lol Let us not reduce what can be a gentlemanly conversation to such trivialities. 

No, I am not asking how I may interpret these Scriptures. They read quite plain and clear. Baptism is representative of a death, burial, and resurrection in Christ Jesus, our union with Christ. Like Spurgeon, I cannot imagine or fathom any system of thought that could apply this to an infant, who is still in Adam. I cannot fathom this baptism being for anyone but a true, born again child of God. 

Spurgeon wrote, "If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it." 

I suppose if you would like to make this attempt I should like to see you do it as well.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Reformed Baptist said:


> Spurgeon is capable of imagining it now because now that Spurgeon is dead and has realized what you believe is true? lol Let us not reduce what can be a gentlemanly conversation to such trivialities.


I actually considered your two quotations to be quite trivial and I was responding in like humor.



> No, I am not asking how I may interpret these Scriptures. They read quite plain and clear. Baptism is representative of a death, burial, and resurrection in Christ Jesus, our union with Christ. Like Spurgeon, I cannot imagine or fathom any system of thought that could apply this to an infant, who is still in Adam. I cannot fathom this baptism being for anyone but a true, born again child of God.


Yes, I agree that Baptism signifies union with Christ. I don't believe that all who are baptized are united to Christ but that it signifies it nevertheless. The pasage highlights that fact. Would you care to explain how an infant is precluded from that union based on an exegesis of the text you cited?



> Spurgeon wrote, "If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it."


I don't find anything in the text that deals with immersion at all. Nothing concerning mode is even relevant to the text. Also, nobody is questioning that a person who is elect will believe but election is not of him who wills or runs but of Him who shows mercy. Union with Christ is on the basis of election. Is it your assertion that election is on the basis of "him who wills"?

Off to bed now.

Blessings!


----------



## KMK

CalvinandHodges said:


> Children in the OT were circumcised and brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old. Why are they given special priviledges that the children of the New Covenant (of whom the Bible tells us are "holy" 1 Cor. 7:14) do not receive.



This kind of statement is one of the stumbling blocks for me in understanding the paedo view.

*Children* were not circumcised in the OT. *Some* children were baptized in the OT. So according to the logic above that would mean that *some* children were brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old.

Then, when you say, "Why are *they* given special privileges...", I assume you mean those 8 day old infants who were circumcised. Therefore, aren't you trying to argue that because *some* infants in the OT were given the special privilege of being brought into the Old Covenant by circumcision, that *all* infants should be given the special privilege of being brought into the New Covenant by baptism? If so, there seems to be, to my uneducated mind, a disconnect. Could you show me the missing piece of the puzzle?


----------



## Reformed Baptist

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."—Romans 6:3-4.

I am a simple Christian, and consider the spiritual sense of the passage with a higher esteem than the external sign. As Spurgeon commented, "May God the Holy Spirit help us to reach its inner teaching." 

Taking this passage, and reading it, we cannot take the Apostle to be speaking of anyone but of proper persons. He must not be speaking of unbelievers, hypocrites, or decievers. The Apostle says, "so many of us" putting himself into the grouping which I cannot imagine to be anything but the children of God. 

Baptism then is the representation of the believer's union with Christ, in His death, burial, and ressurection. It is also our realized union with Christ. Baptism doesn't not merely represent our profession or creed. Hypocrites may have words only. It represents the true spiritual reality that we have died with Him, been buried with Him, and have been raised with Him. 

Where in the world do we rightly bury those who are alive? How is it that some suppose it is right to bury in Baptism those we know who are not dead in Christ? Even in our Baptist churches we will not baptism one who shows no sign of repentance and faith. 

I imagine that I will not be able to presuade your mind in regards to baptism. I already read in your words the daggers of debate. If we are both born again children of God let's not sit accross the table from one another and throw things, giving the appearance of enmity. Let's sit on the same side of the table as brothers and understand one another. In Spurgeon's sermon he also preached:

"It would seem that some had been baptized who did not clearly know the meaning of their own baptism. They had faith, and a glimmer of knowledge sufficient to make them right recipients of baptism, but they were not well instructed in the teaching of baptism; perhaps they saw in it only a washing, but had never discerned the burial. I will go further, and say that I question if any of us yet know the fullness of the meaning of either of the ordinances which Christ has instituted. As yet we are, with regard to spiritual things, like children playing on the beach while the ocean rolls before us. At best we wade up to our ankles like our little ones on the sea shore. A few among us are learning to swim; but then we only swim where the bottom is almost within reach. Who among us has yet come to lose sight of shore and to swim in the Atlantic of divine love, where fathomless truth rolls underneath, and the infinite is all around? Oh, may God daily teach us more and more of what we already know in part, and may the truth which we have as yet but dimly perceived come to us in a brighter and clearer manner, till we see all things in clear sunlight. This can only be as our own character becomes more clear and pure; for we see according to what we are; and as is the eye such is that which it sees. The pure in heart alone can see a pure and holy God. We shall be like Jesus when we shall see him as he is, and certainly we shall never see him as he is till we are like him. In heavenly things we see as much as we have within ourselves. He who has eaten Christ's flesh and blood spiritually is the man who can see this in the sacred Supper, and he who has been baptized into Christ sees Christ in baptism. To him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly." 

Good words of wisdom filled with humility I think. Worthy of imitation.


----------



## Calvibaptist

KMK said:


> This kind of statement is one of the stumbling blocks for me in understanding the paedo view.
> 
> *Children* were not circumcised in the OT. *Some* children were baptized in the OT. So according to the logic above that would mean that *some* children were brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old.
> 
> Then, when you say, "Why are *they* given special privileges...", I assume you mean those 8 day old infants who were circumcised. Therefore, aren't you trying to argue that because *some* infants in the OT were given the special privilege of being brought into the Old Covenant by circumcision, that *all* infants should be given the special privilege of being brought into the New Covenant by baptism? If so, there seems to be, to my uneducated mind, a disconnect. Could you show me the missing piece of the puzzle?



This has always been one problem for me as well. Paedos are so sure that since "children" were circumcised at 8 days old under the Old Covenant, and in the New Covenant, they says the promises go to our children as well. Therefore they go to all our children and they baptize them.

Except for one thing. All children weren't circumcised under the Old Covenant. Only MALE children were circumcised. So to be consistent, paedos ought to baptize only male children.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Calvibaptist said:


> Paedos are so sure that since "children" were circumcised at 8 days old under the Old Covenant, and in the New Covenant, they says the promises go to our children as well. Therefore they go to all our children and they baptize them.



No paedos believe that children were baptised in the OT! Yes, there *is* an example of children being baptised in the Bible, contrary to what credos say.

Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 10:1-2 that Israel's exodus was their baptism (an illustration of Christ's work). And there would've been plenty of children who were in the Exodus. Hence, there were plenty of children who had a sign of Christ's cross-work applied to them.

As for Romans 6, how do we know that is talking about *water* baptism? Christ said he had a "baptism" to undergo, and that was a reference to the cross. Hence, "baptism" is a word that does not always refer to water baptism.

God bless.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

KMK said:


> This kind of statement is one of the stumbling blocks for me in understanding the paedo view.
> 
> *Children* were not circumcised in the OT. *Some* children were baptized in the OT. So according to the logic above that would mean that *some* children were brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old.
> 
> Then, when you say, "Why are *they* given special privileges...", I assume you mean those 8 day old infants who were circumcised. Therefore, aren't you trying to argue that because *some* infants in the OT were given the special privilege of being brought into the Old Covenant by circumcision, that *all* infants should be given the special privilege of being brought into the New Covenant by baptism? If so, there seems to be, to my uneducated mind, a disconnect. Could you show me the missing piece of the puzzle?



Greetings:

Well, the Bible says:



> And every man-child of eight days old among you shall be circumcised in your generations, as well he that is born in thine house, as he that is bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thine house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised *so my covenant* shall be in your flesh *for an everlasting covenant*, Genesis 17:12-13.


I think the word "every" here means "every" and not "some" for the context tells us that even slaves, and the children of slaves in the house of Abraham were to be circumcised.

God persued Moses to kill him because Moses did not circumcize his children, Ex. 4:24.

What I hear from credo-baptists are rationalizations rather than Scripture.

Now, one credo-baptist has given a passage in Scripture as a defense of his views, Rom. 6:3ff. Paul states, "all that have been baptized," (vs. 3) and does not mention "faith only" as a requirement. The promises of entering into the death of Christ, being raised up, and to walk in newness of life are given to "all that have been baptized."

Maybe the credo-baptist can point out where Paul requires "faith only" in order to be baptized here? The interpretation of the credo-baptist is an interpretation from their prejudice - reading something into the Bible that is not there - and is not a matter of an exegetical nature.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Me Died Blue

KMK said:


> This kind of statement is one of the stumbling blocks for me in understanding the paedo view.
> 
> *Children* were not circumcised in the OT. *Some* children were baptized in the OT. So according to the logic above that would mean that *some* children were brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old.
> 
> Then, when you say, "Why are *they* given special privileges...", I assume you mean those 8 day old infants who were circumcised. Therefore, aren't you trying to argue that because *some* infants in the OT were given the special privilege of being brought into the Old Covenant by circumcision, that *all* infants should be given the special privilege of being brought into the New Covenant by baptism? If so, there seems to be, to my uneducated mind, a disconnect. Could you show me the missing piece of the puzzle?



One necessary clarification here from the paedo view is that baptism (or circumcision) itself does not actually bring the children of believers into the visible covenant, which they are already in from birth. Rather, the sign serves as the commanded _recognition_ of that status by the parents and the Church. Biblically, this can be seen in Genesis 15-17, observing the temporal relationship between Abraham's being in covenant with God and him receiving the sign of that covenant. Confessionally, it is clear that this is the historic paedo view from WCF 25.2 and 28.5-6:



> _WCF 25.2_
> 
> The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.



Note that it does not say, "and of their children who have received the covenantal sign."



> _WCF 28.5-6_
> 
> Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
> 
> The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.


----------



## Calvibaptist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> Now, one credo-baptist has given a passage in Scripture as a defense of his views, Rom. 6:3ff. Paul states, "all that have been baptized," (vs. 3) and does not mention "faith only" as a requirement. The promises of entering into the death of Christ, being raised up, and to walk in newness of life are given to "all that have been baptized."
> 
> Maybe the credo-baptist can point out where Paul requires "faith only" in order to be baptized here? The interpretation of the credo-baptist is an interpretation from their prejudice - reading something into the Bible that is not there - and is not a matter of an exegetical nature.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH



CH, we have been through this before and you refuse to recognize our argument. The interpretation is not from prejudice. It involves who is actually in the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 - Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Pay close attention. The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, which is described in the New Testament by Paul in Romans and Galatians as all those who are "of the faith of Abraham."

The actions of God on those in the New Covenant are as follows:

1) He will put His law in their minds
2) He will put His law in their hearts
3) He will be their God and they His people
4) He will cause them all to know Him
5) He will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more

NOW, the reason why credo-baptists believe that only those who have at least professed faith in Christ should be baptized has to do with who the covenant is made with. The sign of the covenant can only be placed on those who are in covenant - those who are of the faith of Abraham and have had the actions of God (according to the terms of the covenant in Jeremiah 31) done to them. This is simply not true of infants and young children, as well as adults who continue in unbelief.

This is the biblical reason, far from your claim of prejudice. It has everything to do with the Bible and nothing to do with prejudice.


----------



## CDM

JohnOwen007 said:


> As for Romans 6, how do we know that is talking about *water* baptism? Christ said he had a "baptism" to undergo, and that was a reference to the cross. Hence, "baptism" is a word that does not always refer to water baptism.
> 
> God bless.



Right.

Romans 6:3-4 does not have a drop of water in it. It is dry.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Calvibaptist said:


> CH, we have been through this before and you refuse to recognize our argument. The interpretation is not from prejudice. It involves who is actually in the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31.
> 
> Jeremiah 31:31-34 - Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
> 
> Pay close attention. The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, which is described in the New Testament by Paul in Romans and Galatians as all those who are "of the faith of Abraham."
> 
> The actions of God on those in the New Covenant are as follows:
> 
> 1) He will put His law in their minds
> 2) He will put His law in their hearts
> 3) He will be their God and they His people
> 4) He will cause them all to know Him
> 5) He will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more
> 
> NOW, the reason why credo-baptists believe that only those who have at least professed faith in Christ should be baptized has to do with who the covenant is made with. The sign of the covenant can only be placed on those who are in covenant - those who are of the faith of Abraham and have had the actions of God (according to the terms of the covenant in Jeremiah 31) done to them. This is simply not true of infants and young children, as well as adults who continue in unbelief.
> 
> This is the biblical reason, far from your claim of prejudice. It has everything to do with the Bible and nothing to do with prejudice.



Excellent post.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Calvibaptist said:


> CH, we have been through this before and you refuse to recognize our argument. The interpretation is not from prejudice. It involves who is actually in the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31.
> 
> Jeremiah 31:31-34 - Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
> 
> Pay close attention. The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, which is described in the New Testament by Paul in Romans and Galatians as all those who are "of the faith of Abraham."
> 
> The actions of God on those in the New Covenant are as follows:
> 
> 1) He will put His law in their minds
> 2) He will put His law in their hearts
> 3) He will be their God and they His people
> 4) He will cause them all to know Him
> 5) He will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more
> 
> NOW, the reason why credo-baptists believe that only those who have at least professed faith in Christ should be baptized has to do with who the covenant is made with. The sign of the covenant can only be placed on those who are in covenant - those who are of the faith of Abraham and have had the actions of God (according to the terms of the covenant in Jeremiah 31) done to them. This is simply not true of infants and young children, as well as adults who continue in unbelief.
> 
> This is the biblical reason, far from your claim of prejudice. It has everything to do with the Bible and nothing to do with prejudice.




Paul says in Romans 9, "*For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel*." This stands true for the Old Covenant as well as the New Covenant. The passage in Jeremiah 31 is to the elect. How do you know who the elect are? Is not the promise made in the New Covenant the same as the Old Covenant - to the believer and our seed (Acts 2)? Yet, it was a given that not all that received the sign and seal of circumcision under the Old Covenant were truly of Israel. Why does that change with the sign and seal of baptism? Or better yet, where does Scripture say that changes?


----------



## ReformedWretch

I always tell myself that I'm staying out of these discussions but...

To me, why would this be so difficult/veiled in scripture? Why wouldn't Christ or one of the authors of Scripture have a *PLAIN* and easy to see teaching on baptizing children?

Yes, I know this doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a simple question from a simple guy. You would think one would read somewhere in scripture something like-

"and they brought their children to be baptized"

or

"having given birth to the child she brought him to be baptized"

I dunno...something like that. Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

houseparent said:


> I always tell myself that I'm staying out of these discussions but...
> 
> To me, why would this be so difficult/veiled in scripture? Why wouldn't Christ or one of the authors of Scripture have a *PLAIN* and easy to see teaching on baptizing children?
> 
> Yes, I know this doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a simple question from a simple guy. You would think one would read somewhere in scripture something like-
> 
> "and they brought their children to be baptized"
> 
> or
> 
> "having given birth to the child she brought him to be baptized"
> 
> I dunno...something like that. Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.


----------



## crhoades

houseparent said:


> I always tell myself that I'm staying out of these discussions but...
> 
> To me, why would this be so difficult/veiled in scripture? Why wouldn't Christ or one of the authors of Scripture have a *PLAIN* and easy to see teaching on baptizing children?
> 
> Yes, I know this doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a simple question from a simple guy. You would think one would read somewhere in scripture something like-
> 
> "and they brought their children to be baptized"
> 
> or
> 
> "having given birth to the child she brought him to be baptized"
> 
> I dunno...something like that. Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.


 
Do we agree that in the OT, children of believers were given the sign and seal of the covenant and treated as covenant members? Do we presume continuity or discontiniuty between the OT/NT (covenantal hermeneutics or dispensational hermeneutics)? To me it is even more astounding that we aren't given clear scripture to now disinclude children from the visible church/covenant community.


----------



## Calvibaptist

crhoades said:


> Do we agree that in the OT, children of believers were given the sign and seal of the covenant and treated as covenant members? Do we presume continuity or discontiniuty between the OT/NT (covenantal hermeneutics or dispensational hermeneutics)? To me it is even more astounding that we aren't given clear scripture to now disinclude children from the visible church/covenant community.



Children of unbelievers were also given the sign and seal of the covenant and treated as covenant members under the Old Covenant.

The "continuity" of the Testaments does not mean exact one-to-one equality. It means there is not a complete separation of peoples like the dispensationalists want to have. The New Covenant advances the Old Covenant to new heights. Now the children are not physical, but spiritual. The promise is made to the spiritual children of Abraham, not the physical. You keep wanting to see the promise being made not to physical Jews and physical Jewish children (which is right) and yet want to apply the promises to physical Christians and physical Christian children. You have formed a new physical race of God's people. You are a dispensationalist with a different group of people.

BTW, doesn't Paul deal with the promises made to the seed of Abraham in Galatians?

Galatians 3:16 - Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.

This is the verse that moved me completely out of dispensationalism. The covenant promises are made ultimately to Christ, not to individual people. Therefore, the sign of the covenant goes only to those who are in Christ, where all the promises find their fulfillment. I know, you will say, "how do you know they are elect?" We don't, but we do know that they have at least professed to be in Christ before we give them the sign that they are in Christ.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Is it a "new" covenant? If it is, then why would there be discontiniuty? Does new mean discontiniuty? I also find it very unfair to label this "dispensational" the bogey-man word amongst us all.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Calvibaptist said:


> Children of unbelievers were also given the sign and seal of the covenant and treated as covenant members under the Old Covenant.
> 
> The "continuity" of the Testaments does not mean exact one-to-one equality. It means there is not a complete separation of peoples like the dispensationalists want to have. The New Covenant advances the Old Covenant to new heights. Now the children are not physical, but spiritual. The promise is made to the spiritual children of Abraham, not the physical. You keep wanting to see the promise being made not to physical Jews and physical Jewish children (which is right) and yet want to apply the promises to physical Christians and physical Christian children. You have formed a new physical race of God's people. You are a dispensationalist with a different group of people.
> 
> BTW, doesn't Paul deal with the promises made to the seed of Abraham in Galatians?
> 
> Galatians 3:16 - Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.
> 
> This is the verse that moved me completely out of dispensationalism. The covenant promises are made ultimately to Christ, not to individual people. Therefore, the sign of the covenant goes only to those who are in Christ, where all the promises find their fulfillment. I know, you will say, "how do you know they are elect?" We don't, but we do know that they have at least professed to be in Christ before we give them the sign that they are in Christ.


----------



## tellville

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> One must ask where in the Bible does it say "Believers only"? Are we not to disciple our children as well?
> 
> Children in the OT were circumcised and brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old. Why are they given special priviledges that the children of the New Covenant (of whom the Bible tells us are "holy" 1 Cor. 7:14) do not receive.
> 
> The understanding of "Covenant Theology" by credo-baptists is skewed by their dispensational approach to the subject. And John Owen was an infant-baptist by the way.
> 
> Yes, the joke is very funny to credo-baptists, but the reality is that when asked where the Bible tells us "Believers only" they fail to prove it.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH



1 Cor 7:14 also says that the unbelieving husband has been sanctified because of his believing wife. If you are using this passage to say that children are rightful subjects of baptism because they are holy should not the unbelieving husband who is sanctified (another word for justified) also be baptised? 

Or maybe this passage has a use other than Baptismal theology? 

And yes, the joke does seem to be a lot funnier to Credo-Baptists  And when Catholics ask us where the Bible tells us "faith only" we can't show them either, and actually, the only place where those two words are in the same sentence the word "not" is in front of them. Yet, we both would agree faith alone is the obvious teaching of scripture. 

And I think my fellow Baptists are doing a fine job of showing where Believers Baptism is taught in scripture.


----------



## ChristianTrader

houseparent said:


> I always tell myself that I'm staying out of these discussions but...
> 
> To me, why would this be so difficult/veiled in scripture? Why wouldn't Christ or one of the authors of Scripture have a *PLAIN* and easy to see teaching on baptizing children?
> 
> Yes, I know this doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a simple question from a simple guy. You would think one would read somewhere in scripture something like-
> 
> "and they brought their children to be baptized"
> 
> or
> 
> "having given birth to the child she brought him to be baptized"
> 
> I dunno...something like that. Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.



Is not the term "plain" relative to one's background and upbringing/worldview? If one's worldview is much different from another, then it will take a lot of discussion to get on the same page.

This being the case, the "plainness" argument only gets, that you are coming at the text much differently than a paedobaptist. At that point, one needs to argue that your way is better and more faithful to scripture. There are no free lunches.

CT


----------



## Davidius

houseparent said:


> Yes, I know this doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a simple question from a simple guy. You would think one would read somewhere in scripture something like-
> 
> "and they brought their children to be baptized"
> 
> or
> 
> "having given birth to the child she brought him to be baptized"
> 
> I dunno...something like that. Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.



We have them. They're the household baptisms in Acts that the credobaptists always try to squirm their way out of.

[bible]Acts 16:13-15[/bible]


----------



## ChristianTrader

Also to be fair to "plainness"  A term other than, "household" could have been used in terms of baptism of families". It could have simply been, "And each individual person repented and believed and was baptized due to their own belief". 

CT


----------



## Ivan

Hmmm...why don't I feel...._squirmy_?


----------



## Davidius

Ivan said:


> Hmmm...why don't I feel...._squirmy_?



Because my devastating post caused you to stop squirming and become a paedobaptist?


----------



## Ivan

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Because my devastating post caused you to stop squirming and become a paedobaptist?



Hmmm...let me see...nope! 

BTW, I respect my paedobaptist brethren.


----------



## Calvibaptist

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> We have them. They're the household baptisms in Acts that the credobaptists always try to squirm their way out of.
> 
> [bible]Acts 16:13-15[/bible]



So, you know that Lydia had children (and infants) how? It seems that paedos assume infants to be there while we credos assume infants to not be there.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Calvibaptist said:


> So, you know that Lydia had children (and infants) how? It seems that paedos assume infants to be there while we credos assume infants to not be there.



Actually one group assumes continuity and the other assumes discontinuity just cause. 

CT


----------



## Davidius

Calvibaptist said:


> So, you know that Lydia had children (and infants) how? It seems that paedos assume infants to be there while we credos assume infants to not be there.



I'm not assuming anything. I'm just stating that the same terminology is used to describe those household baptisms that was used in the Old Testament to describe the circumcision of, watch this now, not just infants but _households_. So whether or not Lydia had any small children, the continuity of the application of the covenant sign to all members of the household is starkly evident here.


----------



## Calvibaptist

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I'm not assuming anything. I'm just stating that the same terminology is used to describe those household baptisms that was used in the Old Testament to describe the circumcision of, watch this now, not just infants but _households_. So whether or not Lydia had any small children, the continuity of the application of the covenant sign to all members of the household is starkly evident here.



So be consistent. Only apply baptism to male children. But paedos change the word "households" in the case of baptism to mean female children as well, which is discontinuity, not continuity.


----------



## blhowes

I know its just a matter of time, but I need to get back to work now. Can somebody contact me when you've reached a consensus?
Thanks,


----------



## Davidius

Calvibaptist said:


> So be consistent. Only apply baptism to male children.



Were it not for the apostolic example of baptizing women and other didactic passages such as Paul's statement that there is no longer male or female in Christ, his description of the passage through the Red Sea (by males and females) as a baptism, and Peter's description of the passage of Noah and his family through the flood as a baptism, I would.


----------



## Pilgrim

As Adam stated earlier, part of the problem is the dearth of explicit examples one way or the other in the NT, like "they then brought their infant daughter to be baptized" or "young Timothy was then baptized upon profession of his faith." 

I finally accepted the paedo arguments and joined an OPC church last year. But to this day I wonder if it's just because I couldn't find a baptistic alternative in my area. I can see the logic behind the Reformed position, but I still have doubts sometimes as to whether it is biblically warranted. With all the reading I've done pro and con on this subject, at this point, I can probably argue both sides equally well. 

In my mind at least, the following passage from Acts 2, which is often cited by paedos actually provides some challenges for paedos (see bolded sections especially). I'm not saying they have been handled, just that I haven't seen it. 



> 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
> 
> 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” *41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized;* and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
> 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. *And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.*


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Good post brother Chris.


----------



## Calvibaptist

joshua said:


> Adam, thinking along the sentiment above, if the Reformed doctrine of peadobaptism _isn't_ true, don't you think the Jewish believers of the day deserved a PLAIN and easy to see explanation as to why their children were no longer brought into covenant by virtue of their own profession?



I think 

Romans 4:16 - Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the *promise* might be sure to all *the seed,* not only to those who are of the law, but also *to those who are of the faith of Abraham,* who is the father of us all 

and

Romans 9:6-8 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are *the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.* 

and

Galatians 3:7-9 - Therefore know that *only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.* 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then *those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.*

should be sufficient. Notice that these passages deal with the blessings and promises of the Abrahamic covenant which the sign of the covenant (circumcision or baptism) would signify and seal. Notice that they are not passed down to physical descendants of anyone. Notice that they are given to those who are of the faith of Abraham.


----------



## Davidius

Calvibaptist said:


> Notice that these passages deal with the blessings and promises of the Abrahamic covenant which the sign of the covenant (circumcision or baptism) would signify and seal. Notice that they are not passed down to physical descendants of anyone. Notice that they are given to those who are of the faith of Abraham.



Are you saying that circumcision was only given to those who were of the faith of Abraham?


----------



## Philip A

Calvibaptist said:


> CH, we have been through this before and you refuse to recognize our argument. The interpretation is not from prejudice. It involves who is actually in the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31....



The reason we don't recognize your argument is the same reason that we haven't beaten our swords into plowshares, and we still separate wolves from lambs in the zoo. Its the same reason that there are still tares among the wheat, and bad fish caught up in the net with the good fish. Old Testament prophecies about the coming kingdom are all both already and not yet fulfilled; this is OT 101, and even Baptists understand it; it's a pattern that all orthodox believers understand. The reason we don't take this argument seriously is because you've yet to give us a good reason why the already/not yet principle of the kingdom applies everywhere else but here. Not to mention the other occurences of "New Covenant" prophecy that specifically include children.

Don't assume that we're ignoring the argument. In fact, if you'll go back far enough in the archives, you'll find _me_ beating all of these paedo's over the head with this passage too. I used it all the time. There's nothing wrong with what you say about the passage. The problem is the _when_ of the passage.



Calvibaptist said:


> This is the biblical reason, far from your claim of prejudice. It has everything to do with the Bible and nothing to do with prejudice.



Oh, you caught us! That's right, we paedobaptists don't really believe the bible anyway. We just blindly follow our creeds and confessions


----------



## Philip A

houseparent said:


> I always tell myself that I'm staying out of these discussions but...
> 
> To me, why would this be so difficult/veiled in scripture? Why wouldn't Christ or one of the authors of Scripture have a *PLAIN* and easy to see teaching on baptizing children?
> 
> ...
> 
> Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.



Adam,
The New Testament tells parents to disciple their children. (Eph. 6:4)
The New Testament tells the church to baptize disciples. (Matt 28:19)

It really is all that easy. We'd never need to talk about the covenant, sacraments, means of grace, and sign and substance if there weren't people questioning the doctrine.

Why in the world would any parent (particularly a Jewish parent in the time of the New Testament) _not_ think of their children an disciples? If this seems strange, veiled, or difficult to us, it's because we're two thousand years removed from that time and culture. The baggage of all of these cultural assumptions we bring to the argument is huge. The reason for all the deep theological studies, lengthly debates, and entire books, is to get us to see the situation in some way _other_ than a modern American evangelical would by default.


----------



## Calvibaptist

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Are you saying that circumcision was only given to those who were of the faith of Abraham?



No, I am saying that the New Testament sign of baptism was only given to those who believe. This is the advancing of God's plan through the New Covenant.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Philip A said:


> Oh, you caught us! That's right, we paedobaptists don't really believe the bible anyway. We just blindly follow our creeds and confessions



Actually, Philip, I was the one being accused of not using my Bible. That is why I made the comment. I was told that we credos just blindly follow our prejudice without having Scriptural support.

Honestly, sometimes in this discussion I feel like I am debating an Arminian who keeps trying to score a point by quoting John 3:16 as if I'd never read that before. I'm sure you feel that way as well. We all have our biblical reasons for our views. I certainly don't think you or anyone else blindly follows creeds or confessions.


----------



## tellville

joshua said:


> Can you name me one paedobaptist on this board who does not _also _believe in believer's baptism?



You know what I mean 

It's like the term "classical music". Sure, it can (and does technically) mean the classical era of music, but in everyday conversation when I say I listen to "classical music" people assume everything from Bach to John Williams. Just as when somebody says they believe in "Believers Baptism" in everyday conversation it is assumed to be the credobaptist position as opposed to the padeobaptist position. 

But I appreciate your attempt at clarity.


----------



## Philip A

houseparent said:


> Is it a "new" covenant? If it is, then why would there be discontiniuty? Does new mean discontiniuty? I also find it very unfair to label this "dispensational" the bogey-man word amongst us all.



It absolutely is a new covenant. No question about it. But the question is, new in comparison to what? We don't have to look very far to find out: "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke". Just to be clear, that's the Sinai covenant. Paul's whole point in arguing for justification by faith apart from the works of the law is to point out the _discontinuity_ between Moses and Abraham, and the _continuity_ between Abraham and the New Covenant. "This is what I mean: the law (Mosaic Covenant), which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant (Abrahamic) previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void."

So yes, we're under a New Covenant, and thank God for that. No sacrifices, no levitical law - yup, sounds like something new to me! But despite all of that newness, there are still some things that are the same. God putting the law in our minds and in our hearts and forgiving our iniquity are certainly _not_ new; it was that way under Moses, and it was that way under Abraham. What else about the "New Covenant" is the same as under Moses and Abraham? "Their children shall be as they were of old." (Jer 30:20)

So you'd better agree with me, or you're a dispensationalist....


----------



## Calvibaptist

Philip A said:


> Adam,
> Why in the world would any parent (particularly a Jewish parent in the time of the New Testament) _not_ think of their children an disciples? If this seems strange, veiled, or difficult to us, it's because we're two thousand years removed from that time and culture. The baggage of all of these cultural assumptions we bring to the argument is huge. The reason for all the deep theological studies, lengthly debates, and entire books, is to get us to see the situation in some way _other_ than a modern American evangelical would by default.



But this is precisely the point a lot of the New Testament epistles were making. Jewish believers were wondering why all the Jews (who supposedly were already in the covenant) were not disciples. What happened to the passing down of blessings through physical birth? Paul, in many of his letters stresses to those out of a Jewish background that the promises are not passed down to physical descendants, but to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

These parents did assume their children were automatically in the covenant. Paul corrected their assumptions by bringing faith into the argument.


----------



## KMK

CalvinandHodges said:


> I think the word "every" here [Mr. Weiland is referring to Gen 17:12,13 which says, "And every man-child of eight days old among you shall be circumcised in your generations, as well he that is born in thine house, as he that is bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thine house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised so my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant...] means "every" and not "some" for the context tells us that even slaves, and the children of slaves in the house of Abraham were to be circumcised.



I understand that the command was to circumcise *every* man child. But that means that only *some* children were actually circumcised. You say that "the children of slaves were to be circumcised." But surely you mean *some* of the children of slaves were to be circumcised.

I am still left in the dark as to how you get from *some* infants in the OT received the sign and *every* infant in the NT receives the sign. Once again, I am not attacking anyone, I am simply wanting to understand the Paedo's POV. 



> Originally posted by Me Died Blue:
> 
> One necessary clarification here from the paedo view is that baptism (or circumcision) itself does not actually bring the children of believers into the visible covenant, which they are already in from birth. Rather, the sign serves as the commanded recognition of that status by the parents and the Church.



Then why does Mr. Weiland write:



> Children in the OT were circumcised and *brought into* the Covenant when they were 8 days old.



I would agree that *some* of the children in the OT *received an external sign.*


----------



## Calvibaptist

KMK said:


> I understand that the command was to circumcise *every* man child. But that means that only *some* children were actually circumcised. You say that "the children of slaves were to be circumcised." But surely you mean *some* of the children of slaves were to be circumcised.
> 
> I am still left in the dark as to how you get from *some* infants in the OT received the sign and *every* infant in the NT receives the sign. Once again, I am not attacking anyone, I am simply wanting to understand the Paedo's POV.



I think to clarify, you are asking how some (male) becomes every (male and female).


----------



## Davidius

KMK said:


> I understand that the command was to circumcise *every* man child. But that means that only *some* children were actually circumcised. You say that "the children of slaves were to be circumcised." But surely you mean *some* of the children of slaves were to be circumcised.
> 
> I am still left in the dark as to how you get from *some* infants in the OT received the sign and *every* infant in the NT receives the sign. Once again, I am not attacking anyone, I am simply wanting to understand the Paedo's POV.


Hey Ken,

I provided a short answer to this question earlier in the thread. I'll quote it here:



> Were it not for the apostolic example of baptizing women and other didactic passages such as Paul's statement that there is no longer male or female in Christ, his description of the passage through the Red Sea (by males and females) as a baptism, and Peter's description of the passage of Noah and his family through the flood as a baptism, I would [only believe that infant males should be baptized].


----------



## aleksanderpolo

> Were it not for the apostolic example of baptizing women and other didactic passages such as Paul's statement that there is no longer male or female in Christ, his description of the passage through the Red Sea (by males and females) as a baptism, and Peter's description of the passage of Noah and his family through the flood as a baptism, I would [only believe that infant males should be baptized].





Jer 31 has been brought up repeatedly, the question is, is Jer 31 completely fulfilled now? If so, we should only baptize the elect, (know of anyone whom we are 100% sure is one of the elect?), and since not all professors of faith are elect, we shouldn't baptize any at all. We should also remove Sunday School or any classes in church (Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.)

If Jer 31 is not completely fulfilled now, then I don't see how this passage has anything to do with whether infants of believers should be baptized or not.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Josh

Pastor Doug lists why I cannot stop being a Credo, and why it seems *plainly* stated to me that baptism is indeed only for confessing believers.



> But this is precisely the point a lot of the New Testament epistles were making. Jewish believers were wondering why all the Jews (who supposedly were already in the covenant) were not disciples. What happened to the passing down of blessings through physical birth? Paul, in many of his letters stresses to those out of a Jewish background that the promises are not passed down to physical descendants, but to those who are of the faith of Abraham.
> 
> These parents did assume their children were automatically in the covenant. Paul corrected their assumptions by bringing faith into the argument.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

ChristianTrader said:


> Actually one group assumes continuity and the other assumes discontinuity just cause.
> 
> CT




Actually all groups have some discontinuity. It just depends at what level. That is one reason why theonomy is argued about so much.

Just a few points...

Circumcision was done away with, for Paul said it availed to nothing now in Galatians. 


When circumcision is spoken about it never is said to be replaced by Baptism or that would have been expounded on I am sure. Paul was very thorough in Galatians. 

God wrote through Paul, "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation" (Gal 6:15 ). Nor does He say this because is baptism the replacement for circumcision. Paul never makes this argument in Galatians (or anywhere else!) and at the meeting at Jerusalem to discuss circumcision, bapism is not so much as mentioned. Why didn't the Apostles simply say, "The Gentiles Christians don't need to be circumcised because they've already been baptized"? Because baptism and circumcision are two very different things. Circumcision was for the physical descendants of Abraham; baptism is for the spiritual descendants- those who are of faith (Gal 3:7 ).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

aleksanderpolo said:


> Jer 31 has been brought up repeatedly, the question is, is Jer 31 completely fulfilled now? If so, we should only baptize the elect, (know of anyone whom we are 100% sure is one of the elect?), and since not all professors of faith are elect, we shouldn't baptize any at all. We should also remove Sunday School or any classes in church (Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.)
> 
> If Jer 31 is not completely fulfilled now, then I don't see how this passage has anything to do with whether infants of believers should be baptized or not.




I am sorry but you are making no sense to me.


----------



## Calvibaptist

aleksanderpolo said:


> Jer 31 has been brought up repeatedly, the question is, is Jer 31 completely fulfilled now? If so, we should only baptize the elect, (know of anyone whom we are 100% sure is one of the elect?), and since not all professors of faith are elect, we shouldn't baptize any at all. We should also remove Sunday School or any classes in church (Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.)
> 
> If Jer 31 is not completely fulfilled now, then I don't see how this passage has anything to do with whether infants of believers should be baptized or not.



That's real insightful, except that Acts 2 is often brought up (as well as Genesis 17 when talking about whom circumcision (and now baptism) should have been applied to. Since Genesis 17 wasn't fulfilled at the time, why bring it into the discussion of baptism? Since Acts 2 has an "already/not yet" aspect to it, why use it to discuss baptism?

The reason is that the question involves who is actually in the covenant. Who is the covenant made with? Dispensationalists point to Jeremiah 17 and say, "See, physical Israel is who the New Covenant is made with so there has to be a fulfillment of land promises to them." We all rightly point out that Paul says that physical Israel was never in view, but Spiritual Israel, those who are of faith. Why do paedos suddenly want to then ignore that passage when dealing with the sign of the covenant when they slobber all over it when arguing against Dispensationalists?

BTW, I did not see anyone discuss my point that, according to Galatians 3, all the promises to the seed are found in Christ and that, therefore, the blessings (and the sign) are only to those found in Christ.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> houseparent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Josh
> 
> Pastor Doug lists why I cannot stop being a Credo, and why it seems *plainly* stated to me that baptism is indeed only for confessing believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this is precisely the point a lot of the New Testament epistles were making. Jewish believers were wondering why all the Jews (who supposedly were already in the covenant) were not disciples. What happened to the passing down of blessings through physical birth? Paul, in many of his letters stresses to those out of a Jewish background that the promises are not passed down to physical descendants, but to those who are of the faith of Abraham.
Click to expand...


If someone made this statement to Abraham, what would he have said? He would probably make mention of Ishmael.



> These parents did assume their children were automatically in the covenant. Paul corrected their assumptions by bringing faith into the argument.



Since one has always been able to be in the covenant and then show themselves to be unregenerate, how is this a counter to the old way?

CT


----------



## ReformedWretch

CT, you're going to have to clarify this-



> If someone made this statement to Abraham, what would he have said? He would probably make mention of Ishmael.


----------



## Davidius

Calvibaptist said:


> BTW, I did not see anyone discuss my point that, according to Galatians 3, all the promises to the seed are found in Christ and that, therefore, the blessings (and the sign) are only to those found in Christ.



What Paul said in Galatians 3 wasn't anything new, unless you're a dispensationalist (which it seems like you may still be, at least a little bit, according to your profile info). Therefore, if your interpretation is true, then it was wrong for believers in the Old Testament to circumcise their children, because many of them didn't have the blessings of Christ (see Hermonta's statement about Abraham, who gave his son Ishmael the sign of God's covenant even after being told that Ishmael _wasn't_ going to make the covenant with him.).

Perhaps no one answered it before because we assume around here that dispensationalism isn't an acceptable Reformed hermeneutic. If salvation in the OT is the same as in the NT, then Paul's discussion of spiritual blessings and who gets them has nothing to do with water baptism. It's nothing more than a rebuke of those who think they are entitled to something because of a sacrament.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Again, this argument wins me over completely!



> Dispensationalists point to Jeremiah 17 and say, "See, physical Israel is who the New Covenant is made with so there has to be a fulfillment of land promises to them." We all rightly point out that Paul says that physical Israel was never in view, but Spiritual Israel, those who are of faith. Why do paedos suddenly want to then ignore that passage when dealing with the sign of the covenant when they slobber all over it when arguing against Dispensationalists?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

ChristianTrader said:


> If someone made this statement to Abraham, what would he have said? He would probably make mention of Ishmael.
> 
> 
> CT



He would indeed, because God had just told him that Ishmael was very firmly out of His covenant.
'And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. "' 
Gen 17:18-19 (NKJV)


----------



## ReformedWretch

Can I make a request that *EVERYONE* stop calling *ANYONE* dispensational please?


----------



## ReformedWretch

puritancovenanter said:


> He would indeed, because God had just told him that Ishmael was very firmly out of His covenant.
> 'And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. "'
> Gen 17:18-19 (NKJV)



Exactly, that's why I asked for clarification. What's the point?


----------



## Davidius

houseparent said:


> Can I make a request that *EVERYONE* stop calling *ANYONE* dispensational please?



When people quit acting like salvation sola gratia, solo christo, sola fide is something that Paul introduced in the New Testament to get people not to baptize their infants, I'll stop calling them dispensationalists.


----------



## ReformedWretch

David, I asked everyone stop this (it was several others) and the only qualifier I would place on ignoring that request was if the person it is being said to was *CLEARLY* dispensational in word and deed. We certainly don't want to call someone dispensational who says they are not! It's no different than those who call us all replacement theologians.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

> The reason is that the question involves who is actually in the covenant. Who is the covenant made with



Of course that is the question. Let me ask you then: Are you in the new covenant? Are you 100% sure you are one of the elect? If so, how? If no, then why were you baptized given that you use the "we are not sure if infant are in the New Covenant or not" argument to deny them the covenant sign?


----------



## ReformedWretch

I am going to fall back to Randy's argument that baptism and circumcision are two different things.  This stuff about knowing or not knowing who the elect are seems dangerous to me. I don't see either side claiming this though I do see it too often used as a way to discredit one side or another.


----------



## ChristianTrader

houseparent said:


> CT, you're going to have to clarify this-



The statement that I responded to, implied that the people were in shock because people had the covenant sign and were not "acting right". My Abraham comment was meant to say that such things should not be a complete shock to the system. Such actions have happened since the beginning of the covenant.

CT


----------



## KMK

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Hey Ken,
> 
> I provided a short answer to this question earlier in the thread. I'll quote it here:



Sorry David. As is usual in the Baptism Forum things move so rapidly that I don't have the time to keep up. By the time I get on again there will probably be another 40 replies that I will have to sort through and my question will never get answered.

Is this, then, the Paedo view: 

OT male infants were required to be *physically* circumcised as a sign of Abraham's covenant. Even though only *some* of the OT infants were *physically* circumcised, the Bible teaches that *all* infants were *spiritually* circumcised when Isreal passed through the Red Sea. Therefore, *all* infants of at least one beleiving parent must be *physically* baptized.

If that is not the Paedo view, please correct me as I truly desire to understand what it is.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Ah, ok. My daughter has the covenant sign and doesn't "act" like it, so I am not shocked by it sadly.


----------



## ChristianTrader

houseparent said:


> I am going to fall back to Randy's argument that baptism and circumcision are two different things.  This stuff about knowing or not knowing who the elect are seems dangerous to me. I don't see either side claiming this though I do see it too often used as a way to discredit one side or another.



Yeah, they are different. One gets you wet and one gets you bloody. 

CT


----------



## ReformedWretch

lol


----------



## Davidius

KMK said:


> Sorry David. As is usual in the Baptism Forum things move so rapidly that I don't have the time to keep up. By the time I get on again there will probably be another 40 replies that I will have to sort through and my question will never get answered.
> 
> Is this, then, the Paedo view:
> 
> OT male infants were required to be *physically* circumcised as a sign of Abraham's covenant. Even though only *some* of the OT infants were *physically* circumcised, the Bible teaches that *all* infants were *spiritually* circumcised when Isreal passed through the Red Sea. Therefore, *all* infants of at least one beleiving parent must be *physically* baptized.
> 
> If that is not the Paedo view, please correct me as I truly desire to understand what it is.



I think you're on the right track. But I wasn't meaning to say that all of the Israelites were spiritually circumcised, which would mean that they were regenerated. Paul and Peter just use huge redemptive-historical events from the Old Testament to give us a better understanding of what water baptism symbolizes (passing through the Red Sea being the escape from slavery and the passing through the flood by Noah and his family being a picture of escaping judgment). I was just trying to show that Baptism isn't entirely new to the New Testament. Infants were included in both of these groups that the apostles used to help describe water baptism. The main point I'm trying to show is that the differentiation between the sign and the thing signified has always existed, first with circumcision and even now with Baptism. Not everyone who is baptized has the benefits that baptism signifies, just like not everyone who was circumcised had the benefits that circumcision signified (which were basically the same as baptism, unless, again, you're dispensational). I have to go to work but if you have any more questions I'll try to answer them when I return.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just to make a point we credo's do believe physical circumcision is a shadow and is fulfiled in the one made without hands. It proceeds faith. Faith and repentance lead us as Children of Abraham to the sign of the New Covenant which is Baptism. 

Circumcision was placed upon Abrahams decendents for two purposes. One was National and the other was spiritual. Not all shared in the spiritual as exhibited in Ishmael. Stephen makes a statement concerning the Covenant of Circumcision in Acts. Nehemiah Coxe shows us in his book 'CT From Adam to Christ', that not all who partook in the Covenant of Grace where necessarily circumcised during or after Abrahams encounter with God. And not all who were in the Covenant of Circumcision were necessarily in the Covenant of Grace. Although it was a sign to Abraham's righteousness it wasn't necessarily meant to be a sign of righteousness for his decendents like baptism is a sign signifying one is forgiven of sin and found in Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One more thing the 1 Corinthians 10 passage is not about New Covenant baptism but about wickedness and God's displeasure in it. It is mentioned as an example so that we do not become like those who displeased God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Reformed Baptist said:


> "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."—Romans 6:3-4.
> 
> I am a simple Christian, and consider the spiritual sense of the passage with a higher esteem than the external sign. As Spurgeon commented, "May God the Holy Spirit help us to reach its inner teaching."
> 
> Taking this passage, and reading it, we cannot take the Apostle to be speaking of anyone but of proper persons. He must not be speaking of unbelievers, hypocrites, or decievers. The Apostle says, "so many of us" putting himself into the grouping which I cannot imagine to be anything but the children of God.


Geoff,

I acknowledged that the passage clearly demonstrates that Baptism is a sign of Union with Christ. Did you miss that part?



> Baptism then is the representation of the believer's union with Christ, in His death, burial, and ressurection. It is also our realized union with Christ. Baptism doesn't not merely represent our profession or creed. Hypocrites may have words only. It represents the true spiritual reality that we have died with Him, been buried with Him, and have been raised with Him.


Really? So everyone who is baptized is united to Christ? Is that your argument?



> Where in the world do we rightly bury those who are alive? How is it that some suppose it is right to bury in Baptism those we know who are not dead in Christ? Even in our Baptist churches we will not baptism one who shows no sign of repentance and faith.


Who "buries in Baptism" in the passage Geoff? You are making an improper inference to the text. The parallel is found in Romans is our union with Christ in His death and resurrection. It does not refer to mode but is part of our being foreknown, elected, called, ....



> I imagine that I will not be able to presuade your mind in regards to baptism. I already read in your words the daggers of debate. If we are both born again children of God let's not sit accross the table from one another and throw things, giving the appearance of enmity.


I was answering your post. You led with a facile quote that essentially quoted a text about the elect and a quote from Spurgeon that essentially read: "Golly! How could anybody be so stupid as to think babies are included in this?" I responded with a challenge to you to exegete the passage. You have thus far not done so. Let's not get into contests about Godliness here. Love rejoices with the Truth. I have answered you forthrightly, providing an interpretation of the passage. You have not demonstrated how a passage about the elect either excludes or includes infants nor how it, in the context, refers to mode. I know how you're inferring it but your inference does not make it so.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Calvibaptist said:


> CH, we have been through this before and you refuse to recognize our argument. The interpretation is not from prejudice. It involves who is actually in the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31.
> 
> Jeremiah 31:31-34 - Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
> 
> Pay close attention. The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, which is described in the New Testament by Paul in Romans and Galatians as all those who are "of the faith of Abraham."
> 
> The actions of God on those in the New Covenant are as follows:
> 
> 1) He will put His law in their minds
> 2) He will put His law in their hearts
> 3) He will be their God and they His people
> 4) He will cause them all to know Him
> 5) He will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more
> 
> NOW, the reason why credo-baptists believe that only those who have at least professed faith in Christ should be baptized has to do with who the covenant is made with. The sign of the covenant can only be placed on those who are in covenant - those who are of the faith of Abraham and have had the actions of God (according to the terms of the covenant in Jeremiah 31) done to them. This is simply not true of infants and young children, as well as adults who continue in unbelief.
> 
> This is the biblical reason, far from your claim of prejudice. It has everything to do with the Bible and nothing to do with prejudice.



I'll bite without prejudicing your position.

Let me logically follow your premises:

1. The New Covenant consists of the elect alone (those who are of the faith of Abraham)
2. The sign of the New Covenant (baptism) should thus be placed on those who have the faith of Abraham (the elect)

Am I good so far? Let me continue:

3. The elect are known by God alone.

Conclusion: Nobody should be baptized.

Now, you wish to modify. At this point you are going to shift the argument subtlely. You realize that you cannot baptize on the basis of election because you know that the Church consists of false and true professors. Even Judas received Christian baptism (under the authority of Christ nonetheless!).

Thus, you will argue that professors ought to be baptized.

Question: Does profession=regeneration?

If not, then what does the nature of the New Covenant being made with the Elect alone have to do with the decision on who you baptize?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Calvibaptist said:


> I think
> 
> Romans 4:16 - Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the *promise* might be sure to all *the seed,* not only to those who are of the law, but also *to those who are of the faith of Abraham,* who is the father of us all
> 
> and
> 
> Romans 9:6-8 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are *the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.*
> 
> and
> 
> Galatians 3:7-9 - Therefore know that *only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.* 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then *those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.*
> 
> should be sufficient. Notice that these passages deal with the blessings and promises of the Abrahamic covenant which the sign of the covenant (circumcision or baptism) would signify and seal. Notice that they are not passed down to physical descendants of anyone. Notice that they are given to those who are of the faith of Abraham.



Since you state that this has not been interacted with, I will do so.

If you read Galatians 3, you will note that the very point that Paul is making, with respect to the Abrahamic Promise, is that the Law never annulled that promise. In fact, Abraham's Promise is clearly signified as fulfilled by Christ in Galatians and Romans. This is why Abraham is said to have believed the Gospel.

When you say: "Notice how they are not passed down to physical descendants of anyone...."

Really? Isaac, Israel, Moses, David, Elijah, .... Were they not physical descendants of Abraham? You seem to think that spiritual descendancy _excludes_ that physical descendancy can occur. Why were the Proverbs written if there was not some expectation for parents to train children in the hopes that they would follow in the faith? Why do children of believers become believers in far greater numbers? Ought we not see a somewhat random spread of new believers among the heathen and the Churched if election is so indeterminate? When polled, 80% of Baptists on this board acknowledged that 100% of the kids of Reformed Baptists in their Churches eventually get baptized.

Now, you won't get an argument from me that physical descendancy is not a _guarantee_ of faith. Read Galatians 3 again, though. The example Paul uses is of Abraham and his promise. He points out the fact that the Law, which the Judaizers are trying to identify with, is not the promise but the Gospel is. The Gentiles have received the inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed. His promise preceded and was not (nor could not) be revoked by the Law that came 400 years later.

Thus, Romans 4 makes the point that we are heirs to the promise of Abraham. He received the same Promise that we do. He received a sign in his flesh that signifies the same Promise we've been given. This is why he's a present example for us and not merely some figure that started some sort of "physical only" plan. In fact, to denigrate circumcision to that level is extremely impious in light of Galatians 3 and Romans 4.

And who was he commanded to place that sign upon?

His children. Not because they were elect but because of a command and a Promise. A Promise not of election but of salvation to those who had faith.

Ishmael is therefore a picture of unbelieving Judaizers and the persecution of those of faith because He was circumcised with a sign of the Gospel and he rejected the Promise in his flesh and chose to rely on the flesh instead of believing in faith.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Since you state that this has not been
> 
> And who was he commanded to place that sign upon?
> 
> His children. Not because they were elect but because of a command and a Promise. A Promise not of election but of salvation to those who had faith.



The sign didn't signify the same thing for his children necessarily. But it was a sign of a covenant that had national promises also that were not necessarily spiritual promises. Some of the promises to Abraham and his seed (not the seed which is Christ) were outside of the Everlasting Covenant as Abraham and Ishmael found out. Baptism in the New Testament is a picture of one who is buried in Christ and forgiven of sin. That is not necessarily so with the Covenant of Circumcision.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

puritancovenanter said:


> The sign didn't signify the same thing for his children necessarily. But it was a sign of a covenant that had national promises also that were not necessarily spiritual promises. Some of the promises to Abraham and his seed (not the seed which is Christ) were outside of the Everlasting Covenant as Abraham and Ishmael found out. Baptism in the New Testament is a picture of one who is buried in Christ and forgiven of sin. That is not necessarily so with the Covenant of Circumcision.



I respectfully disagree. That is something you're reading into Romans 4 but is not in the passage itself. You have to understand that, from my perspective, I see your pre-suppositions as forcing you to make Paul say much more than he does in Romans 4. My Confessional understanding of the passage is different and doesn't require me to read anything into it at all. In Romans 4, the passage says that circumcision is a sign of the faith that Abraham had while still uncircumcised. In the context of the passage, all the baggage about it being a National and physical symbol is completely a-contextual. In fact, Romans 4 is laboring the fact that Abraham had nothing to boast in as far as the flesh goes, which is why he is introduced as _our_ example. By importing the rest into the passage you would completely wreck the point that Paul is making. He would be better served to leave circumcision out of the example as it is fleshly in your understanding.


----------



## Calvibaptist

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> What Paul said in Galatians 3 wasn't anything new, unless you're a dispensationalist (which it seems like you may still be, at least a little bit, according to your profile info).



Just for the record, I am not a dispensationalist. I used to be, but reject the main tenets of dispensationalism, such as a differentiation between Israel and the Church, discontinuity between the covenants, different salvation in OT/NT (which they don't hold any more), and rapture of church.

Someone calling me a dispensationalist is like me calling everyone else unregenerate because they used to be.



> Therefore, if your interpretation is true, then it was wrong for believers in the Old Testament to circumcise their children, because many of them didn't have the blessings of Christ (see Hermonta's statement about Abraham, who gave his son Ishmael the sign of God's covenant even after being told that Ishmael _wasn't_ going to make the covenant with him.).



So, Abraham disobeyed God by giving Ishmael a covenant sign? God told Abraham to circumcise all his children (even the ones that were not in covenant with him) and he obeyed. It was not wrong because it was obedience.



> Perhaps no one answered it before because we assume around here that dispensationalism isn't an acceptable Reformed hermeneutic. If salvation in the OT is the same as in the NT, then Paul's discussion of spiritual blessings and who gets them has nothing to do with water baptism. It's nothing more than a rebuke of those who think they are entitled to something because of a sacrament.



Of course salvation in the OT is the same as in the NT. Dispensationalists were ridiculous for arguing anything different. My question did not concern "spiritual blessings." My question concerned who was in the covenant, which is what the verses I quoted referred to. The covenant sign, in this case baptism, should only be given to those who are in the covenant.

Baptists use some of the same requirements (profession of faith) to administer the covenant sign of baptism that you use to administer the covenant sign of communion. Why do you not allow unbelievers to partake of communion if it is a covenant sign? How do you know that every one who is partaking of communion is truly elect? We believe that the requirement for a profession of faith is involved in the covenant sign of baptism as well as the covenant sign of communion.

This is not dispensational. It is covenantal.


----------



## Calvibaptist

SemperFideles said:


> I'll bite without prejudicing your position.
> 
> Let me logically follow your premises:
> 
> 1. The New Covenant consists of the elect alone (those who are of the faith of Abraham)
> 2. The sign of the New Covenant (baptism) should thus be placed on those who have the faith of Abraham (the elect)
> 
> Am I good so far? Let me continue:
> 
> 3. The elect are known by God alone.
> 
> Conclusion: Nobody should be baptized.
> 
> Now, you wish to modify. At this point you are going to shift the argument subtlely. You realize that you cannot baptize on the basis of election because you know that the Church consists of false and true professors. Even Judas received Christian baptism (under the authority of Christ nonetheless!).
> 
> Thus, you will argue that professors ought to be baptized.
> 
> Question: Does profession=regeneration?
> 
> If not, then what does the nature of the New Covenant being made with the Elect alone have to do with the decision on who you baptize?



Apply the same logic to fencing the table in communion. No one should take communion because we don't know who is really regenerate. But we (and you) take their profession (and evidence of fruit) to be enough to apply the covenant sign of communion to them. We do the same with Baptism and, therefore, believe that we are baptizing fewer people who are not in covenant with God than you are.


----------



## Calvibaptist

At this point, I am going to back out of the discussion because it is going nowhere, as usual. But I will continue to read and learn

BTW, this thread is one of the reasons why I enjoy this board so much. I have been on other boards where the discussion was anything but deep. That is not the case here.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> I respectfully disagree. That is something you're reading into Romans 4 but is not in the passage itself. You have to understand that, from my perspective, I see your pre-suppositions as forcing you to make Paul say much more than he does in Romans 4. My Confessional understanding of the passage is different and doesn't require me to read anything into it at all. In Romans 4, the passage says that circumcision is a sign of the faith that Abraham had while still uncircumcised. In the context of the passage, all the baggage about it being a National and physical symbol is completely a-contextual. In fact, Romans 4 is laboring the fact that Abraham had nothing to boast in as far as the flesh goes, which is why he is introduced as _our_ example. By importing the rest into the passage you would completely wreck the point that Paul is making. He would be better served to leave circumcision out of the example as it is fleshly in your understanding.



I think you are not understanding my point. I agree with you concerning the fact that it was a sign and seal to Abraham concerning his righteousness. That I totally agree with. I am just not convinced it meant the same thing for everyone who was circumcised after him. Case in point it didn't mean the same thing for Ishmael or anyone who was not a member of the Covenant of Grace after him. Plus I don't see Romans 4 being a complete exegesis of what circumcision was. There is no mention of those who would be cut off if they did not receive this sign of the Covenant of Circumcision who where his decendants.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Calvibaptist said:


> Apply the same logic to fencing the table in communion. No one should take communion because we don't know who is really regenerate. But we (and you) take their profession (and evidence of fruit) to be enough to apply the covenant sign of communion to them. We do the same with Baptism and, therefore, believe that we are baptizing fewer people who are not in covenant with God than you are.



This would only apply if I believed that the command to elders was to distribute the Lord's Supper to the elect alone. That _is_ your assertion but it is not mine in the Confession.

Further, if you notice what you have done, you have really changed the grounds for Baptism at this point. You're not baptizing on the basis of election but on the basis that "...we are baptizing fewer people who are not in covenant with God than you are...."

Really? How do you know? As I noted earlier, almost all Baptists responded that 100% of the kids in their Churches eventually get baptized.

How do you know that a single person, beside yourself, is in the Covenant?

Where is the Scripture passage that states: "The New Covenant is with the elect, therefore baptize on profession because the goal is to baptize fewer people who are not in covenant with God...." This logic seems right to you but it is extra-Biblical reasoning at that point.

I'm really not trying to be mean. This is meant to challenge you guys to think this thing through a bit. The point I'm making is that the argument on the perfection of the New Covenant doesn't really get you anywhere in the Baptism question because, in the end, you're forced to turn to some other method to determine who to baptize. Profession does not equal election and there is no argument in the Word that says that baptism of adult professors is performed on the basis that they are more likely elect. The basis is that they desire to be disciples.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

puritancovenanter said:


> I think you are not understanding my point. I agree with you concerning the fact that it was a sign and seal to Abraham concerning his righteousness. That I totally agree with. I am just not convinced it meant the same thing for everyone who was circumcised after him. Case in point it didn't mean the same thing for Ishmael or anyone who was not a member of the Covenant of Grace after him.



I do understand you and I disagree. Paul didn't say that circumcision was a sign just to Abraham. And, again, it would not fit the context of Romans 4 to introduce a sign that was only spiritual to Abraham but then physical to everyone else after him. It also doesn't do justice either to the nature of Covenants made. It's like saying that the Covenant of Works meant one thing to Adam but didn't mean the same thing to us.

I'm not trying to be pugilistic for the sake of it but we profoundly disagree on this point on the nature of the sign. Remember, Paul has every right to provide the fullest revelation of what a thing signified. You cannot go back to earlier passages in the OT and try to use that as a basis to de-Spiritualize the Gospel significance of the sign. Even if you do, the OT is pregnant with the idea that circumcision is _not_ fundamentally something that is primarily physical and National.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> I do understand you and I disagree. Paul didn't say that circumcision was a sign just to Abraham. And, again, it would not fit the context of Romans 4 to introduce a sign that was only spiritual to Abraham but then physical to everyone else after him. It also doesn't do justice either to the nature of Covenants made. It's like saying that the Covenant of Works meant one thing to Adam but didn't mean the same thing to us.
> 
> I'm not trying to be pugilistic for the sake of it but we profoundly disagree on this point on the nature of the sign. Remember, Paul has every right to provide the fullest revelation of what a thing signified. You cannot go back to earlier passages in the OT and try to use that as a basis to de-Spiritualize the Gospel significance of the sign. Even if you do, the OT is pregnant with the idea that circumcision is _not_ fundamentally something that is primarily physical and National.



First off I do believe the sign was spiritual to others beside Abraham. It wasn't for everyone who was descended from Abraham. I also believe the COW is found in Abraham as there is a curse in it of being cut off. That is different for the New Covenant Member according to Jeremiah 31. The Everlasting Covenant promised in Isaac is the Covenant of Grace. The signification of righteousness passes on to one and not to the other. 

And I don't think you are being pugilistic. I think we are discussing this so we can understand each other. Note that Romans 4 speaks of those who are not of the circumcision who will be and are children of Abraham. The significance moves to what justifies... faith. That is what Romans 4 is discussing. Nothing more and nothing less.

Plus I don't see Romans 4 being a complete exegesis of what circumcision was. There is no mention of those who would be cut off if they did not receive this sign of the Covenant of Circumcision who where his decendants.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Time for a beer and hit on the old bowl.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

puritancovenanter said:


> First off I do believe the sign was spiritual to others beside Abraham. It wasn't for everyone who was descended from Abraham. I also believe the COW is found in Abraham as there is a curse in it of being cut off. That is different for the New Covenant Member according to Jeremiah 31. The Everlasting Covenant promised in Isaac is the Covenant of Grace. The signification of righteousness passes on to one and not to the other.


When the Abrahamic promise is introduced, it is introduced as Promise. I think where you and I see things differently is that you are conflating Circumcision with Sinai. I believe this is a profound error. God's promise to Abraham was unequivocal and eternal - He promised to accomplish it Himself and He did so through His Son. Paul labors the point, in repudiation of the Judaizers, that the Law was _added_ but never annulled the Promise.



> And I don't think you are being pugilistic. I think we are discussing this so we can understand each other. Note that Romans 4 speaks of those who are not of the circumcision who will be and are children of Abraham. The significance moves to what justifies... faith. That is what Romans 4 is discussing. Nothing more and nothing less.


Right, I don't disagree. Nevertheless, in the context, Abraham is introduced as a defeater to the notion that anyone has anything to boast of in the flesh - including circumcision itself which is revealed as a sign of the promise by Paul.



> Plus I don't see Romans 4 being a complete exegesis of what circumcision was. There is no mention of those who would be cut off if they did not receive this sign of the Covenant of Circumcision who where his decendants.


That's not the point, though. It is the revelation of the _prime_ significance of the sacrament. I'm not arguing that we ought to ignore other passages about such things but we cannot overthrow the point that Paul makes concerning the nature of the Promise. I think part of the problem I've seen, again, is that people conflate Abraham's circumcision with Sinai. If you keep them distinct, as Galatians 3 does then you can more clearly see how Paul is condemning the Judaizers misapprehension of the thing. This is why circumcision means nothing if you're a Judaizer but it means everything if you're Abraham!


----------



## KMK

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I think you're on the right track. But I wasn't meaning to say that all of the Israelites were spiritually circumcised, which would mean that they were regenerated. Paul and Peter just use huge redemptive-historical events from the Old Testament to give us a better understanding of what water baptism symbolizes (passing through the Red Sea being the escape from slavery and the passing through the flood by Noah and his family being a picture of escaping judgment). I was just trying to show that Baptism isn't entirely new to the New Testament. Infants were included in both of these groups that the apostles used to help describe water baptism. The main point I'm trying to show is that the differentiation between the sign and the thing signified has always existed, first with circumcision and even now with Baptism. Not everyone who is baptized has the benefits that baptism signifies, just like not everyone who was circumcised had the benefits that circumcision signified (which were basically the same as baptism, unless, again, you're dispensational). I have to go to work but if you have any more questions I'll try to answer them when I return.



 RBAY (Right back at ya')

What I hear you saying is this: the Paedo view is that even though only *some* infants received the external sign, *all* were part of the covenant of Abraham. (Where is this taught in the Bible, BTW?)

And from this the paedo view is that it naturally follows that *all* infants should receive the external sign of *something*. (Not sure if the paedo sees that something as an external or inward covenant)

But, if this is the Paedo view, (and if I am missing something please show me what it is) then why wouldn't it be OK to only baptize *some* infants in the NT? Why must it be *all*?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

puritancovenanter said:


> First off I do believe the sign was spiritual to others beside Abraham. It wasn't for everyone who was descended from Abraham.


Let me say one more thing with respect to this and then I need to jet to lunch and then to teach a class.

In the way you say this, you seem to think that a sign changes its significance based on the recipient. This is the key difference between our understanding of baptism as well. The reason our Confession sees Baptism and Circumcision as _essentially_ (that is in their substance) to point to the same thing is that the significance of the Sacraments is in _the Promise_ and NOT the recipient.

Let me re-state that in case it is not clear. What most need to get over is the idea that if two men get circumcized and one is reprobate and the other elect that circumcision signifies something different for the one and not the other. The person's faith, or lack thereof, did not _add_ or _subtract_ from the significance but, rather, one laid hold of the promise while the other did not.

The significance, then, is not inside of us but outside of us - for baptism and circumcision.

Somebody asked me once: "But what did circumcision signify for the Pharisee?" Read Galatians 3 again after I've said this.

Circumcision signified to the Pharisee that those who put their faith in the Gospel will be saved. That Gospel was obscured but some laide hold of it and some didn't. What it _didn't_ ever signify (which is what Paul is laboring in Galatians 3) is that those who obey the Law will be saved and those that don't will be cursed. This understanding of the Law is condemned as missing the entire point of the sign.

Thus, I maintain, that God ordained the sign of circumcision. The significance was, fundamentally, something _extra nos_ and, therefore, the significance was the same for everyone who received it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let me ask you a question Rich. In Genesis 17 does God establish his Everlasting Covenant with Ishmael whom Abraham petitioned God for? Does God make promises to Abraham (outside of this everlasting Covenant that is in Isaac) within the covenant of circumcision that allowed Ismael to live with Abraham and be blessed that didn't pertain to the Everlasting Covenant that Ismael was not a part of? I didn't mix Sinia with Abraham. I was mentioning Genesis 17:14 concerning being cut off as opposed to an unconditional covenant which we find in the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant. By circumcision one was permitted to dwell with Abraham even if he was not a descedant of his. Circumcision had promises of land and inhabitation of the land that were not necessarily spiritual. The promises of inhabitation of the land and prosperity did not necessarily grant any spiritual inclusion except that God was God over the people, unrighteous and righteous alike. Baptism is no where spoken of like this. It is always spoken of in a way that points to the forgiveness of sin and union with Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Somebody asked me once: "But what did circumcision signify for the Pharisee?" Read Galatians 3 again after I've said this.
> 
> Circumcision signified to the Pharisee that those who put their faith in the Gospel will be saved. That Gospel was obscured but some laide hold of it and some didn't. What it _didn't_ ever signify (which is what Paul is laboring in Galatians 3) is that those who obey the Law will be saved and those that don't will be cursed. This understanding of the Law is condemned as missing the entire point of the sign.
> 
> Thus, I maintain, that God ordained the sign of circumcision. The significance was, fundamentally, something _extra nos_ and, therefore, the significance was the same for everyone who received it.



I think you need to read Galatians 3, 4 and 5 together to get a more complete picture. Ishmael is called sinai. Was he not a part of the Covenant of Circumcision? 

I am tired and it is late here now. Be Encouraged Brother.....


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

In an earlier post I said I thought there were the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works in Abraham. It appears I might be correct.

(Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

(Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

(Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

This may not be correct though since it mentions Sinai and not the pre fall covenant. But there are two covenants in Abraham.


----------



## tellville

I love these Baptism threads. I eat up every one!


----------



## Herald

tellville said:


> I love these Baptism threads. I eat up every one!




Just make sure they don't eat YOU up!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

puritancovenanter said:


> Let me ask you a question Rich. In Genesis 17 does God establish his Everlasting Covenant with Ishmael whom Abraham petitioned God for? Does God make promises to Abraham (outside of this everlasting Covenant that is in Isaac) within the covenant of circumcision that allowed Ismael to live with Abraham and be blessed that didn't pertain to the Everlasting Covenant that Ismael was not a part of? I didn't mix Sinia with Abraham. I was mentioning Genesis 17:14 concerning being cut off as opposed to an unconditional covenant which we find in the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant. By circumcision one was permitted to dwell with Abraham even if he was not a descedant of his. Circumcision had promises of land and inhabitation of the land that were not necessarily spiritual. The promises of inhabitation of the land and prosperity did not necessarily grant any spiritual inclusion except that God was God over the people, unrighteous and righteous alike. Baptism is no where spoken of like this. It is always spoken of in a way that points to the forgiveness of sin and union with Christ.


Again, you are ignoring, though, the significance of the Promise. You're conflating God's elective decree and God's knowledge of Ishmael's future with Abraham's Promise. I'm not arguing that Ishmael was ever united to Christ in circumcision. That may be what you think I'm saying but I am not. Union with Christ, in circumcision and baptism, was effected by the elective purposes of God. It was invisible to Abraham for all intents and purposes. You act as if Abraham knew, when Ishmael was circumcised, that God intended to cut Him off eternally. You act as if Abraham understood that this sign was intended to be bifurcated. I completely disagree. God never instituted a sign to say that "...it's OK if you don't believe in me, this is just a physical thing after all..." That idea is completely repugnant to the entire OT that anyone circumcised would just blow off belief.

Thus, Ishmael, when circumcised received the sign that signified the exact same thing, outside of himself, that it signified to Isaac: that God would save all who believed upon Him. God never twisted Ishmael's arm and caused him to reject the promise. We know that God passed over Him but that doesn't mean that somehow Ishmael never had a responsibility to believe. That he can be used as an allegory for unbelieving Israel proves this very point.

Again, you think the sign changes on the basis of unbelief. I'm not even sure how an Old Covenant believer was supposed to lay hold of the Promise according to the schema you've presented. Was he supposed to respond in faith or was he to wonder if he was one of those guys whose circumcision just represented a physical blessing but nothing more. I'm curious, as well, where you build such a National covenant schema from the text of Scripture because God repeatedly condemns for unbelief and never gives a pass to the circumcised as just being bound nationally.



puritancovenanter said:


> I think you need to read Galatians 3, 4 and 5 together to get a more complete picture. Ishmael is called sinai. Was he not a part of the Covenant of Circumcision?
> 
> I am tired and it is late here now. Be Encouraged Brother.....


Middle of the day here. Hope you have a good sleep.

I have read them carefully and, thus, I'm quite aware of how you are mishandling them here. Yes, Ishmael is called Sinai in this text. Interesting, isn't it, that Judaizers _INSIDE THE VISIBLE CHURCH, BAPTIZED INTO THE CHURCH_ are compared to Ishmael! How can that be? How can those who are in the New Covenant Church, troubling the other believers be compared to a man you say had no status in the community of faith?

The point Paul labors, and I will labor again, in Galatians 3 (please read it again for yourself) is that the promise to Abraham was fulfilled by the New Covenant. It was not set aside by the Old Covenant. In fact, Abraham is said to have embraced the Gospel and, from afar off, received the same benefits we did. This is why, in Romans 4, he is a _present_ and not merely a past example.

The point why Ishmael is a perfect example is because he has a sign in his flesh and could have laid hold of the promise made to Abraham. His inability to do so as an unregenerate person doesn't excuse him for his unbelief and his mockery of his little brother. He trusted in the strength of his flesh and is therefore completely appropriate to use as an example of New Covenant members who are trying to fall back on the flesh and are not embracing Abraham's God in faith.

Your scheme, frankly, would remove the whole obligation both of Ishmael to respond in faith as well as the Judaizers to do the same because, after all, _for them_ circumcision (or baptism for the Judaizers) doesn't signify *anything* that they have to lay hold of. It doesn't signify anything for them because you tie the significance of the sign to the disposition of the believer and not to the Promise of God.



puritancovenanter said:


> In an earlier post I said I thought there were the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works in Abraham. It appears I might be correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may not be correct though since it mentions Sinai and not the pre fall covenant. But there are two covenants in Abraham.
Click to expand...


No, there are not two Covenants in Abraham. This is a mis-interpretation of the text. It is an allegory that fits the trust in the flesh and, especially in the case of Galatians, to show how similar the rebellion and pride of Ishmael is to the Judiazers. Nevertheless, Sinai is _not_ the Covenant of Works. In fact, were you to read Paul more carefully in Galatians, it is added to the Abrahamic Promise for a gracious purpose. It had a redemptive purpose. I agree with some theologians that see a CoW aspect to Sinai but to call it a CoW and, by extension, to say that Abraham had two Covenants is a-textual especially since he made the point just a couple of chapters earlier that what was promised to Abraham was not annulled by something that came 400 years later. It would make Paul schizophrenic. This is why he emphasizes that his point is allegorical - Ishmael is an object lesson: his teasing of Isaac is a picture of the Judaizers persecuting the Gentile believers.

Again, if everything you are saying is true about the primary nature of circumcision regarding a bifurcated nature (signifies something different based on the person), then it is missing in both the penultimate treatments of it in Romans and Galatians and it destroys the point Paul labors in Romans 4 where he would introduce a mixed sign that, in part, signifies trust in the flesh.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

We now have a 2nd verse that is appealed to by the credo-baptists. And, again, the error in their interpretation can be clearly manifested. They appeal to Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8-10 and the perfection of the New Covenant.

I could, for example, use the CB argument found in Matthew 19 and point out that neither of the passages they are citing here refers to Baptism at all. Baptism is not in view in either Jeremiah 31 or in Hebrews chps. 8-10.

The end of chapter 8 is a quotation from Jer. 31.

Chapter 9 deals with the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law.

Chapter 10 contains dire warnings against those who break the New Covenant. Oops! but we are told, by the Baptists, that the New Covenant is unbreakable - again a rationialization they infer rather than an actual citation from Scripture.

They cannot produce one passage in Scripture that clearly teaches "Believers only." Yet, they joke among themselves about how "Biblical" they are? Curious. The terms "proud" and "arrogant" come to mind.

Anyway, they state that Jer. 31 indicates the full membership of the New Covenant. That the New Covenant is given to the Elect and the Elect only. Thus, they infer from it that Baptism should be given only to those who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

The passage in Jeremiah 31 refers to the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant. No doubt that this is why Paul refers to the Mosaic Ceremonial Laws in Hebrews 9. These laws, given after Sinai, written on the skins of animals by Moses were never meant to be perpetual. Christ, the fulfillment of the Ceremonial Law, has now come, "the Mediator of the New Covenant" and has abrogated the "blood of bulls and goats" in the Ceremonial Law.

Certainly, our credo-baptist friends will not argue that Christ has put away the Moral Law - do they? Are they antinomians? No? So they admit that there are things in the Old Covenant that have transferred over into the New Covenant that are applicable for the Church today? If you deny this, then not only are you teaching contrary to Christ and His Apostles, but the term "Dispensational" really does apply to you. The Ten Commands given through the hand of the Mediator of the Covenant is a rule of life for the Christian.

Membership in the New Covenant is mediated by the promises given in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8:



> But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which is established on better promises, Heb. 8:6.





> And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, Heb. 9:15.


Those credo-baptists who enjoy reading John Owen on this subject might want to consider his exposition of this in vol. 6, pgs. 324ff;



> The way whereby God did convey or would communicate this inheritance unto any, was by promise...


The intention of Jeremiah and Paul is to show the excellency of the New Covenant above the Mosaic Ceremonial Law. A curious passage, quoted by both, tells us that the credo-baptist interpretation is incorrect:



> And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, Heb. 8:11, Geneva Bible.


If this passage is in full force, then we should do away with pastors and teachers. Baptist pastors should be a thing of the past. We should not be "teaching every man his neighbor" because all know the Lord, and need no instruction concerning Him. The many passages that Paul writes concering God giving "pastors, and teachers" should be struck from our Bibles, because such offices are not necessary in the New Covenant.

There is a group of credo-baptists who logically follow the interpretation of this passage - they are called Quakers.

The idea that the promises of the New Covenant are given only to the Elect is nowhere substantiated either in Jer. 31 or Hebrews 8-10. That the promises are *effective* to the Elect is a truth that does not deny infant baptism.

1 Cor. 7:14

The argument that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer means that we should baptize the unbeliever does not fly in the face of the passage. The unbelieving spouse is not sanctified for his/her own sake, but for the sake of his/her child - Otherwise - the child would be unclean, but now the child is holy.

How can one refuse baptism to a person of whom the Bible says is holy? Again, the credo-baptist follows his own prejudice rather than sound exegesis from the Bible.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Iconoclast

*wrong view of union with Christ*

Saving union with Christ is the work of the Holy Spirit,not water baptism
Unless and until the Spirit quickens the child,teen , or adult, they are still children of wrath even as others. There is no middle ground. Dead in Adam, or Alive in Christ. The promise of acts 2 , is the regeneration of the Spirit, not a potential promise that might or might not take place,sometime in the future. In romans 6, or col 2, or 1 Cor 12, Spirit baptism is in view, water baptism to follow the quickening work of the Spirit,the new birth and open confession of Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> Saving union with Christ is the work of the Holy Spirit,not water baptism
> Unless and until the Spirit quickens the child,teen , or adult, they are still children of wrath even as others. There is no middle ground. Dead in Adam, or Alive in Christ. The promise of acts 2 , is the regeneration of the Spirit, not a potential promise that might or might not take place,sometime in the future. In romans 6, or col 2, or 1 Cor 12, Spirit baptism is in view, water baptism to follow the quickening work of the Spirit,the new birth and open confession of Christ.


Again, you err in calling this a "potential" promise. It really is something hard for the Baptist to understand. Please don't take that as being mean-spirited but it is against your pre-suppositions to see the Promise as not resting on you. The promise does not depend upon the recipient. 

Faith is the response of the recipient on the basis of elective grace but the Promise itself is in the person of Christ. There is not "potentiality" in that - merely reality.

I'm really quite weary of this for now and am going to take a break for a while. I may or may not have time to take this up in the morning. The rest of what I write is not aimed at you Anthony. It is a general observation. I would ask all to read it in the spirit of grace which I intend.

I will close for now with the observation I made before. The goal that Baptists attempt to achieve - namely the baptism of the elect - is not achieved.

These lengthy discussions on the nature of circumcision are important only to show how the visible Church really functions. It's quite easy to talk in platitudes about election on a forum. When a flesh and blood person comes up to you and says: "I believe in Jesus and wish to be baptized....", it is fallacious to *presume* that the person is elect and that, therefore, he ought to be baptized. No, you baptize because of his profession. He is now joined to the Covenant community and all the responsibilities that entails (for him and for the Church).

The passages being used by the Baptists today to demonstrate the incorruptability of the NC are promises declared and reiterated by Paul and the other Apostles in the epistles to the Churches. Paul does not stop and start in Romans 5-8 and have to constantly re-qualify himself when addressing the Church at large. It's not because the entire Church is elect. In fact, there are those that probably fell away in that congregation and, lo, Paul is saying things as if they apply to them. We understand that not all were, indeed, foreknown, called, etc from the foundation of the world but that's the nature of how the Covenant community is addressed. The true believers are encouraged and strengthened, while, for the false, it's like water off a duck's back. But we continue to admonish and encourage all in the visible Church until discipline is necessary.

The problem for me is not so much in affirming the perfect nature of the New Covenant Church for those united to Christ. The WCF is actually stronger in its affirmation of benefits to the elect than the LBCF is. The problem is that Baptists err in believing they have figured out a way to identify the elect in a way that is not even hinted at in the Epistles. They acknowledge they're not baptizing the elect, and, when challenged, refer to the fact that profession is "most likely" the case. Asked for a Scriptural defense of such a claim and none is produced.

Thus, a Baptist can produce all the passages that I see as applicable to the elect and I'll give a hearty AMEN as to the unique and sure benefits that the Elect alone participate in as part of the New Covenant. Yet, where they fall completely down is in their schema on how they think they're nurturing the Elect in their midst. Contrary to their claim, they do not baptize merely the elect and they fail at this at the cost of completely destroying the knowledge of the Covenant itself in their midst. They also must completely jettison all the Old Covenant passages related to the Covenant nurture of their children as those promises and enjoinments relate to children being enjoined according to their Covenant status in Abraham.

The irony here is that they gain nothing over the Paedobaptist Reformed in the end from my perspective. Contrary to their claim, they do not baptize only the elect. They lose their children, they lose the sense of Covenant, and they lose the connection with the Saints of old who laid hold of Christ and the hope they had for their children to do the same.

Pax!


----------



## ReformedWretch

Rich

While at this point I don't agree with you still, I must say that I do appreciate the way you make your points. If all paedo's made their arguments/case in the manner and style that you do I would enjoy these debates much more, and who knows, maybe even learn a little more, rather than feeling as if someone is annoyed with my (our) inability to be as wise and learned as them.


----------



## Davidius

KMK said:


> RBAY (Right back at ya')
> 
> What I hear you saying is this: the Paedo view is that even though only *some* infants received the external sign, *all* were part of the covenant of Abraham. (Where is this taught in the Bible, BTW?)



Not in the covenant of Abraham in the sense that they received the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. Remember that Paul described circumcision in Romans 4 as a sign of the faith that Abraham had before he was circumcised, yet God commanded Abraham to circumcise Ishmael right after telling him that Ishmael was not a child of the promise. The giving of the sign is a reminder to the visible Church of God's promise to save, and even signifies that saving work in some visible way. If the child repents and believes he will receive what baptism signifies, just as the believing child in the OT would have received what circumcision signified, which is substantially the same thing (union with Christ by faith, cleansing, regeneration).



> And from this the paedo view is that it naturally follows that *all* infants should receive the external sign of *something*. (Not sure if the paedo sees that something as an external or inward covenant)



We see it as an external ordinance just as we see the baptism of an adult as an external ordinance. Water baptism saves neither a man nor a boy. Furthermore, baptism does not guarantee that a man who professes faith is truly a believer anymore than it guarantees that a child will grow up to believe and get the benefits signified in his baptism. However, both the adult and the child are part of the visible church. And just as many circumcised apostates met their destruction in the OT, so many baptized apostates will meet theirs in the NT age. We have examples of this in scripture.



> But, if this is the Paedo view, (and if I am missing something please show me what it is) then why wouldn't it be OK to only baptize *some* infants in the NT? Why must it be *all*?



Can you explain the some/all dichotomy? I'm not sure I understand the origin of the question. By "some" do you mean "only males"?


----------



## ChristianTrader

KMK said:


> RBAY (Right back at ya')
> 
> What I hear you saying is this: the Paedo view is that even though only *some* infants received the external sign, *all* were part of the covenant of Abraham. (Where is this taught in the Bible, BTW?)



If one was not a part of the covenant of Abraham, then how was salvation possible for that person? Did all the women in OT go to hell?



> And from this the paedo view is that it naturally follows that *all* infants should receive the external sign of *something*. (Not sure if the paedo sees that something as an external or inward covenant)



I guess it is possible that God could have kept the system the same and only had a covenant sign for guys only, but he choose not to do so. 



> But, if this is the Paedo view, (and if I am missing something please show me what it is) then why wouldn't it be OK to only baptize *some* infants in the NT? Why must it be *all*?



This is more of a question for why the OT had a covenant sign for only guys instead of why girls are included. If it is accepted that female children are a part of the covenant, then one would have to produce an argument against having the sign applied.

CT


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot produce one passage in Scripture that clearly teaches "Believers only." Yet, they joke among themselves about how "Biblical" they are? Curious. The terms "proud" and "arrogant" come to mind.
> 
> 
> -CH



Listen.... I started to read your comments and got to this point and just stopped. I have not called anyone any names or accused anyone of being proud or arrogant. I do believe your comments can be answered but don't see any need to since you are so convinced that you have it all figured out and we stupid, arrogant, and sinfully proud Baptists just don't get it. 

I have been a member in the RPCNA back in the 80's and have been a member of the PCA for some time now. But I guess my arrogant and proud attitude just gets in my way from seeing the truth. 

What ever.....


----------



## Herald

puritancovenanter said:


> Listen.... I started to read your comments and got to this point and just stopped. I have not called anyone any names or accused anyone of being proud or arrogant. I do believe your comments can be answered but don't see any need to since you are so convinced that you have it all figured out and we stupid, arrogant, and sinfully proud Baptists just don't get it.
> 
> I have been a member in the RPCNA back in the 80's and have been a member of the PCA for some time now. But I guess my arrogant and proud attitude just gets in my way from seeing the truth.
> 
> What ever.....



Martin - and that's why I have elected to just read this thread and not participate in the debate. Invariably this is where it leads.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Again, you are ignoring, though, the significance of the Promise. You're conflating God's elective decree and God's knowledge of Ishmael's future with Abraham's Promise. I'm not arguing that Ishmael was ever united to Christ in circumcision. That may be what you think I'm saying but I am not. Union with Christ, in circumcision and baptism, was effected by the elective purposes of God. It was invisible to Abraham for all intents and purposes. You act as if Abraham knew, when Ishmael was circumcised, that God intended to cut Him off eternally. You act as if Abraham understood that this sign was intended to be bifurcated. I completely disagree. God never instituted a sign to say that "...it's OK if you don't believe in me, this is just a physical thing after all..." That idea is completely repugnant to the entire OT that anyone circumcised would just blow off belief.
> 
> Thus, Ishmael, when circumcised received the sign that signified the exact same thing, outside of himself, that it signified to Isaac: that God would save all who believed upon Him. God never twisted Ishmael's arm and caused him to reject the promise. We know that God passed over Him but that doesn't mean that somehow Ishmael never had a responsibility to believe. That he can be used as an allegory for unbelieving Israel proves this very point.
> 
> Again, you think the sign changes on the basis of unbelief. I'm not even sure how an Old Covenant believer was supposed to lay hold of the Promise according to the schema you've presented. Was he supposed to respond in faith or was he to wonder if he was one of those guys whose circumcision just represented a physical blessing but nothing more. I'm curious, as well, where you build such a National covenant schema from the text of Scripture because God repeatedly condemns for unbelief and never gives a pass to the circumcised as just being bound nationally.




I don't think I am ignoring the significance of the Promise to Abraham. I just don't see that your emphasis of the Covenant of Grace is the only promise involved in the Covenant God made with Abraham as I shared with you in my previous posts. And I do believe you would agree with me in that statement. There are different kinds of promises in Abraham. Some are of the nature that promises specific land and rescue from affliction after 400 years. And promises in the word seed that is pluralistic and not singular. 

I never thought you were claiming Ishmael had a part in Christ. I just think you are applying the whole of the promises to Abraham to Ishmael in a general context when that is a mistake. I don't think you understand the significance of circumcision. It made one a member of Abraham's household. Without it one was not allowed to dwell as a member of his household. There was no sign that sins were forgiven or that there was true reconciliation to God as there is in baptism. But there were promises... Some spiritual and some physical and sometimes they interlinked and sometimes they didn't.

And I don't think this statement is true either.....God never instituted a sign to say that "...it's OK if you don't believe in me, this is just a physical thing after all..." That idea is completely repugnant to the entire OT that anyone circumcised would just blow off belief. It is a complete misrepensentation of me or anyone I know of. I am talking about application of the Covenant and the different kinds of promises that interlink and ones that may not. God will judge everyperson for unbellief. So this is kind of a straw man.

Rich you said...
It was invisible to Abraham for all intents and purposes. You act as if Abraham knew, when Ishmael was circumcised, that God intended to cut Him off eternally. You act as if Abraham understood that this sign was intended to be bifurcated. I completely disagree.

I will also say that the sign didn't signify the same thing for Ishmael that it did for Isaac. And I do think Abraham understood this especially after Genesis 17:21 *which was before he circumcised Ishmael as you seem to not understand*.


(Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

(Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

(Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.


(Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

(Gen 17:22) And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

(Gen 17:23) And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.


I will address the rest of your post later... I need to take a break right now. So please wait and give me time to finish addressing it so I am not chasing rabbit trails. Thanks Rich.....

Love ya brother, Randy


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Oh POOH... I actidentally just deleted my post trying to add a few bible passages. I will respond again later Rich. I had responded to half of your post and took a break after posting it. That is just how it goes sometimes. I will redo it again later.


----------



## Kevin

SemperFideles said:


> Again, you err in calling this a "potential" promise. It really is something hard for the Baptist to understand. Please don't take that as being mean-spirited but it is against your pre-suppositions to see the Promise as not resting on you. The promise does not depend upon the recipient.
> 
> Faith is the response of the recipient on the basis of elective grace but the Promise itself is in the person of Christ. There is not "potentiality" in that - merely reality.
> 
> I'm really quite weary of this for now and am going to take a break for a while. I may or may not have time to take this up in the morning. The rest of what I write is not aimed at you Anthony. It is a general observation. I would ask all to read it in the spirit of grace which I intend.
> 
> I will close for now with the observation I made before. The goal that Baptists attempt to achieve - namely the baptism of the elect - is not achieved.
> 
> These lengthy discussions on the nature of circumcision are important only to show how the visible Church really functions. It's quite easy to talk in platitudes about election on a forum. When a flesh and blood person comes up to you and says: "I believe in Jesus and wish to be baptized....", it is fallacious to *presume* that the person is elect and that, therefore, he ought to be baptized. No, you baptize because of his profession. He is now joined to the Covenant community and all the responsibilities that entails (for him and for the Church).
> 
> The passages being used by the Baptists today to demonstrate the incorruptability of the NC are promises declared and reiterated by Paul and the other Apostles in the epistles to the Churches. Paul does not stop and start in Romans 5-8 and have to constantly re-qualify himself when addressing the Church at large. It's not because the entire Church is elect. In fact, there are those that probably fell away in that congregation and, lo, Paul is saying things as if they apply to them. We understand that not all were, indeed, foreknown, called, etc from the foundation of the world but that's the nature of how the Covenant community is addressed. The true believers are encouraged and strengthened, while, for the false, it's like water off a duck's back. But we continue to admonish and encourage all in the visible Church until discipline is necessary.
> 
> The problem for me is not so much in affirming the perfect nature of the New Covenant Church for those united to Christ. The WCF is actually stronger in its affirmation of benefits to the elect than the LBCF is. The problem is that Baptists err in believing they have figured out a way to identify the elect in a way that is not even hinted at in the Epistles. They acknowledge they're not baptizing the elect, and, when challenged, refer to the fact that profession is "most likely" the case. Asked for a Scriptural defense of such a claim and none is produced.
> 
> Thus, a Baptist can produce all the passages that I see as applicable to the elect and I'll give a hearty AMEN as to the unique and sure benefits that the Elect alone participate in as part of the New Covenant. Yet, where they fall completely down is in their schema on how they think they're nurturing the Elect in their midst. Contrary to their claim, they do not baptize merely the elect and they fail at this at the cost of completely destroying the knowledge of the Covenant itself in their midst. They also must completely jettison all the Old Covenant passages related to the Covenant nurture of their children as those promises and enjoinments relate to children being enjoined according to their Covenant status in Abraham.
> 
> The irony here is that they gain nothing over the Paedobaptist Reformed in the end from my perspective. Contrary to their claim, they do not baptize only the elect. They lose their children, they lose the sense of Covenant, and they lose the connection with the Saints of old who laid hold of Christ and the hope they had for their children to do the same.
> 
> Pax!



Well said.


----------



## tellville

Robert,

When you say someone is not Biblical, what do you mean? For example, much of Mormon doctrine is not Biblical and totally out to lunch. However, the case that the Baptists on this board and thread seem to be a whole lot more Biblical, and dare I say actually plausible, then much of Mormon doctrine. Just curious.

It seems that the funny Baptist joke has phased you, otherwise you wouldn't be this negatively intense towards the Baptist case. Also, you obviously feel the Baptist case is totally wrong and thus when you see people confident in the Baptist case, or even making satirical jokes on the topic, you feel like you are talking to infants (no pun intended). And that's fine as far as it goes I guess, but it makes it easier to dialogue (and probably in the long run sound convincing) if your a little more charitable. I personally think Rich is a good example for cogent argument done in an intense but not downgrading way. 

Personally, I like the intensity, but I have a hard time thinking that the main Baptist contributors on this thread are arrogant and prideful.


----------



## ReformedWretch

> it makes it easier to dialogue (and probably in the long run sound convincing) if your a little more charitable. I personally think Rich is a good example for cogent argument done in an intense but not downgrading way.
> 
> Personally, I like the intensity, but I have a hard time thinking that the main Baptist contributors on this thread are arrogant and prideful.



Thank you Mark, well said!


----------



## BobVigneault

tellville said:


> I love these Baptism threads. I eat up every one!



You are a disturbed young man Mark. I would rather have a root canal then spend 5 minutes in these baptismal mosh pits. I just dropped by to look for dead bodies and pick the teeth of their gold fillings.

If what you say is true Mark then I'm going to get you the number of a non-profit group that helps people like you to pay for a frontal lobotomy. 

Maybe this horse has some gold fillings ---->


----------



## Davidius

***removed for revisions***


----------



## S. Spence

I started to read all the posts in this thread and then gave up - it's a bit long.

Can I recommend that folks listen to this excellent sermon by David Silversides:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=122605124549


----------



## Calvibaptist

BobVigneault said:


> You are a disturbed young man Mark. I would rather have a root canal then spend 5 minutes in these baptismal mosh pits. I just dropped by to look for dead bodies and pick the teeth of their gold fillings.
> 
> If what you say is true Mark then I'm going to get you the number of a non-profit group that helps people like you to pay for a frontal lobotomy.
> 
> Maybe this horse has some gold fillings ---->



Is that non-profit group perhaps The Church of Bob?


----------



## Herald

Calvibaptist said:


> Is that non-profit group perhaps The Church of Bob?



No. The Church of Bawb's motto is, "Take what you can, give nothing back!" It is all about profit.


----------



## Calvibaptist

BaptistInCrisis said:


> No. The Church of Bawb's motto is, "Take what you can, give nothing back!" It is all about profit.



I'm sorry. I thought the motto involved beer of some sort.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Middle of the day here. Hope you have a good sleep.
> 
> I have read them carefully and, thus, I'm quite aware of how you are mishandling them here. Yes, Ishmael is called Sinai in this text. Interesting, isn't it, that Judaizers _INSIDE THE VISIBLE CHURCH, BAPTIZED INTO THE CHURCH_ are compared to Ishmael! How can that be? How can those who are in the New Covenant Church, troubling the other believers be compared to a man you say had no status in the community of faith?





First off it really isn't anything new that there would be others who try to come in and spy our our liberty in Christ and oppose us or distort the Gospel. Let me remind you that even Peter was one of these so Paul called upon the Elders and Apostles in Jerusalem to in Acts 15 to deal with this problem. Peter needed to be corrected on what made one a member of the community of Faith in the New Covenantor Covenant of Grace in its final administration. 
Pauls bringing up the two covenants is to serve as an eye opener to whom he is writing. It seems Circumcision in these passages is always connected to the law of bondage. And Paul is warning against it. There is no forgiveness in it outside of the promised seed which is by faith alone. 




SemperFideles said:


> The point Paul labors, and I will labor again, in Galatians 3 (please read it again for yourself) is that the promise to Abraham was fulfilled by the New Covenant. It was not set aside by the Old Covenant. In fact, Abraham is said to have embraced the Gospel and, from afar off, received the same benefits we did. This is why, in Romans 4, he is a _present_ and not merely a past example.



You seem to think I am not understanding you here when I have affirmed this previously. 



SemperFideles said:


> The point why Ishmael is a perfect example is because he has a sign in his flesh and could have laid hold of the promise made to Abraham. His inability to do so as an unregenerate person doesn't excuse him for his unbelief and his mockery of his little brother. He trusted in the strength of his flesh and is therefore completely appropriate to use as an example of New Covenant members who are trying to fall back on the flesh and are not embracing Abraham's God in faith.




The reason he was unable to lay hold of the promise of the Covenant of Grace but lay hold of other promises in the Covenant of Circumcision is because God made it so. God still gave promises to Abraham concerning Ishmael. This was a part of the Covenant Promises also. This in no way takes away his responsiblity to call upon God and repent. Just like it doesn't for everyone in the world. Even if they don't or do recieve any sign.

And Circumcision still does signify something even in a carnal context. The Promises to Ismael or anyone who shared in the household of Abraham were under the Protective eye of God as a people. God separated them for a purpose. To reveal his glory. 



SemperFideles said:


> Your scheme, frankly, would remove the whole obligation both of Ishmael to respond in faith as well as the Judaizers to do the same because, after all, _for them_ circumcision (or baptism for the Judaizers) doesn't signify *anything* that they have to lay hold of. It doesn't signify anything for them because you tie the significance of the sign to the disposition of the believer and not to the Promise of God.



Already answered this....



SemperFideles said:


> No, there are not two Covenants in Abraham. This is a mis-interpretation of the text. It is an allegory that fits the trust in the flesh and, especially in the case of Galatians, to show how similar the rebellion and pride of Ishmael is to the Judiazers. Nevertheless, Sinai is _not_ the Covenant of Works. In fact, were you to read Paul more carefully in Galatians, it is added to the Abrahamic Promise for a gracious purpose. It had a redemptive purpose. I agree with some theologians that see a CoW aspect to Sinai but to call it a CoW and, by extension, to say that Abraham had two Covenants is a-textual especially since he made the point just a couple of chapters earlier that what was promised to Abraham was not annulled by something that came 400 years later. It would make Paul schizophrenic. This is why he emphasizes that his point is allegorical - Ishmael is an object lesson: his teasing of Isaac is a picture of the Judaizers persecuting the Gentile believers.



The text speaks of Hagar and Sarah being the allagory. There are two Covenants in Abraham. The allagory just points to the fact of the two covenants. And the ministry of condemnation does not cancel out the other. I agree. It was added for offences but it didn't save. It did point to the need for the other. And it illuminated the COW. 





SemperFideles said:


> Again, if everything you are saying is true about the primary nature of circumcision regarding a bifurcated nature (signifies something different based on the person), then it is missing in both the penultimate treatments of it in Romans and Galatians and it destroys the point Paul labors in Romans 4 where he would introduce a mixed sign that, in part, signifies trust in the flesh.



I am not basing it upon the person as you suppose but upon what God said in Genesis chapter 17 and Galatians. And just because a doctrine is only partially stated in one place doesn't destroy the point that the Author is labouring to make. Both Promises Nationally and Spiritually are from God. Not inventions of man. Abraham believed God for these and righteousness was accredited to him because of it. He was justified by faith alone. But the Covenant of circumcision also points to other things than this. Such as the Promises God made to Abraham and his descendants as well as those who where purchased by him and the stranger that came amongst them and tarried. There is such a thing as a Promise that isn't necessarily Spiritual even though it Proceeds from a God who is Spirit. He rains upon the just and the unjust.


Addition to post...

Rich I would love to stay up on this thread but I have some responsiblities to attend to for the next few days. I have some rental property to deal with before a new couple move in and some other things. I will try to keep up with you on it though.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm going to reply once more and then agree to disagree amicably. I simply believe you are missing the point completely even as you believe you are not.


puritancovenanter said:


> I don't think I am ignoring the significance of the Promise to Abraham. I just don't see that your emphasis of the Covenant of Grace is the only promise involved in the Covenant God made with Abraham as I shared with you in my previous posts. And I do believe you would agree with me in that statement. There are different kinds of promises in Abraham. Some are of the nature that promises specific land and rescue from affliction after 400 years. And promises in the word seed that is pluralistic and not singular.


I think what you're doing is novel. The way you jump back and forth makes Paul schizophrenic with regard to the true significance of the sign. Paul even applies the broader physical blessings and makes them spiritual in Romans and Galatians to demonstrate that all the significance of circumcision converges on the point he makes regarding what the Promise truly was.



> I never thought you were claiming Ishmael had a part in Christ. I just think you are applying the whole of the promises to Abraham to Ishmael in a general context when that is a mistake. I don't think you understand the significance of circumcision. It made one a member of Abraham's household. Without it one was not allowed to dwell as a member of his household. There was no sign that sins were forgiven or that there was true reconciliation to God as there is in baptism. But there were promises... Some spiritual and some physical and sometimes they interlinked and sometimes they didn't.



This is pure assertion. Nowhere in the institution of the sign nor in the OT in general can one find the significance of circumcision hinted at it being acceptable to be a "bare minimum" circumcised person. There is no category for the nominally circumcised. In fact, as soon as Ishmael rebelled he was put away.



> And I don't think this statement is true either.....God never instituted a sign to say that "...it's OK if you don't believe in me, this is just a physical thing after all..." That idea is completely repugnant to the entire OT that anyone circumcised would just blow off belief. It is a complete misrepensentation of me or anyone I know of. I am talking about application of the Covenant and the different kinds of promises that interlink and ones that may not. God will judge everyperson for unbellief. So this is kind of a straw man.


And yet, you keep arguing as if the sign in Ishmael's flesh did not obligate him to anything. You keep implying the significance of the sign did not require faith on his part.



> Rich you said...
> It was invisible to Abraham for all intents and purposes. You act as if Abraham knew, when Ishmael was circumcised, that God intended to cut Him off eternally. You act as if Abraham understood that this sign was intended to be bifurcated. I completely disagree.
> 
> I will also say that the sign didn't signify the same thing for Ishmael that it did for Isaac. And I do think Abraham understood this especially after Genesis 17:21 *which was before he circumcised Ishmael as you seem to not understand*.
> 
> (Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
> 
> (Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
> 
> (Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
> 
> 
> (Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
> 
> (Gen 17:22) And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
> 
> (Gen 17:23) And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.



This again, reveals an importing of your pre-suppositions into the text from my perspective. Where does this say, then, that circumcision meant something other than a sign of faith that Ishmael had to lay hold of. You presume to think that Ishmael was _required_ to make fun of his brother and to rebel. You presume to think that because Abraham knew that the Promise would flow through his son Isaac that he must then have understood that Ishmael couldn't believe and have served Isaac in faith. That somehow, because Isaac would receive the blessing that Abraham _knew_ Ishmael (a mere teen) was supposed to rebel against his faith. You imply that Abraham marked Ishmael knowing he hated God. In fact, if circumcision meant something other than the sign of salvation for Ishmael, then why did he not continue to circumcise his offspring as a sign of the type of blessing he was to receive? It logically follows does it not? 

In fact, the example of Jonathan, Saul's son repudiates your thesis that, just because one is passed over in terms of Covenant establishment that he must not, therefore, be saved. Jonathan lost the kingdom based on his father's disobedience but he still embraced God in faith in casting his lot with David.

I need to be strong in this point in love Randy. If I was Abraham and I heard somebody accusing me of just treating this precious sign of God's grace for me in such a cavalier way, I would be indignant. Part of me wonders why Baptists want to treat their father, their example in the faith, with such an impious charge. To assume he placed a mark that signified a promise made to him by God upon just any rebel in his household is repugnant. That you try to diminish the significance of the sign and qualify that you're not really doing so doesn't work for me.

I have never argued that the reality that the sign pointed to was acquired by Ishmael simply by his being circumcised but I also categorically reject that Ishmael was circumcised with the knowledge in Abraham's heart that, just because Ishmael was not the line of promise, that he must therefore be an unbeliever. I also categorically reject a secondary meaning that Abraham applied to Ishmael or anyone else in his household. This, in effect, has Abraham thinking while circumcising: "He loves you, He loves you not, He loves you, He loves you not...." No! He circumcised all in hope and let God be God with respect to conversion. The one example, in fact, of a servant in his household displays a vibrant faith in the God of Abraham!

Ishmael should have looked to his circumcision in faith. He should have embraced the faith of his father. That he did not was according to the foreknowledge of God but the REALITY of that sign did not change. Ishmael still rebelled against the grace manifest daily in his household.

And such have all who have ever fallen away from the faith. It is because they are in the household of faith and taste of the benefits of God but then turn their back that they are so roundly condemned.

Pax!


----------



## tellville

BobVigneault said:


> You are a disturbed young man Mark. I would rather have a root canal then spend 5 minutes in these baptismal mosh pits. I just dropped by to look for dead bodies and pick the teeth of their gold fillings.
> 
> If what you say is true Mark then I'm going to get you the number of a non-profit group that helps people like you to pay for a frontal lobotomy.
> 
> Maybe this horse has some gold fillings ---->



Yep, that's me the disturbed one. I am starting to think I might make Baptism my thesis topic (as I can't think of one yet). And I find all these discussions fascinating. It makes me want to do a full Biblical theological study of the issue


----------



## Iconoclast

*potential or actual*

Rich,
thank you for your response in post #101. you said; Again, you err in calling this a "potential" promise. It really is something hard for the Baptist to understand. Please don't take that as being mean-spirited but it is against your pre-suppositions to see the Promise as not resting on you. The promise does not depend upon the recipient. 

Faith is the response of the recipient on the basis of elective grace but the Promise itself is in the person of Christ. There is not "potentiality" in that - merely reality.
I will close for now with the observation I made before. The goal that Baptists attempt to achieve - namely the baptism of the elect - is not achieved.

In response I would say a couple of things.
The promise of the Father in Acts1:4-5,and 2:38-39 is the Holy Ghost,not the person of Christ. The promise is to you , your children,and to all that are afar off,even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
The Holy Ghost quickens the dead sinner to life,granting repentance and faith and enabling the person to lay hold of the person of Christ
As I have said several times before, it is Spirit baptism that unites the elect to the person of Christ, not water baptism. I believe this promise is actual to all who are called. I used the term potential because as I listen to some padeo sermons on sermonaudio they keep saying how some covenant children
might not ever realize this promise,hence that says to me they are speaking of something not actually accomplished.
I believe the promise of Acts 1 Acts 2 is 100% definante to all who are called, who repent , believe, and are baptized by God's grace.


----------



## Iconoclast

*hebrews 10*

Rob,
In post number 98 you said:
Chapter 10 contains dire warnings against those who break the New Covenant. Oops! but we are told, by the Baptists, that the New Covenant is unbreakable - again a rationialization they infer rather than an actual citation from Scripture.

Where in Hebrews 10 does it speak of anyone in the New Covenant that breaks it? I see warnings addressed to people who hear the message of Christ and turn away from the message. I do not see anywhere where it says what you think it means.
The warning of verse26-31 is addressed to those Jews who like the jews in Jn.8 thought they were children of Abraham,but where not.
In chapters 8-10 the superiority of the second covenant is what is in view Hebrews 8:7 they were in danger of drawing back to OT.shadows and going to perdition 10:38-39 They were not breaking the new covenant.


----------



## Davidius

You should use the quote function. Put blocks of text you want to quote in [*quote][/quote] brackets (without the initial asterisk).



> It makes reading quoted text much easier!


----------



## Iconoclast

*baptizing the elect*

Rich,

In the same post you said this:
The problem for me is not so much in affirming the perfect nature of the New Covenant Church for those united to Christ. The WCF is actually stronger in its affirmation of benefits to the elect than the LBCF is. The problem is that Baptists err in believing they have figured out a way to identify the elect in a way that is not even hinted at in the Epistles. They acknowledge they're not baptizing the elect, and, when challenged, refer to the fact that profession is "most likely" the case. Asked for a Scriptural defense of such a claim and none is produced.

Baptists do baptize the elect. A person cannot believe the gospel unless he is elect which you state you agree with in this quote. We baptize believers who profess Christ yes. If non elect persons profess Christ and we do not find out about it by open sin needing church discipline, they will not get past the white throne judgment.
Nevertheless the elect do get baptized after they tell us what Christ has done for them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> I believe the promise of Acts 1 Acts 2 is 100% definante to all who are called, who repent , believe, and are baptized by God's grace.



Well, yes, of course it is definite if they are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified before the foundation of the world. They are the elect. The point I was making is that the sign points to the object of faith. Those who rest upon that object inherit and claim the promise. Those that reject it do not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> Rich,
> 
> In the same post you said this:
> The problem for me is not so much in affirming the perfect nature of the New Covenant Church for those united to Christ. The WCF is actually stronger in its affirmation of benefits to the elect than the LBCF is. The problem is that Baptists err in believing they have figured out a way to identify the elect in a way that is not even hinted at in the Epistles. They acknowledge they're not baptizing the elect, and, when challenged, refer to the fact that profession is "most likely" the case. Asked for a Scriptural defense of such a claim and none is produced.
> 
> Baptists do baptize the elect. A person cannot believe the gospel unless he is elect which you state you agree with in this quote. We baptize believers who profess Christ yes. If non elect persons profess Christ and we do not find out about it by open sin needing church discipline, they will not get past the white throne judgment.
> Nevertheless the elect do get baptized after they tell us what Christ has done for them.



You baptize some elect and we baptize some elect. Who you baptize that are reprobate, you do not know.


----------



## KMK

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Not in the covenant of Abraham in the sense that they received the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. Remember that Paul described circumcision in Romans 4 as a sign of the faith that Abraham had before he was circumcised, yet God commanded Abraham to circumcise Ishmael right after telling him that Ishmael was not a child of the promise. The giving of the sign is a reminder to the visible Church of God's promise to save, and even signifies that saving work in some visible way. If the child repents and believes he will receive what baptism signifies, just as the believing child in the OT would have received what circumcision signified, which is substantially the same thing (union with Christ by faith, cleansing, regeneration).



This is helpful. The paedo sees in Rom 4:11 Paul teaching that circumcision was more than just a sign to Abraham, but a sign to all his visible/earthly posterity individually. Circumcision signifies to each and every physical descendant of Abraham the promise to save by faith even those who were not circumcised.

Now, baptism, just like circumcision, is a sign to each and every spiritual descendant of Abraham?



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> We see it as an external ordinance just as we see the baptism of an adult as an external ordinance.



Does the paedo see baptism as simply an act of obedience?



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Water baptism saves neither a man nor a boy. Furthermore, baptism does not guarantee that a man who professes faith is truly a believer anymore than it guarantees that a child will grow up to believe and get the benefits signified in his baptism.



I am happy the everyone agrees on this one!



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> However, both the adult and the child are part of the visible church. And just as many circumcised apostates met their destruction in the OT, so many baptized apostates will meet theirs in the NT age. We have examples of this in scripture.



I see. The paedo sees a continuity between signs given to a visible church in the OT and signs given in the NT.

This is all very helpful but my question essentially remains: If circumcision signified to each and every physical descendant of Abraham the promise to save by faith even those who were not circumcised, then why is baptism different? Why must *all* be baptized in the New Covenant when only *some* needed to be circumcised in the covenant of Abraham?


----------



## KMK

ChristianTrader said:


> If one was not a part of the covenant of Abraham, then how was salvation possible for that person? Did all the women in OT go to hell?



Are you saying that paedos believe that in the OT salvation was only possible for those in the covenant of Abraham?



ChristianTrader said:


> I guess it is possible that God could have kept the system the same and only had a covenant sign for guys only, but he choose not to do so.



Where did he choose to change it? That's what I am asking. Does the paedo have a theological argument for doing so? Or does the argument rest on the example of the early church?



ChristianTrader said:


> *This is more of a question for why the OT had a covenant sign for only guys instead of why girls are included.* If it is accepted that female children are a part of the covenant, then one would have to produce an argument against having the sign applied.



So the paedo does not have an answer for that question and doesn't believe they need one?


----------



## ChristianTrader

KMK said:


> Are you saying that paedos believe that in the OT salvation was only possible for those in the covenant of Abraham?



I stand by my statement. Another way of putting it is this: Can a person today be saved outside of the covenant of grace (of which the COA was an administration of).

I'll pick up the rest of your post, when we settle this part.

CT


----------



## Herald

I'm not concerned with the baptism discussion but the comments regarding the Abrahamic covenant do interest me.

Let me make sure I have my facts straight. During the Old Covenant, in order to be under the covenant of Abraham, circumcision would be required as the sign of the covenant (for males). No circumcision; no sign. No circumcision; no covenant. Am I right so far? If I am right then what do we make of the citizens of Nineveh who repented in the book of Jonah? We are not told that they were circumcised. They certainly weren't Jews and did not adopt Jewish customs and rituals. Are we to call into question their repentance and claim that they were not saved? Hermonta, forgive me if I am mistating your position, but you seem to be indicating that only a circumcised Jew could be saved under the Old Covenant.

????


----------



## A5pointer

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I'm not concerned with the baptism discussion but the comments regarding the Abrahamic covenant do interest me.
> 
> Let me make sure I have my facts straight. During the Old Covenant, in order to be under the covenant of Abraham, circumcision would be required as the sign of the covenant (for males). No circumcision; no sign. No circumcision; no covenant. Am I right so far? If I am right then what do we make of the citizens of Nineveh who repented in the book of Jonah? We are not told that they were circumcised. They certainly weren't Jews and did not adopt Jewish customs and rituals. Are we to call into question their repentance and claim that they were not saved? Hermonta, forgive me if I am mistating your position, but you seem to be indicating that only a circumcised Jew could be saved under the Old Covenant.
> 
> ????



Nineveh, not to be thought of as in covenant or even saved in a spiritual sense, they just repented of their evil ways and eluded physical impending judgment.


----------



## ChristianTrader

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Are we to call into question their repentance and claim that they were not saved? Hermonta, forgive me if I am mistating your position, but you seem to be indicating that only a circumcised Jew could be saved under the Old Covenant.
> 
> ????



What I am saying is that a person needs to be in the covenant of grace in order to be saved. I am not saying that you have to have the sign in order to be saved or in covenant. (If you look at the "cut off" statements in Genesis, then you will see that it was punishment for breaking the covenant. You don't have covenant curses, if you are not in the covenant). In reality, I have made the exact opposite argument. I was opposing the argument that women were not in the covenant because they did not have the covenant sign of circumcision. My counter was that if you wanted to believe that then you should believe that all women of the OT are now in Hell.

CT


----------



## KMK

ChristianTrader said:


> *I stand by my statement*. Another way of putting it is this: Can a person today be saved outside of the covenant of grace (of which the COA was an administration of).
> 
> I'll pick up the rest of your post, when we settle this part.
> 
> CT



You have not made a statement of which I am aware. Please direct me to the statement to which you are refering.


----------



## ChristianTrader

KMK said:


> You have not made a statement of which I am aware. Please direct me to the statement to which you are refering.



I'll correct it to, "I stand by my position."  One does not have to have the covenant sign in order to be in the covenant of grace. To challenge the statement, then you would need to defend, that all women of the OT without the covenant sign are now all in hell, or Salvation was different in the OT, or some other option, that I can't think of right now. 

CT


----------



## KMK

ChristianTrader said:


> What I am saying is that a person needs to be in the covenant of grace in order to be saved. I am not saying that you have to have the sign in order to be saved or in covenant. (If you look at the "cut off" statements in Genesis, then you will see that it was punishment for breaking the covenant. You don't have covenant curses, if you are not in the covenant). In reality, I have made the exact opposite argument.* I was opposing the argument that women were not in the covenant because they did not have the covenant sign of circumcision. * My counter was that if you wanted to believe that then you should believe that all women of the OT are now in Hell.
> 
> CT



If you are referring to me, then you misunderstand. I am not making an argument. If you read my posts you will see that I am asking a question about the paedo viewpoint which I admire but do not fully understand.

In a previous post you asked this question:



> If one was not a part of the covenant of Abraham, then how was salvation possible for that person? Did all the women in OT go to hell?



This question seems to imply that a peado believes that salvation was not possible for Abel and Enoch and Noah etc because they were not a part of the covenant of Abraham. Then you said that you stand by this 'statement'. Does yours represent the standard paedo view?


----------



## ChristianTrader

KMK said:


> This question seems to imply that a peado believes that salvation was not possible for Abel and Enoch and Noah etc because they were not a part of the covenant of Abraham. Then you said that you stand by this 'statement'. Does yours represent the standard paedo view?



The covenant of Abraham is an administration of the covenant of grace. I was speaking of the CoA as equivalent to the covenant of grace.

CT


----------



## KMK

ChristianTrader said:


> I'll correct it to, "I stand by my position."  *One does not have to have the covenant sign in order to be in the covenant of grace.* To challenge the statement, then you would need to defend, that all women of the OT without the covenant sign are now all in hell, or Salvation was different in the OT, or some other option, that I can't think of right now.
> 
> CT



Sorry, we cross-posted. Thanks for the clarification. But let me see if I understand... In the paedo view, circumcision is not merely a sign of the covenant of Abraham, but also the covenant of Grace. And if this is true, then the paedo says that since baptism is also a sign of the covenant of Grace, then baptism and circumcision are essentially the same thing.


----------



## KMK

ChristianTrader said:


> The covenant of Abraham is an administration of the covenant of grace. I was speaking of the CoA as equivalent to the covenant of grace.
> 
> CT



Thank you for clarifying. But if *some* in the OT were a part of the covenant of Abraham/Grace w/o the sign, then why cannot the same be true of the NT? Why must *all* receive baptism to be 'brought into' the covenant of Grace?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

ChristianTrader said:


> The covenant of Abraham is an administration of the covenant of grace. I was speaking of the CoA as equivalent to the covenant of grace.
> 
> CT



Nehemiah Coxe points out that there were others who were not circumcised and they were members of the Covenant of Grace. The CoA applied to Abraham and his household specifically. It was put into place until Christ came. There are others who were not members of the household of Abraham who were Members of he CoG. King Melchizedek and I imagine some of his subjects were. There are other names who are mentioned in the OT that are outside of Abrahams household also but I don't have the references right now. I prefer to say that the Covenant of Circumcision is an handmaid to the CoG as is the Mosaic. 

The CoG doesn't have a sign. It was in effect before the Abrahamic and after. And it didn't have a sign for it then. The Abrahamic does havea sign. The Abrahamic Covenant is not purely the CoG as the Mosaic isn't either. They are both handmaids to the Covenant of Grace. They do serve it and administer the CoG. Both the Covenant of Circumcision and the Mosaic administer the Covenant of Grace but they are not purely the Covenant of Grace. They are not identical. The Covenant of Abraham or Circumcision does administer to the Promised Seed. Today, the promised Seed has come and so the need to administer the promise of that Seed in a covenant with a specific family has been fulfilled. There is no need to maintain the family distinctives (including circumcision) since the CoG has moved toward fulfillment. This is also why children are not automatically included in the covenant any more. The promised Seed is come and so we're not looking at one family or one ethnic group to fulfill that promise. The function of being born into covenant is done. God is calling people from every tribe and nation and not ancestorally into the Covenant.

A brother named Tim Etherington has helped me a little in understanding this. 


BTW... I am still working this out. My main point in my reply was to say there where those around the time of Abraham that were not circumcised and were members of the CoG.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

KMK said:


> Thank you for clarifying. But if *some* in the OT were a part of the covenant of Abraham/Grace w/o the sign, then why cannot the same be true of the NT? Why must *all* receive baptism to be 'brought into' the covenant of Grace?



I do believe Baptism is more than a sign. It is also a means of Grace (not a means of special grace but a special means of grace) and it is the initiation rite to enter the Community of faith. To deny it is to deny Christ and His body.


----------



## ChristianTrader

KMK said:


> Thank you for clarifying. But if *some* in the OT were a part of the covenant of Abraham/Grace w/o the sign, then why cannot the same be true of the NT? Why must *all* receive baptism to be 'brought into' the covenant of Grace?



Would not this current line of argument/questioning lead to at least infant males being baptized?

As I said earlier, I would attempt to address the rest of your post from yesterday, when it was accepted that people were in the covenant of grace without having the covenant sign.




> Originally Posted by ChristianTrader
> I guess it is possible that God could have kept the system the same and only had a covenant sign for guys only, but he choose not to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he choose to change it? That's what I am asking. Does the paedo have a theological argument for doing so? Or does the argument rest on the example of the early church?
Click to expand...


Well one could argue that previous baptisms included women (The worldwide flood and the Red Sea parting), so when baptism became the covenant sign, the women that were a part of the covenant of grace, now were to receive the covenantal sign.

One could also ask, if there is something wrong with just following the scriptural example of women being included? Could someone argue that it was just an apostolic thing?

CT


----------



## KMK

ChristianTrader said:


> Well one *could* argue that previous baptisms included women (The worldwide flood and the Red Sea parting), so when baptism became the covenant sign, the women that were a part of the covenant of grace, now were to receive the covenantal sign.
> 
> One *could* also ask, if there is something wrong with just following the scriptural example of women being included? Could someone argue that it was just an apostolic thing?
> 
> CT



So, as I said earlier, the paedo does not have a 'cut and dry' theological anwer to the question as to why *all* are to receive a sign in the NT covenant of Grace whereas only *some* were required in the OT covenant of Abraham/Grace and more importantly doesn't think that he needs such an answer. It is obvious or irrelevent. Am I correct?


----------



## KMK

puritancovenanter said:


> I do believe Baptism is more than a sign. It is also a means of Grace (not a means of special grace but a special means of grace) and it is the initiation rite to enter the Community of faith. To deny it is to deny Christ and His body.



Thank you for these comments and those of your previous post! I too am 'working things out'. I can't wait to meet the man who has everything 'worked out'. (He's probably somewhere on PB)


----------



## ChristianTrader

KMK said:


> So, as I said earlier, the paedo does not have a 'cut and dry' theological answer to the question as to why *all* are to receive a sign in the NT covenant of Grace whereas only *some* were required in the OT covenant of Abraham/Grace and more importantly doesn't think that he needs such an answer. It is obvious or irrelevent. Am I correct?



Um, if you can figure out how to circumcise a woman, then your question might make more sense. As currently stated, it seems to be something along the lines of "God said don't give woman the covenant sign in the OT", then all of a sudden we just start doing it now.

If the question is: Why did God make the covenant sign in OT something that only men could have done instead of something that could be done by both sexes, then "I" do not have a lock down answer.

CT


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Thank you for these comments and those of your previous post! I too am 'working things out'. I can't wait to meet the man who has everything 'worked out'. (He's probably somewhere on PB)



I've seen this man once or twice. He is usually quick and doesn't stick around very long. He goes by a nome de plume...Bawb.


----------



## ChristianTrader

S. Spence said:


> I started to read all the posts in this thread and then gave up - it's a bit long.
> 
> Can I recommend that folks listen to this excellent sermon by David Silversides:
> 
> http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=122605124549


----------

