# Argument Against Classical Covenant Theological Paedobaptism For Your Consideration



## LockTheDeadbolt

I thought I'd put it up an argument here and just let people poke holes in it for awhile. So without any further ado, have at it:

Major Premise: 1. If Covenant Theology is true (A), then its doctrines will be expressed or implied in Scripture (B).

1a. CT contains a doctrine that baptism corresponds directly with circumcision (both being given to infants as signs of the covenant).

1b. This doctrine rests heavily on the doctrine that the Abrahamic and the New Covenant are the same identical covenant of grace in different administrations.

Minor Premise: 2. Even in the most conspicuous places (Acts 15, Col. 2) Scripture nowhere expresses or implies doctrines (1a) and (1b). (~B)

2a. Scripture presents a typological relationship between circumcision and baptism, where the emphasis on the material type (circumcision) is replaced by the emphasis on the spiritual substance (regeneration) (Col. 2), and baptism is linked to union with Christ (Rom. 6), which is by rebirth, not physical birth.

2b. The “one covenant – multiple administrations” supposition (1b) which (1a) rests on is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with multiple respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9).

Conclusion: 3. Therefore (~A) CT is false (or "not true," for the strict logicians out there) by modus tollens.

If A, then B.
Not B.
Therefore Not A.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

First off 1a and 1b are incorrect from a Particular Baptist position.

In the framework of the Particular Baptist we do not hold that Circumcision and Baptism are as closely related as you are implying in 1a.

In 1b I think John Owen discredits this. Is the New Covenant really New. - The PuritanBoard And he held to a Federal Theology.

I do believe Covenant Theology is true in Presenting a threefold understanding. There is a Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, and a Covenant of Grace. 

And that the Covenant of Works and Grace are overarching Covenants. The Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are subservient to them as I state here. Herman Witsius Rich Barcellos sent this to me when i asked about a reference for it. The edition I have is den Dulk Christian Foundation distributed by P&R, reprinted 1990. Vol. II, p. 186, Witsius says of the Mosaic Cov.,


> "It was a national covenant between God and Israel... [It] supposed a covenant of grace. ...It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works... This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other... If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere peity, which supposes both."


 I believe the Mosaic is subservient to both the Covenants of Grace and Works.[/QUOTE]"]


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Herman Witsius Rich Barcellos sent this to me when i asked about a reference for it. The edition I have is den Dulk Christian Foundation distributed by P&R, reprinted 1990. Vol. II, p. 186, Witsius says of the Mosaic Cov.,
> 
> 
> 
> "It was a national covenant between God and Israel... [It] supposed a covenant of grace. ...It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works... This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other... If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere peity, which supposes both."
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Mosaic is subservient to both the Covenants of Grace and Works.
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Also here are a few things on circumcision and Baptism as they relate to each other in Colossians 2:11-12. 

These are all from my blog on the Puritanboard. They are not long drawn out threads. 

An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12 - The PuritanBoard

Circumcision and Baptism Colosians 2:11-12 A.W. Pink - The PuritanBoard

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? - The PuritanBoard

And just for some insight here is something on John Tombe and Genesis 17 concerning the Abrahamic Covenant.

John Tombes on Genesis 17:7 - The PuritanBoard


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

PuritanCovenanter said:


> First off 1a and 1b are incorrect from a Particular Baptist position.



That's why I was mostly looking for critical responses from a paedobaptist perspective. (The thread title was intended to be a clue in that respect.) I'm aware of the 1689 LBCF Covenant Theology perspective on this as well.

Thanks for the links.


----------



## Sven

Are you saying that regeneration does not apply to those of the Old Covenant? It seems to me that you are. You say that the Old and New are not just different different administrations but different covenants, yet you haven't demonstrated this. How are the Old and New Covenants different. Doesn't Paul demonstrate that Abraham was justified by faith the same way that people in the New Covenant are (Rom. 4)? Doesn't Moses tell the Israelites that it is not outward adherence to the Law but inward regeneration that counts ("circumcision of the heart," Deut. 10:16), which is what the New Covenant emphasizes (Titus 3:5). Furthermore, I take you to mean that in the Old Testament God's covenant worked along familial lines. This is implied in the promise to Abraham "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Gen 17:7. If the New covenant no longer worked along familial lines then we would expect the language to change, but this is not the case as is implied in Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." Also this is implied in the "household" baptisms (Acts 16:33; Acts 16:15).
Further still, baptism is not just based upon circumcision but also the washings and sprinkling of blood that took place in the OT, the flood (1 Pet. 3:20,21), and the passing through of the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1,2). I may add in passing that their were infants who passed through the Red Sea. 

Nice try.


----------



## chbrooking

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> Major Premise: 1. If Covenant Theology is true (A), then its doctrines will be expressed or implied in Scripture (B).



True.



LockTheDeadbolt said:


> 1a. CT contains a doctrine that baptism corresponds directly with circumcision (both being given to infants as signs of the covenant).



True, but the parenthetical remark is not the justification for seeing that correspondence. There is an explicit link, e.g., in Col. 2.



LockTheDeadbolt said:


> 1b. This doctrine rests heavily on the doctrine that the Abrahamic and the New Covenant are the same identical covenant of grace in different administrations.



Yes. Again, this is made explicit in Gal. 3-4 (see links below).



LockTheDeadbolt said:


> Minor Premise: 2. Even in the most conspicuous places (Acts 15, Col. 2) Scripture nowhere expresses or implies doctrines (1a) and (1b). (~B)



We disagree as to the facts here (see links below). And this is absolutely crucial for your modus tollens.



LockTheDeadbolt said:


> 2a. Scripture presents a typological relationship between circumcision and baptism, where the emphasis on the material type (circumcision) is replaced by the emphasis on the spiritual substance (regeneration) (Col. 2), and baptism is linked to union with Christ (Rom. 6), which is by rebirth, not physical birth.



Again, I would not agree with your conclusion regarding Col. 2.



LockTheDeadbolt said:


> 2b. The “one covenant – multiple administrations” supposition (1b) which (1a) rests on is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with multiple respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9).



What will you say of the law being added? The same argument could be made about the Abrahamic versus the Mosaic versus the Davidic. But clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace. Otherwise, you will be forced to say that a Jew was saved by obedience to the law. This would be a case of good and necessary consequence. There is something radically new, but there is also continuity. 



LockTheDeadbolt said:


> Conclusion: 3. Therefore (~A) CT is false (or "not true," for the strict logicians out there) by modus tollens.
> 
> If A, then B.
> Not B.
> Therefore Not A.



You have not established "Not B". You've merely asserted it. You might profit by reading this and this, as your argument has a dispensational flavor.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Every premise is mis-stated. The Abrahamic Covenant is not identical to the New Covenant. They are different administrations of the one Covenant of Grace but not identical. 

More specificaly, with relation to 2b.

How many Covenants are expressed in Romans 5:12-21?

[bible]Romans 5:12-21[/bible]

What is the basis for salvation for these multiple Covenants you have in mind?


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

Sven said:


> Are you saying that regeneration does not apply to those of the Old Covenant? It seems to me that you are.



A careful reading of what I wrote would preclude this inference: 



LockTheDeadbolt said:


> 2a. Scripture presents a typological relationship between circumcision and baptism, where *the emphasis *on the material type (circumcision) is replaced by *the emphasis *on the spiritual substance (regeneration) (Col. 2), and baptism is linked to union with Christ (Rom. 6), which is by rebirth, not physical birth.





Sven said:


> You say that the Old and New are not just different different administrations but different covenants, yet you haven't demonstrated this. How are the Old and New Covenants different.



All of Scripture speaks of them in terms of separate covenants, not a "single covenant with multiple administrations" (as in Jer. 31 or Heb. 8-9, as I said in the OP). The "one covenant - multiple administrations" is most often presented as a presupposition, not a textual inference. This is because little is available in the way of exegetical justification for the formula, in my humble opinion.

The continuity within the multiple covenants and their multiple administrations is the result of them being covenants made by the graciousness of an immutable God, not some extra-biblical supposition of a single "covenant of grace."

Feel free to try again, however.


----------



## chbrooking

How, then, are we heirs with Abraham? One covenant with multiple administrations is a good and necessary consequence of Gal. 3.


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

chbrooking said:


> We disagree as to the facts here (see links below). And this is absolutely crucial for your modus tollens... Again, I would not agree with your conclusion regarding Col. 2.



I can see why this would be a reasonable point of contention. I attempted to be as brief as possible in regarding Col. 2, primarily to take it easy on the reader, initially anyway. 



chbrooking said:


> LockTheDeadbolt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2b. The “one covenant – multiple administrations” supposition (1b) which (1a) rests on is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with multiple respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will you say of the law being added? The same argument could be made about the Abrahamic versus the Mosaic versus the Davidic. But clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace.
Click to expand...


You've only begged the question against 2b here, specifically when you say, "clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace." This is, of course, _not so clear _at all since it is one of the matters of contention presented in my argument.



chbrooking said:


> Otherwise, you will be forced to say that a Jew was saved by obedience to the law. This would be a case of good and necessary consequence. There is something radically new, but there is also continuity.



It might be a case of what _you_ consider a "good" consequence, but I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that it is "necessary." I never stated or implied anything about the relationship between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and see no necessary consequence which would "force me" into adopting a theory of justification by works under the Mosaic covenant. Maybe you can demonstrate this necessary consequence?



chbrooking said:


> You might profit by reading this and this, as your argument has a dispensational flavor.



Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man.  Just kidding. I'm thoroughly familiar with the heavily flawed theory of redemptive history known as Dispensationalism, but I don't see any significant similarities between my stated arguments and the affirmations of dispensationalists. Maybe you believe in some sort of a reduction of all theories of redemptive history into either dispensationalism or covenant theology?


----------



## Archlute

Your argumentation is biblicistic in that it refuses to look at the Scriptures as a theological whole, and to then draw theological conclusions from that big picture. Using your form of argumentation, you could easily go on to deny the Trinity. 

I am not setting that forth as an attack, just pointing out that your methodology has already been used by men such as Faustus Socinus and others in their attempts at dismantling doctrines that they did not feel expressly taught by the text of the Word. It is known as a biblicistic and rationalistic methodology.


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

Semper Fidelis said:


> Every premise is mis-stated. The Abrahamic Covenant is not identical to the New Covenant. They are different administrations of the one Covenant of Grace but not identical.?



Admittedly, the term "identical" could be understood to carry more force than I really intended. I was merely using the term in reference to the singularity of the covenant of grace, with respect to the relation between the Abrahamic and the New covenant "administrations." I'm not sure how that makes "every premise" mis-stated, but since I just admitted to possibly making an overstatement, I won't make a big deal out that. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> How many Covenants are expressed in Romans 5:12-21?



None of the covenants are "expressly" mentioned in Romans 5, though "death reigned from Adam to Moses" carries with it the covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. And of course, the reference to the Gospel of Christ implies the New Covenant. So let's see, that would be 5 covenants. Only the Davidic covenant appears to be absent of any clear implication.



Semper Fidelis said:


> What is the basis for salvation for these multiple Covenants you have in mind?



Salvation has always been by grace alone through faith alone, in accord with the unity of God's progressive revelation of Himself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many Covenants are expressed in Romans 5:12-21?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the covenants are "expressly" mentioned in Romans 5, though "death reigned from Adam to Moses" carries with it the covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. And of course, the reference to the Gospel of Christ implies the New Covenant. So let's see, that would be 5 covenants. Only the Davidic covenant appears to be absent of any clear implication.
Click to expand...

What is a Covenant precisely?



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the basis for salvation for these multiple Covenants you have in mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salvation has always been by grace alone through faith alone, in accord with the unity of God's progressive revelation of Himself.
Click to expand...


Upon what basis has it "always" been so? 5 covenants above but the basis for salvation has "always" been the same?


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

Archlute said:


> Your argumentation is biblicistic in that it refuses to look at the Scriptures as a theological whole, and to then draw theological conclusions from that big picture.



As an E-5 Combat Medic, I'd like to deeply thank you for serving Christ and the service men and women of our nation in the Chaplain Corps during a time of war, sir.

That being said, I couldn't disagree more with your assertion above. God's progressive self-revelation has an inherent unity apart from a "one covenant - multiple administrations" theory of redemptive history. There is unity because God is one, though there is diversity because God is also three.



Archlute said:


> Using your form of argumentation, you could easily go on to deny the Trinity.



Again, I strongly disagree with the assertion that my form of argument could easily lead to anti-Trinitarianism. I honestly don't see why people have such a hard time seeing the clear Trinitarian implications throughout both testaments of Scripture.



Archlute said:


> I am not setting that forth as an attack, just pointing out that your methodology has already been used by men such as Faustus Socinus and others in their attempts at dismantling doctrines that they did not feel expressly taught by the text of the Word. It is known as a biblicistic and rationalistic methodology.



Wow, talk about guilt by association... Sir...

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 03:17:16 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> What is a Covenant precisely?



A gracious self-revelatory agreement initiated by God with His creation, particularly His image-bearers.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Upon what basis has it "always" been so? 5 covenants above but the basis for salvation has "always" been the same?



It's always been so because God is eternal and immutable and He initiates and reveals the content of the covenants. How is it even conceivable for there to be multiple bases for salvation given by an eternal God? It's a self-refuting concept.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Deadbolt (since I don't know your name) - 

As Rich has pointed out, every premise is mis-stated. As Randy noted, this is true (at least the first part) even from a Particular Baptist perspective. 

I suggest that you need to go back to the drawing board and rewrite your argument in light of the modifications and clarifications and concessions you've made above. Then we can more accurately interact with what it is that you are trying to say...


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

chbrooking said:


> How, then, are we heirs with Abraham? One covenant with multiple administrations is a good and necessary consequence of Gal. 3.



"Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." -Gal. 3:7

Are your children the physical descendants of Abraham by birth? No? 
Then don't give them the sign of the covenant.

Are your children "those of faith who are the sons of Abraham"? No?
Then don't give them the sign of the covenant.


----------



## Sven

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> The continuity within the multiple covenants and their multiple administrations is the result of them being covenants made by the graciousness of an immutable God, not some extra-biblical supposition of a single "covenant of grace."



I would agree with you there is continuity between all the covenants. What is that continuity? It is that the sum and substance of every covenant, whether it be with Abraham, Moses, David or the new covenant is this: “I will be your God, and you will be my people.” (Gen. 17:7,8; Ex. 6:7; Ps. 89; Jer. 31:33; Rev. 21:3) In every covenant God offers to those with whom He is covenanting a way through Christ to be a God to them and they to be His people. This continuity strongly implies that the different covenants are all ectypes of one prototype: the covenant of grace. 
That there is only one covenant, which all the covenants are but ectypes, is biblically defensible. Every covenant made, whether it be with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the new covenant, is called an everlasting covenant (Gen. 9:16; Gen. 17:7; Lev. 24:8; Num.18:19; 2 Sam. 23:5; Jer. 32:40; Heb. 13:20). If the covenant made with Moses was only temporary, why is it called an everlasting covenant? Unless of course, God is referring to the sum and substance of the Mosaic Covenant, which, again, strongly implies that there is one covenant of grace, which the Mosaic covenant and all others are but an ectype.

As far as I'm concerned, the weakness of your argument is that you make the covenants all to be not only different administrations, but different covenants. If they are different, then why are they all the same as to their sum and substance? Until you can deal with this, I see no reason to deal with the rest of your argument. I do not mean to speak down to you, but you really need to do a lot more studying in covenant theology before you try some stunt like this.


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

SolaScriptura said:


> Deadbolt (since I don't know your name) -



It's Ben, too. But you can call me Deadbolt if you like. 



SolaScriptura said:


> As Rich has pointed out, every premise is mis-stated. As Randy noted, this is true (at least the first part) even from a Particular Baptist perspective.
> 
> I suggest that you need to go back to the drawing board and rewrite your argument in light of the modifications and clarifications and concessions you've made above. Then we can more accurately interact with what it is that you are trying to say...



I appreciate your suggestion, but am unsure of what "modifications" and "concessions" I've made, beyond admitting that "identify" may have been an imperfect word choice. "Clarifications" on this board are inescapable. 

I haven't introduced any new information in my follow-ups. It's all in the OP, albeit in a brief statement.

I do, however, appreciate the fact that some of my statements may seem unconventional to those who are regular patrons of the PB, which can make it a bit slippery in trying to "force" me to concede out of "good and necessary consequence" that my arguments are mis-stated, methodologically Socinian, biblicist, rationalistic, Dispensational, anti-Trinitarian and autosoteristic. 

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 03:43:36 EST-----



Sven said:


> I would agree with you there is continuity between all the covenants. What is that continuity? It is that the sum and substance of every covenant, whether it be with Abraham, Moses, David or the new covenant is this: “I will be your God, and you will be my people.” (Gen. 17:7,8; Ex. 6:7; Ps. 89; Jer. 31:33; Rev. 21:3) In every covenant God offers to those with whom He is covenanting a way through Christ to be a God to them and they to be His people.



I agree wholeheartedly that the Immanuel principle is present in each and every one of the biblical covenants.



Sven said:


> This continuity strongly implies that the different covenants are all ectypes of one prototype: the covenant of grace.
> 
> That there is only one covenant, which all the covenants are but ectypes, is biblically defensible. Every covenant made, whether it be with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and the new covenant, is called an everlasting covenant (Gen. 9:16; Gen. 17:7; Lev. 24:8; Num.18:19; 2 Sam. 23:5; Jer. 32:40; Heb. 13:20). If the covenant made with Moses was only temporary, why is it called an everlasting covenant? Unless of course, God is referring to the sum and substance of the Mosaic Covenant, which, again, strongly implies that there is one covenant of grace, which the Mosaic covenant and all others are but an ectype.



The covenant with Moses (along with all the others) are called everlasting covenants because (ready for this one?) they ARE everlasting covenants. No archetype-ectype relationship demonstrated as a "good and necessary consequence" here. Good: debatable. Necessary: not really.



Sven said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the weakness of your argument is that you make the covenants all to be not only different administrations, but different covenants. If they are different, then why are they all the same as to their sum and substance? Until you can deal with this, I see no reason to deal with the rest of your argument. I do not mean to speak down to you, but you really need to do a lot more studying in covenant theology before you try some stunt like this.



You can feel free to speak down to me. I recognized that it's generally par for the course around here when I decided to start the thread.

In response to the "weakness of my argument" question ("If they are different, then why are they all the same as to their sum and substance?"), as I said to Rich:



LockTheDeadbolt said:


> It's always been so because God is eternal and immutable and He initiates and reveals the content of the covenants. How is it even conceivable for there to be multiple bases for salvation given by an eternal God? It's a self-refuting concept.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> I do, however, appreciate the fact that some of my statements may seem unconventional to those who are regular patrons of the PB, which can make it a bit slippery in trying to "force" me to concede out of "good and necessary consequence" that my arguments are mis-stated, methodologically Socinian, biblicist, rationalistic, Dispensational, anti-Trinitarian and autosoteristic.


That is because the grounds for participation on this board is Confessional subscription, which you clearly do not on the CoG given your Dispensational understanding of the nature of the Covenants. Your position is an exception for membership (which, I might add was not stated in your application and should have been).

Of course, such a position has no standing on this board as normative and cannot be forced upon a Covenant theology to claim internal contradiction. I can make any system contradictory if I import premises that are outside that system of doctrine.

Let me distill your original argument:

P1. Paedobaptism rests on a Federal/Covenantal understanding of the Scriptures.
P2. I'm Dispensational and I don't see it.
C. Paedobaptism is wrong


----------



## Sven

Deadbolt, you really haven't dealt with the issue. Why are they everlasting? "Because they ARE everlasting" isn't an answer. We can take the everlasting to mean two things: either the covenants made are perpetual in nature and forever binding, in which case, why is Mosaic Covenant said to "vanish away" (Heb. 8:13)? or the covenants are everlasting because they are all the same in sum and substance implying that they are all really one covenant of grace. Again, you have evidenced to everyone here that you really haven't studied covenant theology all that well. I suggest you do some reading.


----------



## chbrooking

As I understand the OP, you are offering an argument to disprove the validity of PB. I offered reasons why we regard the teaching of the Bible (both explicit and that drawn from GNC) to support PB. Your response is, "I don't see it."

Okay. But that doesn't refute our position. Why bother with the formality of premises, etc. if you aren't going to prove your assertions? 

If you had said, "Lay out the case for PB and let me try to dismantle it," that would be different. But you've made the positive argument for why our position is not biblical. It seems that the onus is on you.

But okay, I'll bite. It's GNC for me because the only distinction between me and the children of Abraham in the OT is the faith made more certain, living as I do post-resurrection and post-Pentecost. I'm saved by the same faith as Abraham. The gospel was preached to Abraham ahead of time (Gen 3.8). 

Gal 3:16 clearly indicates that there was only one True Jew, only one son of Abraham who was truly faithful. By union with him, I am a Jew. Gal 2:11ff indicates that Paul even regarded his Jewishness as via union with Christ. 

Nevertheless, God made promises to Abraham and to his children. The covenant was not made with him alone, but with his children. It was by faith that his children would be faithful to the covenant. But they were still marked with the covenant sign. 

If I regard the NC as radically new, such that there is no continuity, then Gal 3 doesn't make sense to me. How can I be blessed WITH Abraham, and how could the same gospel that is preached to me have been preached to Abraham? That's why I regard the multiple administrations of one covenant of grace as GNC.

But again. It's your argument. You are the one who bears the burden of supporting your position. I've laid out "B" in your "Not-B" modus tollens. It's up to you to PROVE that my "B" cannot stand.

If there are solipsisms or (I hope not) non-sequiturs, forgive me. I'm in a bit of a rush.



LockTheDeadbolt said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> We disagree as to the facts here (see links below). And this is absolutely crucial for your modus tollens... Again, I would not agree with your conclusion regarding Col. 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see why this would be a reasonable point of contention. I attempted to be as brief as possible in regarding Col. 2, primarily to take it easy on the reader, initially anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will you say of the law being added? The same argument could be made about the Abrahamic versus the Mosaic versus the Davidic. But clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've only begged the question against 2b here, specifically when you say, "clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace." This is, of course, _not so clear _at all since it is one of the matters of contention presented in my argument.
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, you will be forced to say that a Jew was saved by obedience to the law. This would be a case of good and necessary consequence. There is something radically new, but there is also continuity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might be a case of what _you_ consider a "good" consequence, but I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that it is "necessary." I never stated or implied anything about the relationship between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and see no necessary consequence which would "force me" into adopting a theory of justification by works under the Mosaic covenant. Maybe you can demonstrate this necessary consequence?
> 
> 
> 
> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might profit by reading this and this, as your argument has a dispensational flavor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man.  Just kidding. I'm thoroughly familiar with the heavily flawed theory of redemptive history known as Dispensationalism, but I don't see any significant similarities between my stated arguments and the affirmations of dispensationalists. Maybe you believe in some sort of a reduction of all theories of redemptive history into either dispensationalism or covenant theology?
Click to expand...


----------



## charliejunfan

Meditate on this, recalling all those were circumcised in the OT, and asking yourself if circumcision was a TYPE or SIGN/SEAL---

Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

and then listen to this-

Paedo-Credo Baptism Debate: Dr. Robert Strimple and Dr. Fred Malone In Thy Light

Nice to meet you!


----------



## Puritan Sailor

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> The covenant with Moses (along with all the others) are called everlasting covenants because (ready for this one?) they ARE everlasting covenants. No archetype-ectype relationship demonstrated as a "good and necessary consequence" here. Good: debatable. Necessary: not really.





LockTheDeadbolt said:


> It's always been so because God is eternal and immutable and He initiates and reveals the content of the covenants. How is it even conceivable for there to be multiple bases for salvation given by an eternal God? It's a self-refuting concept.



In light what you are asserting in this thread, what is "the blood of the *eternal* covenant" refering to? Which covenant does the author of Hebrews have in mind?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

First off here is a good place for me to send you for a definition of a Covenant. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/what-covenant-24830/#post306041


Here is were Rich and I start to discuss Romans 4, Genesis 17, and Galatians 3,4, & 5. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/case-believers-only-baptism-23640/index2.html#post291015




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.



Remember Witsius...


> "It was a national covenant between God and Israel... [It] supposed a covenant of grace. ...It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works... This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other... If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere peity, which supposes both."



We discuss whether Esau was in the Everlasting Covenant here. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/esau-covenant-30290/#post369183

I agree with the Westminster here. 



> Section VI.—Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.





And Rev Winzer and I discuss the Covenant of Works and administration in the following. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/works-within-mosaic-covenant-24649/


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thread moved to Covenant Theology.

There's really no point debating the sign of the Covenant unless one agrees on what the nature of the Covenant is.


----------



## DonP

Good job Sven, and continuing on which would be easy for hours to shoot that all down from abundant scriptures, but consider 
Matt 5:17-"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. NKJV
*Nothing changed here.*

Gal 3:6 *just as* Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." 7 Therefore know that *only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.* 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, *preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand*, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. 
NKJV
*Nothing changed here.*
Gospel was preached to them, the nations coming in was always part of this covenant not a separate and different plan or covenant. Still all under the covenant of grace by faith.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man's covenant, yet if it is confirmed, *no one annuls or adds to it.* 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.* 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, *cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Chris*t, that it should *make the promise of no effect.* 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. NKJV
*Nothing changed here.*
Can't annul the covenant or the promises it contained. All is still the same. This is the covenant with Christ made with Abraham. Same covenant of redemption, cov of grace

Rom 2:28 For* he is not a Jew who is one outwardly*, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but *he is a Jew who is one inwardly;* and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. NKJV 
*Nothing changed here.* Never was a Jew one outwardly in God's eye speaking spiritually. The true Jew was one of the heart. This was cov of grace. Still is. Law written on heart. 

Rom 4:13 For *the promise* that he would be the *heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law*, but through the righteousness of *faith*. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 
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 17(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") NKJV
*Nothing changed here.*
Same by faith cov of grace with Abe and all his seed of faith then and now. 


Rom 9:6 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. NKJV
*Nothing changed here.*
Could it be clearer? Never was ethnic Jews, the cov of Grace and Redemption was always with only those of faith. 
God had no covenant with the unbeliever, with ethnic Jews. No future or eternal promises for ethnic Jews, only those of faith. 
the earthly Jews got the earthy aspect of the promise only by virtue of at least staying in the visible earthly covenant they got the land. 

Rom 11:24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? NKJV
*Nothing changed here.*
We who are being saved now, ethnic Jew or Gentile are al being graft back into the old covenant, the old root of promise made to Abraham, the covenant of grace. 

2 Cor 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. NKJV

Now the administration specifics of that period of the covenant of grace changed, 
1. it was mainly for Jews, now all races
2. it was in one nation, now all nation can worship
3. it had shadows of things to come, many have now been fulfilled. 
4. so the sacrament of passover looking ahead is replaced with the Supper to remember, and the sacrament of death and bloody sacrifice of circumcision as a sign of visible covenant membership has been replaced with a new sign of visible outward covenant membership, 

And if not Baptism, then what is now the sign of being a member of the covenant people, not all of whom were then or are now converted, or even elect. 

So Adam failed the cov of works for all of us, and all of us are under the covenant of works, 
and so from that point on, Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses with all the seed of faith, seed of those in Christ, have been in the covenant of grace. 

I don't know what could be clearer or simpler to follow. 

Christ fulfilled the cov of works for al of those in Him, in the one SEED, in the covenant of Grace, by faith. 

So only the outward circumstances of the cov of grace have been changed at times, Noah had to build and get in an Ark. Abraham had to have a child of miracle and then sacrifice his 1st born, and Moses was given the laws for a nation to live under as greater numbers began to come into the visible outward covenant people. They were called people of God, Children of God, My People etc. but these are outward covenantal terms just as today we can call a church member brother and yet he may not be converted. 
The outward covenant or membership is controlled by the judgment of man and based on works. The covenant of grace is governed by God infallibly and is by faith perfectly visible only to God. 

Nothing has changed except the outward covenant membership has grown and has gone from Noah, to Abe to his descendants to Moses and the nation and now to all nations. 

Is it not a glorious incredible plan??? Once you see the full beauty of this one single plan unfolding in perfect harmony all of scripture is so much clearer and God is so much more amazing. 

2 covenants, several ways they are administrated in the outward, and all along only one way were they administered in the reality and inward, Faith. 

So though the Jewish nation was given laws that had a similarity or form like a covenant of works, this was incidental and secondary, to the real covenant of Grace that was at work. 
Just as we have the appearance of a covenant of works today, continue in sin and not obeying the Lord, and you are excommunicated, put outside the covenant people. 

But we are not saved by these works. This is the error of the FV, they don't understand the covenants and that judging by works is the work of man for the outward visible covenant. 
We are converted and saved by faith alone. And so no man can judge the heart but God. No man knows the state of an infant or youth dying. Our profession and works can be legal and not from saving faith so even those with a credible profession to get into the visible church may not be in the invisible. 
Only God knows.
So we can not baptize only believers, because we can't know for sure. 
We baptize those in the visible outward covenant, those who have a credible profession by words and works, and their children. 
Still today as in the previous testament, the covenant allows for, and the gospel preached includes:
Acts 2:39 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." NKJV

It is the same promise. Though our children are still included in the visible covenant membership obviously, there is no other way to function as a family, being called My People, and to encourage them to pray to their God, than this covenant language, else we would say they were not the children of God, an their prayers would be sin and not heard and God is angry with them until they repent, but this is not How god deals with us. 
He deals with us and has us deal with each other not according to the covenant of grace, but according to the visible covenant people.

So we have promise and hope to the right to tell our children god is their Father and to pray to Him and raise them in the nurture and admonition of the lord, though not all may come to saving faith. And some may be born again from the womb. 
We do not know when a child was regenerated, for we only can see outward visible signs of this as they become reasonable and old enough to give evidence of belief and good works. 

But God did not change this aspect of the outward covenant else we would have had direction that our children were no longer children of God, not to be told to pray to God as abba Father, and that the promise was not to them. 

But what saith the scripture, to you and your children are the promises. 

My friends this is NT language, and even if you see the newness of the covenant not because it is better, but as a whole new covenant then still the children are in it. 1 Cor 7:14 For the *unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife,* and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now *they are holy.* NKJV 

The following verses can only be understood in this covenantal outwardly "holy" language? Do you think no one in the OT was saved by the covenant of grace? 
Was the old covenant void of Christ and His work?
Were they only saved by a covenant of works and sacrifices? 

Then exactly what were the conditions of the OLD covenant? 
Do this and you shall live, do not obey and you shall die? Of course not else not could be saved. That may have stood for the justice system to really kill them or drive them out of the nation in some case, but this was not the salvatory covenant they were under. What were the particulars of the contract of the OT that a man could be saved by? 
It was the same cov of grace 
Gen 17:10-12 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. NKJV 
The covenant was always with believers and their children, even slaves who were under the authority of the head of the house were circumcised as a sign they were also in the covenant in the visible sense. God deals with households in the visible covenant and individuals in the invisible. So the gospel was you and your household will be saved as with Zacheus, this day salvation has come to your household. Believers AND their children. 
Though there is no absolute certainty of their salvation it is the ordinary way with God to deal with His people. Now there is hope for your household to be saved. And there is no way that a household with small children that all were made to make this immediate profession of faith. It is not required for the children until they are of reasonable age, to be their own household and head. 

There was no certainty that a circumcised child or slave would be truly saved or a true believer, it was only a sign they were in the visible church or covenant. Note how this is expressed in the NT

Then better covenant and hope etc. can only mean new in the sense of better or more clear, and easier, more fulfilled and completed by primarily the completion of Christ's work. 
Heb 7:19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a *better hope,* through which we draw near to God. NKJV

Heb 7:22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a *better *covenant. NKJV

Heb 8:6 But now *He has obtained* a *more excellent ministry*, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on *better promises*. NKJV

Was not Abraham promised as good an inheritance in eternity as we? Then it is not a different covenant of grace, but a better ministration of it with more clarity and less shadow, in the fulfillment of it, rather than the expectancy. 

This is the Jewish figurative language. 
One Lord, one faith, ONE Baptism. 
For the One body, One temple, one holy royal priesthood. 

Not two bodies, not one saved by works or sacrifice, all of grace, all part of one covenant, manifested in several ages in several ministries. 
Amen


----------



## Grimmson

Sven said:


> Furthermore, I take you to mean that in the Old Testament God's covenant worked along familial lines. This is implied in the promise to Abraham "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Gen 17:7. If the New covenant no longer worked along familial lines then we would expect the language to change, but this is not the case as is implied in Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." Also this is implied in the "household" baptisms (Acts 16:33; Acts 16:15).



It is true that the Old Testament worked according to families, and to some degree such is the case through Adam in our sin nature, however we do start to see a shift in the Old Testament to a different covenant to come; which is by far a better covenant. In fact we do start to see changes in the language, such as in Acts 2:39 for you see it is also for “ all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” and not just for you and your children. For we see salvation is not through direct decent to a line of believers, but by the calling and drawing of the Lord to his self (See John 6: 36-37, 44). 

In regards to household baptisms, I think this was a rarity instead of the norm. In Lydia’s case we already know that she was a “worshiper of God”(Acts 16:14).Therefore she already had a strong influence in her household in regards to religious practice and there a good chance that they may have been present at the riverside; hence implying that they heard the Gospel from Paul and was baptized. Now with the Philippian jailer, in verse 34 we see that the “his entire household rejoiced that he believed in God”. I find it strange that non-believers would rejoice. In fact Jesus words are what echoes in my mind for the norm:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Matthew 10:34-36

Believing is the key to baptism, not just the head of the household, but those in it. This can clearly be seen in Acts 18:8. And it distinguishes itself from the old covenant. 

Another example of the change of language which I will set forth is in Acts 11, where salvation is clearly given to the gentiles. A radical concept to Peter and the rest of the believing Jews. 

There is a sense that God is still working through family lines, but it is not by present physical families that are through Adam, but through the Christ who is the second Adam. We are made live again not by our parents, were we inherit original sin, but through the Holy Spirit. And it is through the Holy Spirit that we are children of God and heirs in Christ. Therefore a distinction is made between the physical and the spiritual. We are all children of Abraham in this sense, but we are the spiritual offspring through faith and not the physical. 

Regarding the question, ‘Doesn't Moses tell the Israelites that it is not outward adherence to the Law but inward regeneration that counts ("circumcision of the heart," Deut. 10:16)’


Moses does tell the Israelites the need to follow the entire law of God He also tells them in the passage to circumcise their own hearts and to no longer be stubborn. Man by their own nature cannot circumcise their own hearts, which is why the new covenant is a better covenant. Deuteronomy 10:16 and the 10th commandment clearly show the necessary component of the need for inward regeneration that counts towards one righteousness. The problem is with the old covenant as we see in their history that they could not keep that covenant as was judged accordingly. In fact what I would say is that both the outward and the inward equally matter and that the inward would be reflected and seen by the outward as they progress. It was this covenant that Christ fulfilled and who righteousness we now have accredited to us. The old covenant is till in affect, the problem however is do you want to adhere to the old that condemns you by your own merit or by Christ which saves you from this old covenant, who’s design was to show your sin and need for Christ.

As a conclusion there are clear covenantal differences between the old and new covenant. This includes the end of the sacrificial system, salvation through physical descent, adherence to the Law, and Moses or levitical priest standing between the people and God. Jesus is now our high priest and not the order of Levi. Christ being the God man was the better sacrifice, between Man and God. And descent as a child of God is through faith. Those who were saved in times past were not I would say truly saved by old covenant system, but by looking towards Christ in faith. For there is your continuity of the covenant of grace.


----------



## DonP

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man.  Just kidding. I'm thoroughly familiar with the heavily flawed theory of redemptive history known as Dispensationalism, but I don't see any significant similarities between my stated arguments and the affirmations of dispensationalists. Maybe you believe in some sort of a reduction of all theories of redemptive history into either dispensationalism or covenant theology?



When God began to show me the doctrines of grace it took me years to remove all of the filters of dispensational thinking. It has been 35 years and I am not sure I have gotten them all out yet. 

But I struggled with the same rational thinking you are going through. 

My mind kept seeing scriptures with the background of dispensational programming. so I was not free to just see what the scriptures said from a blank neutral mind. So this is why some say your interpretation is dispensational, and you don't see the traces of it still there influencing your thinking. 
Be patient with yourself and us. We have all been through this and are very zealous of God's truth, and also of helping you to see truth clearly. 

all the answers are here and in scripture if you will be as open to see the other perspective as you did when shown the doctrines of grace. 

So I think you will find this more congenial if you would be a little more inquisitive in how you pursue your discussions, being new to the reformed truths of the scripture. 

I think the posts will be gentler and you will see the grace, and love the people here have for you. The intensity is created by you when you come from a place of being right and they wrong. 

Just keep asking questions, Well what about this? 
Then how do you understand this ? Etc. 

And I think you will find the people here more kind and willing to help you come to the understanding many of us have come to after years of sophisticated and thorough study, and some have been raised with their whole lives. 

Few if any here hold to such a minority teaching today and take a stand against the broader church and other ministers without having a very solid basis on which to do it. 

The Jewish language and thus their thinking is very figurative and full of these figures. 
to simply look up a word definition in a dictionary and base an interpretation of a passage on that is very unwise. 

The Greek is somewhat easier, but even then you are dealing with Jewish minds speaking to Jewish men or those who have been influenced and taught by Jewish thinking. 
We must keep this in mind as we seek to interpret and understand what the thinking of the people was that is being addressed by the author. 

An example of this is, some things are said to be everlasting. But they are not everlasting in the "now" temporal earthly aspect of the prophecy, but are eternal in their spiritual fulfillment. 
Like the covenant, with Israel, the nation was destroyed, sent to exile, God says those laws are done. So they were not everlasting in the physical, but long, for many generations, which it also means. But in the spiritual reality they pointed to, they are eternal. And so those of faith enter in to that aspect while others are left with the temporal earthly only. So the children of Israel were exiled and the nation ended. It was not a continuous everlasting promise to them of land. 
Hope this helps. I am so glad you are studying these issues though. May God have grace on you and bring your efforts to fruit for His glory and your joy!


----------



## Grimmson

Joshua said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a conclusion there are clear covenantal differences between the old and new covenant. This includes the end of the sacrificial system, salvation through physical descent, adherence to the Law, and Moses or levitical priest standing between the people and God. Jesus is now our high priest and not the order of Levi. Christ being the God man was the better sacrifice, between Man and God. And descent as a child of God is through faith. Those who were saved in times past were not I would say truly saved by old covenant system, but by looking towards Christ in faith. For there is your continuity of the covenant of grace.
> 
> 
> 
> First, salvation has never been through physical descent, but _only_ by faith in Christ alone. Covenant membership (not election) is by family descent, but there are Covenant Breakers. Membership never guarantees salvation.
> 
> Secondly, we are still very much to "adhere" to the moral Law of God (summarily taught in the Decalogue), it didn't begin with Moses.
> 
> Finally, concerning your last sentence, I do not know any Reformed folk that would say _anyone_ was ever saved by the old covenant system. If so, well, they'd be terribly wrong and unReformed, for sure.
Click to expand...


First, salvation in the Jewish mind, including Peter initially was only for the Jews. Your right to say that membership in the old covenant was through physical descendants, however that does change in the new covenant for all knows the Lord in that covenant as members. Also we see the giving of baptism to those that believe. In fact those who are TRUE members of this covenant are also elected to salvation; and thus a major difference between the old and the new. You do find a mixture visibly, however their leaving is proof they were never members to begin with. 

Second, I never said we should not adhere to the moral law of God. We should. In fact I would say that the requirements within the law are more demanding as we see in the Sermon on the Mount then with the morality recognized through Moses alone. Christ fulfilled the moral law for us, along with the rest of the law. In fact in the new covenant we see God’s laws into our minds and written on our heart. So the law is still very important. And we show are love for God by trying to adhere to the commandments of God by faith. I think we need to be careful to recognize that it is not through adhere to the Law that saves us, but through Christ and his sacrifice; so that we will not have a reason to boast. Also I never said that it began with Moses, but Moses gives a foundational and fuller law of God compared to what we see in creation. In fact we assign the entire Pentateuch as being the Torah or the Law. And I was using the Law in the sense of the Sinai or Mosaic covenant, along with the laws we find in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. 

In regards to my last sentence, I think there has been some covenantal confusion between the old and new covenant as it pertains to the covenants of works, grace, and redemption. And how we see continuity and discontinuity between the two; which historically I think brought upon as a reaction the rise of dispensationalism. I think we need to clearly define our terms and what is under what covenants and how they interact with each other.

I know there are people here that disagree with arguments against the discontinuity between the old and new covenants, particularly in relation to households that I posted earlier above. I think we need to be drawing clear cut distinctions first from the two, because I have ran across people who claim to be reformed that did not recognize that such distinctions exist. That one of the reasons why we have the federal vision and the new perspective on Paul rise up in reformed ranks. We depend on our categories that we teach, without taking a step back and look at the covenants not from a theological perspective initially, but a historical one. Once the historical has been established, then we can move on to the theological categories that exist with good reason such as works, grace, and redemption.. I think if we use that approach some of the covenantal confusion that exists would fade away to some degree.


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

It is rather presumptuous indeed to assert that one can only disagree with the "Classical Covenant Theology" thesis (as I specifically titled the thread) out of lack of education regarding CT and it's thoroughly reductionistic to confound my argument with Dispensationalism.

Let me point out that I've never been a dispensationalist. Never watched a "Left Behind" movie (much less read one of the books), never had a Scofield Bible, never adopted premillennialism of any kind. After being converted to Christ in college, I attended a PCA church, then an OPC church. I learned the 1647 WCF, but eventually chose to adopt the 1689 LBCF over exegetical issues relating to Col. 2. I am now, however, considering adopting the 1646 LBCF for some of the reasons related to the points of conflict in this thread, namely the CT axiom regarding "one covenant - multiple administrations," as well as an exaggerated emphasis on Moses over Christ (a different but related issue).


----------



## DonP

Grimmson said:


> It is true that the Old Testament worked according to families, and to some degree such is the case through Adam in our sin nature, however we do start to see a shift in the Old Testament to a different covenant to come; which is by far a better covenant. In fact we do start to see changes in the language, such as in Acts 2:39 for you see it is also for “ all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” and not just for you and your children. For we see salvation is not through direct decent to a line of believers, but by the calling and drawing of the Lord to his self (See John 6: 36-37, 44).





> PeaceMaker]This is the one unfolding plan from a small number of people to larger and larger number of people.Thus the language is consistent with the promise to all nations in the beginning. Still part of that promise.





Grimmson said:


> In regards to household baptisms, I think this was a rarity instead of the norm. In Lydia’s case we already know that she was a “worshiper of God”(Acts 16:14).Therefore she already had a strong influence in her household in regards to religious practice and there a good chance that they may have been present at the riverside; hence implying that they heard the Gospel from Paul and was baptized. Now with the Philippian jailer, in verse 34 we see that the “his entire household rejoiced that he believed in God”. I find it strange that non-believers would rejoice. In fact Jesus words are what echoes in my mind for the norm:



Wow that is a lot of adding to the word of God and speculation of what might have been a hence this. Rather than plainly taking what it tells us and which would be consistent with what went on in the OT. 

The simple fact is even if it was a rarity it proves the point that it is legitimate. 
So it doesn't have to be the norm. 

But can you tell me examples where it wasn't done, that cause you to come to this conclusion, or is this pure conjecture based on nothing in the word? 

Is there even one example where children were excluded from baptism? 
Or to have been noted the children believed or made profession? 
The absence of any instance would lead us to believe because it was not the practice to require a profession or exclude them and it continued without change as in the previous administration or we would be told of the change. 

On what basis would one change the practice if not specified in the word to do so? 

Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. NKJV


----------



## Sven

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> It is rather presumptuous indeed to assert that one can only disagree with the "Classical Covenant Theology" thesis (as I specifically titled the thread) out of lack of education regarding CT and it's thoroughly reductionistic to confound my argument with Dispensationalism.
> 
> Let me point out that I've never been a dispensationalist. Never watched a "Left Behind" movie (much less read one of the books), never had a Scofield Bible, never adopted premillennialism of any kind. After being converted to Christ in college, I attended a PCA church, then an OPC church. I learned the 1647 WCF, but eventually chose to adopt the 1689 LBCF over exegetical issues relating to Col. 2. I am now, however, considering adopting the 1646 LBCF for some of the reasons related to the points of conflict in this thread, namely the CT axiom regarding "one covenant - multiple administrations," as well as an exaggerated emphasis on Moses over Christ (a different but related issue).



I'm not presumptuous at all. You're understanding of the covenant betrays the fact that you haven't done a very good job of studying classical Reformed Covenant Theology. I don't say that based upon the fact that you disagree, but HOW you disagree.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> It is rather presumptuous indeed to assert that one can only disagree with the "Classical Covenant Theology" thesis (as I specifically titled the thread) out of lack of education regarding CT and it's thoroughly reductionistic to confound my argument with Dispensationalism.


As it is reductionistic to assert that the only kind of dispensational approach to the Scriptures is Scofield dispensationalism.



> I am now, however, considering adopting the 1646 LBCF for some of the reasons related to the points of conflict in this thread, namely the CT axiom regarding "one covenant - multiple administrations," as well as an exaggerated emphasis on Moses over Christ (a different but related issue).



I would suggest you consult the scholarship of Fred Malone which defeats the illusion that the 1646 is somehow in competition with the 1689 LBCF on key doctrines. Either way, it is the 1689 LBCF that is required for subscription and participation without waiver here.


----------



## Sven

Grimson, when I said that covenant works along familial lines I did not mean in any respects that being a child of a believer automatically qualifies the child as a covenant member. I wholeheartedly affirm that faith in Christ is a prerequisite for being in the covenant. However, God blesses those who are a part of His covenant, promising blessings not only to them but to their children. This language is all over the Bible: "to you and your seed," "to you and your children," "showing mercy to a thousand generations," etc. This same lanquage is continued into the New Testament. To reiterate my point: it is the SAME covenant.


----------



## DonP

> First, salvation in the Jewish mind, including Peter initially was only for the Jews. Your right to say that membership in the old covenant was through physical descendants, however that does change in the new covenant for all knows the Lord in that covenant as members. Also we see the giving of baptism to those that believe. In fact those who are TRUE members of this covenant are also elected to salvation; and thus a major difference between the old and the new. You do find a mixture visibly, however their leaving is proof they were never members to begin with.



Slow down a minute and look what you wrote here. 

You just merged the visible aspect of the covenant with the invisible elect. 

There is no difference here between the old and the new. 

There were people who were in the visible covenant, members of Israel. Got the temporal earthly benefits, by descendancy, but were not true believers.

There were some of these who were elect and True believers, but not all. 

This is the same now, there are many who, fallible men, have judged to meet the standard for membership in the visible church. These are not all elect. So not all who have a good profession are really converted. 

I am sure you are not saying you can tell who is really regenerated and who is not and you only baptize the true believers?

So membership in the nation of Israel and outward covenant was by descendants primarily, though also by an outsider making a profession and if make taking the sign. But entrance into salvation was by the covenant of grace through faith only. 

Jews were not saved by being a descendant as sited in the vrs in my previous post. 
I hope you will study that, it does clear all this up for you if you are open. 

So there were two aspects to the old covenant just as there are 2 aspects to the new. 

And still people are admitted to the membership of the church through being the children of believers and also by a profession coming from outside or as children become of an age or maturity to give a credible profession. 

And yet none of this gives them admission to regeneration. That is still by the covenant of grace through faith only. 

Do you disagree that not all in the visible church are regenerated true believers, elect?

Do you then see it was the same in Israel? 2 aspect to membership.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 08:42:29 EST-----



Sven said:


> Grimson, when I said that covenant works along familial lines I did not mean in any respects that being a child of a believer automatically qualifies the child as a covenant member. I wholeheartedly affirm that faith in Christ is a prerequisite for being in the covenant. .



Which covenant? You mean being a child of a member of the visible church covenant does not mean they will be in the eternal covenant of grace. 

Covenant children are in the covenant. The visible one. Else they can't be a covenant breaker. 

There are always these two aspects to the covenants and membership which people forget and speak in confusing ways. 

I am sure in your church you do have children in membership. This is the visible covenant people of god just as Israel was the visible covenant people. 

We can't have covenant mean only elect. Or covenant of Grace without specifying this. 

This causes the confusion. 

God calls all the covenant people, My People. All Israel is called the Children of God. My people. 
But they are not all His savingly. Not all in the covenant of grace. 

So we can tell our children they are the children of God in this sense and yet that they need to repent, and believe and show evidence of regeneration to be eternally God's. 

They are holy, set apart for God in a special way, but they must be regenerated. If they were regenerated early in childhood, at some point there will be visible evidence of this and profession.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

What is a Covenant breaker? If you guys are referring to Romans 1:31, that passage is referred to covnenat breaking in a common sense. Everyone is a covenantbreaker.



> (Rom 1:31) Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
> 
> (Rom 1:32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.



Gill
covenant breakers; had no regard to private or public contracts: 

Henry
Against the ninth commandment: Deceit, whisperers, back-biters, covenant-breakers, lying and slandering.

Robertson
Covenant-breakers (asunthetous). Another paronomasia or pun. A privative and verbal sunthetos from suntithēmi, to put together. Old word, common in lxx (Jer 3:7), men “false to their engagements” (Sanday and Headlam), who treat covenants as “a scrap of paper.” 

Barnes
Covenant breakers - Perfidious; false to their contracts.


----------



## DonP

Covenant breaker 

Heb 6:4-6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. NKJV

Note they only tasted and did not eat Christ. 

They sat under the teaching and vowed or were baptized or born in but left the covenant people. 

1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. NKJV

Whether OT or new, they broke the covenant. For you a baptized member who vowed, covenanted, contracted to obey and walk in the faith and leaves. 

One who makes a covenant and does not keep it. 

So yes in one sense we who are under the covenant of works have broken it. 

But there is a more specific application also.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I actually believe you are assuming too much in the Hebrews passage. But maybe not. The only passage that I know of that specifically addresses covenant breaking is not specifically about falling away from Christ.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

This text is the most explicit:
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has *profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified*, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

But it may and ought to be taken in conjunction with the rest of the warning passages.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> This text is the most explicit:
> Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has *profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified*, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
> 
> The word sanctified can be applied to Christ as Owen and others do.
> 
> It seems from vs. 14 that those who are sanctified are perfected for ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heb 10:14) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Click to expand...


----------



## Contra_Mundum

But that's not the MAIN point that relevant to what was being asked.

WHO *profaned* (attacked. broke, whatever negative) the blood of the covenant? And how did he do so, unless he's somewhere in the vicinity? If "sanctified" applies to the "profaner", then obviously it isn't a "salvific" sanctification. If it applies to Christ, we still have to deal with someone who is close enough to "profane" that covenant blood.

If you go back to 9:18ff, you have the "blood of the first covenant," and who was connected to it, and we know how that blood/covenant was profaned: mainly by unbelievers yoked outwardly by it.


----------



## A.J.

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." -Gal. 3:7



This is true. In fact, it has _always_ been true. In no way could unbelieving Jews (e.g., the Pharisees) say to themselves that they had Abraham as their father (Matt. 3:8; John 8:39). Those who believe in Christ in *both testaments* are the _true_ seed of Abraham, and those only (Rom. 4:13; Gal. 3:29). Isn't this the very argument of the Apostle Paul in defending justification against the Judaizers? Paul appealed to Abraham because the heretical Judaizers did not understand the patriarch in the first place. Paul's view was also defended by Christ (the seed of Abraham, Gal. 3:16) and John (the last _Old_ Covenant prohpet) in the Gospels. Only those who trust Christ are the seed of Abraham.



LockTheDeadbolt said:


> Are your children the physical descendants of Abraham by birth? No?
> Then don't give them the sign of the covenant.



This is a serious misunderstanding of _who_ received the sign of the covenant. Were the physical descendants of Abraham by birth the _only_ ones who received circumcision? 

And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, *which is not of thy seed*. He that is born in thy house, and *he that is bought with thy money*, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. - Genesis 17:12-13​ 
The truth is even Gentiles who were not the physical descendants of Abraham could become members of God's covenant community in the Old Testament. They received circumcision, and became like the "native of the land."

And when *a stranger* shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let *all his males* be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and *he shall be as one that is born in the land*: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. - Exodus 12:48​


LockTheDeadbolt said:


> Are your children "those of faith who are the sons of Abraham"? No?
> Then don't give them the sign of the covenant.



But this begs the question. It's one thing to say that those who are of faith are the children of Abraham. _But it's another thing to assert that *only* those who profess faith are to be baptized_. The issue here is *not* who the true children of Abraham really are. Our concern is _who_ should receive the sign of the covenant. 

Your argument also goes against the baptism of professors. Many adults who profess faith and are consequently baptized eventually commit apostasy. Are they then true children of Abraham? No. Therefore, they should not have received the sign of the covenant. At this point, the argument against infant baptism has become an argument against adult baptism.


----------



## Grimmson

This will probably be my last response in a while, because I’ve been quite busy, so I apologize for the length. 



PeaceMaker said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is true that the Old Testament worked according to families, and to some degree such is the case through Adam in our sin nature, however we do start to see a shift in the Old Testament to a different covenant to come; which is by far a better covenant. In fact we do start to see changes in the language, such as in Acts 2:39 for you see it is also for “ all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” and not just for you and your children. For we see salvation is not through direct decent to a line of believers, but by the calling and drawing of the Lord to his self (See John 6: 36-37, 44).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker]This is the one unfolding plan from a small number of people to larger and larger number of people.Thus the language is consistent with the promise to all nations in the beginning. Still part of that promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said there were no similarities. I just pointed out that there were clear covenantal differences. For why would we need a new covenant, if the old was the same and good enough? I am not at this point making the works and grace covenantal distinction, but the old and new covenantal distinction; which I may add is not dispensational, but orthodox. It is from there we need to start to construct are covenantal theology. Which from a historical note was developed to stand against the covenantal theology of the Anabaptists.
> 
> This now moves me to Household baptisms
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to household baptisms, I think this was a rarity instead of the norm. In Lydia’s case we already know that she was a “worshiper of God”(Acts 16:14).Therefore she already had a strong influence in her household in regards to religious practice and there a good chance that they may have been present at the riverside; hence implying that they heard the Gospel from Paul and was baptized. Now with the Philippian jailer, in verse 34 we see that the “his entire household rejoiced that he believed in God”. I find it strange that non-believers would rejoice. In fact Jesus words are what echoes in my mind for the norm:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow that is a lot of adding to the word of God and speculation of what might have been a hence this. Rather than plainly taking what it tells us and which would be consistent with what went on in the OT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just accused me of adding to the word of God, instead of taking the plain reading of scripture. One could say the same to you and those in your position. You ignored my reference to Matthew 10:34-36 as if it had no meaning to the issue of households. But the simple truth is that the Gospel does divide and that has not changed over time. You also gave no reference to the fact that the Philippian jailer’s family rejoiced that the head of the household believed in God. So you find that normal that unbelievers rejoice as such? Nor did you respond to the fact that Acts 18:8, that it was more then just the head that believed and as a result the household was baptized along with him, but all those that believed were baptized in the household; which happen to be the entire household.
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The simple fact is even if it was a rarity it proves the point that it is legitimate.
> So it doesn't have to be the norm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legitimate to what? Just because something was practiced under the old covenant does not mean that such a practice continues to this day. Nor does it mean that it ends. In the case of NT scripture, belief before baptism was the norm. Now what about children? Remember what I said earlier:
> 
> “There is a sense that God is still working through family lines, but it is not by present physical families that are through Adam, but through the Christ who is the second Adam. We are made live again not by our parents, were we inherit original sin, but through the Holy Spirit. And it is through the Holy Spirit that we are children of God and heirs in Christ. Therefore a distinction is made between the physical and the spiritual. We are all children of Abraham in this sense, but we are the spiritual offspring through faith and not the physical.”
> 
> We are truly the children of God, and our children are holy in the same sense as an unbelieving spouse is holy. Relook at 1 Corinthians 7:14 on that issue. We are not to look at the unbelieving spouse and see them as being believers; likewise the same would also be true of children; which is very much different with the structure of the old covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there even one example where children were excluded from baptism?
> Or to have been noted the children believed or made profession?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are good questions, even though I have a sense that they were being asked in a condescending way. The evidence is that believing/faith is a requirement for baptism. Does that mean children were not baptized? If they showed simple faith then I see no reason to assume that one was not baptized. The scripture does not make that clear. I do think we can assume believing children because of Ephesians 6.
> 
> Hopefully it can be seen that I was true to these texts that I provided. I did try to impose a covenantal outside element to the text, but stayed simply with what information the text provided. We need to be careful that we are not like Rome or other traditions that impose the practice of eisegesis to a text, but to go with only with the information that is provided.
> 
> 
> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> On what basis would one change the practice if not specified in the word to do so?
> 
> Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. NKJV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basis is simple, the Word of God. You are making the assumption that the new covenant works the same as the old. It does not. In fact based on your line of reason, in support of John Knox and Henry Alford, you would say that adult baptism should be the exception and was the case in the time of the new testament. Of course today, hopefully we would not say such and would also say that biological growth in the church alone is a mark that the church itself is desperately sick. The word of God is not being added to like you suggest of me. I would suggest relooking at the text and seeing what the plain reading is with respect to the text, outside one traditional applied hermeneutic. And make your decisions based on what the text offers alone before adding to it like many of us do.
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, salvation in the Jewish mind, including Peter initially was only for the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their ignorance (as professed by you) doesn't make the statement true. That's not what scripture teaches. Where would it put Ruth?
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be an initial denial that in the Jewish mind that salvation was only for the Jews. I would suggest looking at Acts 10 as an example of the move towards salvation also being for the gentiles; therefore implying that it was once considered to be for the Jews alone and not considering in the back of their mind passages like Psalm 87. They would probably see individuals like Ruth as being saved because of her marriage relationship with Boaz. I am not saying I agree with the position, I am just looking at it from a Jewish perspective. Today if you speak with Jews they still have the same mind set that salvation is strictly for them and for no one else. Of course as Christians we would say salvation only comes from Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your right to say that membership in the old covenant was through physical descendants, however that does change in the new covenant for all knows the Lord in that covenant as members. Also we see the giving of baptism to those that believe. In fact those who are TRUE members of this covenant are also elected to salvation; and thus a major difference between the old and the new. You do find a mixture visibly, however their leaving is proof they were never members to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means that they were never elect, which is not = being in covenant. Else, there would be no such thing as Covenant Breakers. How can one break what they're not in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Le us back up here. There was two ways to enter into membership in the old covenant. The first way was to be make a profession of faith, be circumcised, be baptized, and then sacrifice an animal; at least according to Herman Witsius in his second volume of Economy of the Covenants. The second way, which was the common way, was by being the offspring of one already in the covenant. Now the real question is whether or not the new covenant is different. Another important question is what is the nature of this new covenant? Another important one is who is saved and who is not and on what grounds?
> 
> The best book to look at the similarities and the differences between the old and new covenant is Epistle of the Hebrews. In Chapter 8, verse 7 through 13, we see the old covenant as being inferior to the new, with better promises associated with it. And ratified by Christ on the cross as implied by Luke 22:20. In verse 9 of Chapter 8 of Hebrews the text clearly states that this covenant is not like the one that made after the Israelites left Egypt. So there are established differences and we see what those differences are as we move through the text. One of those difference is the law is in their minds and written on their hearts; this is done by that single offering for those who would be sanctified (Hebrews 10:14-16). As I said before all those in this covenant know the Lord (Hebrews 8:11). And the sins will be forgiven of all those who are given life by the Spirit and loved by God ( 2 Corinthians 3:6, Ephesians 1:13-14, Hebrews 8:12, and 10:17). Life in the old covenant was based perfect obedience, do this and you shall live (Deut. 30:16-18). But in Christ it is based on that once for all sacrifice and not of bulls or goats that looked to Christ. For that was nothing more of a shadow to come.
> 
> There was a comment made on the fact that I recognized a mixture in today’s churches of the elect and the unelect. This particular problem of the church is really the fault of the church. For we are to be not that type or shadow anymore. That invisible distinction has been allowed to develop because of a lack or orthodox and discipline within our churches. Where we many times call sheep that are goats and vice versa. Now we do not know in reality who the elect are, but are fruit must be purer then the example set forth from Israel. We use the visible and invisible distinction as an excuse for what is allowed in the church. This acceptance of individuals that are clearly not a part of us, and I am not indicating the weaker brother here, is a sin on our part for scripture shows the church as being that of a holy nation and priesthood. And we should through out the truly wicked among us and focus on the teaching of God’s word instead of the many distractions we have set use.
> 
> If anyone has questions about what I have written in any of the posts in this tread I will be more then happy to respond. Even if there are points that I have not answered yet. It may take a while for my response because I am quite busy and do not have much time to spend online right now, because of my own studies that I am behind in. Therefore I wish you all good day or night and God bless you all remembering your forgiveness of sins, paid by the high price of our Savior and Lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

Semper Fidelis said:


> As it is reductionistic to assert that the only kind of dispensational approach to the Scriptures is Scofield dispensationalism.



Please show where I asserted that Scofieldian Dispensationalism is the only kind of dispensationalism.



Semper Fidelis said:


> I would suggest you consult the scholarship of Fred Malone which defeats the illusion that the 1646 is somehow in competition with the 1689 LBCF on key doctrines. Either way, it is the 1689 LBCF that is required for subscription and participation without waiver here.



Thanks for the suggestion. I will do that. I imagine the definition of "key doctrines" is important to whether or not they are in competition.

If/when I decide to adopt the 1646 I will be sure to resign my membership at PB.


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

I apologize for "reneging" on my withdrawal from participation in the thread.

But to distill and summarize the constructive criticisms above regarding the original argument presented:

(2a.) is mis-stated in its use of "identical" relating the Abrahamic and New covenants. They are "the same" covenant of grace, but not identical.

As stated, (2a.) begs the question against paedobaptistic interpretations of the NT and requires further argumentation.

(2b.) begs the question against classical Covenant Theology and requires further argumentation.

Accurate summary?

Beyond that, it's valid with true premises, right?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it is reductionistic to assert that the only kind of dispensational approach to the Scriptures is Scofield dispensationalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show where I asserted that Scofieldian Dispensationalism is the only kind of dispensationalism.
Click to expand...

When you accuse another of an egregious misrepresentation of your position as dispensationalism (of the variety of owning a Scofield Study Bible or reading Left Behind books) then the accusation of being reductionistic is apt only of your pugilistic response.



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest you consult the scholarship of Fred Malone which defeats the illusion that the 1646 is somehow in competition with the 1689 LBCF on key doctrines. Either way, it is the 1689 LBCF that is required for subscription and participation without waiver here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion. I will do that. I imagine the definition of "key doctrines" is important to whether or not they are in competition.
> 
> If/when I decide to adopt the 1646 I will be sure to resign my membership at PB.
Click to expand...

Or apply for a waiver.



LockTheDeadbolt said:


> I apologize for "reneging" on my withdrawal from participation in the thread.
> 
> But to distill and summarize the constructive criticisms above regarding the original argument presented:
> 
> (2a.) is mis-stated in its use of "identical" relating the Abrahamic and New covenants. They are "the same" covenant of grace, but not identical.
> 
> As stated, (2a.) begs the question against paedobaptistic interpretations of the NT and requires further argumentation.
> 
> (2b.) begs the question against classical Covenant Theology and requires further argumentation.
> 
> Accurate summary?
> 
> Beyond that, it's valid with true premises, right?


(1a) is imprecisely stated as circumcision does not correspond directly with baptism in Covenant theology.

(1b) should note that they are different administrations of the same Covenant of Grace, which substance is the person and work of Christ.

(2a) is wrong as circumcision is regularly used of regeneration in both the NT and OT (Deut 10:6, Deut 30:4, Rom 4, Col 2). It may be typological but it is hardly a mere physical act so much so that it is apt to speak of baptism as circumcision without hands.

(2b), as noted, begs the question but all the premises must be rehabilitated before the question is asked if the argument is valid.


----------



## Brian Withnell

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> I thought I'd put it up an argument here and just let people poke holes in it for awhile. So without any further ado, have at it:
> 
> Major Premise: 1. If Covenant Theology is true (A), then its doctrines will be expressed or implied in Scripture (B).
> 
> 1a. CT contains a doctrine that baptism corresponds directly with circumcision (both being given to infants as signs of the covenant).
> 
> 1b. This doctrine rests heavily on the doctrine that the Abrahamic and the New Covenant are the same identical covenant of grace in different administrations.
> 
> Minor Premise: 2. Even in the most conspicuous places (Acts 15, Col. 2) Scripture nowhere expresses or implies doctrines (1a) and (1b). (~B)
> 
> 2a. Scripture presents a typological relationship between circumcision and baptism, where the emphasis on the material type (circumcision) is replaced by the emphasis on the spiritual substance (regeneration) (Col. 2), and baptism is linked to union with Christ (Rom. 6), which is by rebirth, not physical birth.
> 
> 2b. The “one covenant – multiple administrations” supposition (1b) which (1a) rests on is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with multiple respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9).
> 
> Conclusion: 3. Therefore (~A) CT is false (or "not true," for the strict logicians out there) by modus tollens.
> 
> If A, then B.
> Not B.
> Therefore Not A.



First, 1a is plainly supported by Col 2:11, 12 -- the passage uses parallel of equivalent action. The text without the intervening parenthetical states:



> and in Him you were also circumcised ... having been buried with Him in baptism



1a is established as true. We are circumcised because we have been baptized. The only change is removal of the parenthetical clause.



> Translate, “Having been buried with Him in your baptism.” The past participle is here coincident in time with the preceding verb, “ye were (Greek) circumcised.” Baptism is regarded as the burial of the old carnal life, to which the act of immersion symbolically corresponds; and in warm climates where immersion is safe, it is the mode most accordant with the significance of the ordinance; but the spirit of the ordinance is kept by affusion, where immersion would be inconvenient or dangerous; to insist on literal immersion in all cases would be mere legal ceremonialism (Ro 6:3, 4).
> Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Col 2:13). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.




Your minor premise 2 is just false. The passage above establishes it. The parallel in both the English and Greek establishes that Paul was saying the need for circumcision not only was not because of the law passing, but also because it was already accomplished for those in Christ when they are baptized. Paul states clearly in the Col 2 passage that baptism is how the gentiles are in fact circumcised. Any denial of that is not from exegesis but from eisegesis. The passage is within the context of Paul opposing circumcision, and points out that Christians are all already circumcised -- while the argument is to oppose circumcision, it clearly has to state the basic premise for which it is being used.

And while the first portion is sufficient to destroy the argument, it is fully worthwhile to tear down 2b.



> WCF 7.5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.


And while it is worthwhile noting it is differently stated, the conclusion that there is but one covenant of grace is clearly seen in the LBCF 1689:


> 3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.


Talking of many covenants is well and good as long as you are speak outside of the means of salvation. Different administrations of the only means of salvation is clearly taught in scripture and clearly described in all three statements of reformed faith. 2b is clearly not in agreement with any of the confessional standards of reformed faith. Either there is one covenant of grace, or one opposes the statements of the confessions.

Your logic is flawed:
If A, then B
not A, so B is irrelevant.


----------



## DonP

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I actually believe you are assuming too much in the Hebrews passage. But maybe not. The only passage that I know of that specifically addresses covenant breaking is not specifically about falling away from Christ.



I hope you don't seriously mean people can fall away from Christ?? 

Could you clarify? 

No one loses salvation, they are in the visible outward covenant and never were in the inward invisible covenant. They were never regenerated. 

So when they quit the church, leave and don't come back, continue in sin and are kicked out, they have broken the covenant they were in. 
The visible covenant, church membership but not members of the invisible church of the elect. 

The visible church on earth and its members are not the sane as the elect. 

Many are unregenerate who are in the visible church. 

We cannot tell who is regenerate and who is not. We can not tell who is elect and who is not. 
We can only see the works and profession. And anyone who can maintain a minimal outward lifestyle consistent with scripture gets to stay in even if they are not born again. 

So when it says someone leaves the church, tasted of the Spirit we must know it was because they never were of us, or they will repent of their covenant breaking and come back. They will either repent and be converted or they will stop the backsliding and return and we will not know for sure. 

Man judges the outward visible, only god knows the heart and inward work of grace. 
Matt 13:28 The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?' 29 But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn."'" 

Matt 13:40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will *gather out of His kingdom *all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 
NKJV


----------



## DonP

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> This text is the most explicit:
> Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has *profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified*, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word sanctified can be applied to Christ as Owen and others do.
> 
> It seems from vs. 14 that those who are sanctified are perfected for ever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heb 10:14) For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is what it means in the word sanctified. 
1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. NKJV

Now you baptists have to figure out what that is. It isn't Christ. 

It is clearly they are the same as Jews. Not all necessarily converted, because man can't know that, but definitely in the visible church and covenant and to be called by the same terms as the Jewish children, Children of God, People of god, Saints, Brethren, Israel, etc. and all other covenant terms and benefits they get for being in the visible outward covenant.

Here are the main benefits of being in the visible covenant people. 

Rom 3:1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. NKJV

Gal 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith NKJV

So being in the visible covenant, or in church membership does not mean you are regenerated, but it means humanly speaking you have a better chance and if you turn out to be a covenant breaker you will have a more severe judgment.


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

Brian, thank you for the critical analysis of the argument presented in the OP.



Brian Withnell said:


> First, 1a is plainly supported by Col 2:11, 12 -- the passage uses parallel of equivalent action. The text without the intervening parenthetical states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and in Him you were also circumcised ... having been buried with Him in baptism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1a is established as true. We are circumcised because we have been baptized. The only change is removal of the parenthetical clause.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid you've removed a wee bit more than the parenthetical clause. A bit which is rather crucial in weakening your assertion of equivalent action parallelism.

Without the parenthetical it states: "In him also you were circumcised _*with a circumcision made without hands*_... having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith..."

The statement that it is a circumcision "without hands" makes it non-equivalent to baptism, in contradiction to your reading of the text.



Brian Withnell said:


> Your logic is flawed:
> If A, then B
> not A, so B is irrelevant.



I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The re-structuring of the argument's form you provide here doesn't really reflect any of the reasoning you gave in the body of your response. I didn't argue "not A," but "not B, therefore not A." You disagreed with the "not B" portion, that (2a) is in contradiction with Col. 2 and (2b) is in contradiction with WCF/2LBCF/3FU. That doesn't reflect any change in the form of the argument, however.

I proposed the argument in the title of the thread as an "argument against classical covenant theology...", so I can't disagree with your position that my argument contradicts those confessions. Clearly, it does. But if I can't propose arguments against it for the sake of considering the confessions' biblical faithfulness _from within_ (as a subscriber to one of those confessions), then mustn't we admit to being cessationists with regards to _Semper Reformanda_, that the "theological canon" was _unquestionably_ closed in the 17th century?

In that respect, many of the responses thus far have committed _ad hominem_ or even _tu quoque_ fallacies at worst and have presented mere _appeals to authority_ at best. I'm just looking for a bit more demonstration than it appears folks are interested in providing. And that, simply, just "is what it is." I wouldn't presume to expect more time on this thread from anyone than they are willing to freely give.

-----Added 7/15/2009 at 10:38:03 EST-----

Rich, thank you for the critical analysis of the argument presented in the OP.



Semper Fidelis said:


> As it is reductionistic to assert that the only kind of dispensational approach to the Scriptures is Scofield dispensationalism.





LockTheDeadbolt said:


> Please show where I asserted that Scofieldian Dispensationalism is the only kind of dispensationalism.





Semper Fidelis said:


> When you accuse another of an egregious misrepresentation of your position as dispensationalism (of the variety of owning a Scofield Study Bible or reading Left Behind books) then the accusation of being reductionistic is apt only of your pugilistic response.



I've got to admit, I've got no idea what you're saying here. Can you show me where I asserted what you claim I have or not?

(We both know I never asserted anything like that. It's okay to admit it. I'm not going to make a big deal out of it.)



Semper Fidelis said:


> (1a) is imprecisely stated as circumcision does not correspond directly with baptism in Covenant theology.



How about this: 
(1a) CT contains a doctrine that baptism corresponds directly with circumcision (both being given to infants as signs of the covenant), albeit with minor administrative adjustments (baptizing infant males _and females_, whereas circumcision was limited to males, etc.).



Semper Fidelis said:


> (1b) should note that they are different administrations of the same Covenant of Grace, which substance is the person and work of Christ.



How about this: 
(1b) This doctrine rests heavily on the doctrine that the Abrahamic and the New covenants are the same, single eternal Covenant of Grace in different administrations.



Semper Fidelis said:


> (2a) is wrong as circumcision is regularly used of regeneration in both the NT and OT (Deut 10:6, Deut 30:4, Rom 4, Col 2). It may be typological but it is hardly a mere physical act so much so that it is apt to speak of baptism as circumcision without hands.



I agree that circumcision typifies regeneration in both testaments, but I'm going to have to disagree with your conclusion, since I don't think the text actually "is apt to speak of baptism as circumcision without hands," per my response to Brian. In what way is baptism performed "without hands"?



Semper Fidelis said:


> (2b), as noted, begs the question but all the premises must be rehabilitated before the question is asked if the argument is valid.



I'm going to go ahead and "rehabilitate" (2b) anyway (I like the way you put that), in an effort at begging the question a little less.

(2b) The “one covenant – multiple administrations” supposition (1b) on which (1a) rests is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with multiple respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9), each a progressively-revealed, prophetically-typological shadow of the one, eternal covenant in Christ (the New Covenant).

Okay, done and done. Now what do you say?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

re. Col.2:11-12 --

How does one "circumcise *the heart*" WITH hands?
That's a Spirit-operation.
So, there's a bodily and a spiritual procedure, right?

Are today's faithful baptized with hands/water or with the Spirit?
Exactly; its both.

So, what IS Paul's argument in Colossians, if not some sort of analogy?
It seems pretty intransigent to deny that circumcision and baptism are being brought into close connection here.

And you really didn't overturn the grammatical argument. A subordinate clause cannot change the relationship between the main verb (circumcised) and a dependent participle (having been baptized). Simply pointing to the intervening, expansionistic phrase doesn't remove your duty of explaining _differently_ how the parts of speech/sentence relate to one another.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

To build upon what Bruce notes, I find it odd that people assume that those reading the passages and connecting circumcision and/or baptism to regeneration (and any variety of the above) are ignorant of the spiritual language used in those passages. In fact, one of my criticisms of some Baptists is the improper confusion of language when Paul speaks of "being buried with Christ" to miss the fact that spiritual union is being spoken of rather than a prescription of mode. At least the Baptists get right that there is a vital connection between the sign and the thing signified but only make improper application of it.

What I see, however, in your response is the improper assumption that, because spiritual realities are in view that we can logically _separate_ them from the sign. Do you suppose Paul lacked other terms and just drew on the terms "circumcision" and "baptism"? From a pedagogical perspective, for a man who is trying to defeat Gnostic misapprehensions of spiritual realities, it is quite odd for Paul to add to the confusion by bringing in terminology only to have us read between the lines and say: "Oh, well this is in NO way related to circumcision because, after all, this is spiritual." It stretches all credulity.

One of the reasons I don't buy such theologies is because the un-Biblical wedge that is driven between sign and thing signified leads to all sorts of qualifications that the Apostle never forces himself to make. The reason why both OT and NT passages use circumcision to refer to Sovereign operations of the Holy Spirit is because the sign has always signified this and it takes a concerted confounding of the Truth in the service of a pre-supposition to be blind to this fact.


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

Contra_Mundum said:


> So, what IS Paul's argument in Colossians, if not some sort of analogy?
> It seems pretty intransigent to deny that circumcision and baptism are being brought into close connection here.



It certainly does. I'm looking at the original argument and I've nowhere made the disjunction which you (and Rich) appear to think that I have. I affirmed from the outset that "circumcision and baptism are being brought into close connection here." My argument has been that the connection is typological, yours is that it is equivalent. To say that one of these two connections is actually a disjunction is to obfuscate the matter.

I'm not arguing for "logically separating" the signs from the spiritual realities which they signify. I'm arguing that the NC reflects the principle of applying the covenant sign to Abraham's children of rebirth by faith, rather than Abraham's children by physical birth. It actually takes quite a bit of qualification to find a basis for giving the covenant sign to people who are not Abraham's children by faith or by birth, and creates a much greater practical disjunction between the sign and the thing signified (since, in the case of infant baptism, the faith of those receiving the sign is not even part of the equation).



Contra_Mundum said:


> And you really didn't overturn the grammatical argument. A subordinate clause cannot change the relationship between the main verb (circumcised) and a dependent participle (having been baptized). Simply pointing to the intervening, expansionistic phrase doesn't remove your duty of explaining _differently_ how the parts of speech/sentence relate to one another.



To borrow a quote from "The Norseman Moderator":
"It is a mistake to suppose that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. As that which supplanted the Old Testament sacrifices was the one offering of the Saviour; as that which superseded the Aaronic priesthood was the high priesthood of Christ; so that which has succeeded circumcision is the spiritual circumcision which believers have in and by Christ.‘In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ’ (Col 2:11)- how simple! How satisfying! ‘Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him’ (v12 ) is something additional: it is only wresting the Scriptures to say these two verses mean, ‘Being buried with Him in baptism ye are circumcised.’ No, no; verse 11 declares the Christian circumcision is ‘ made without hands’ and baptism is administered with hands! The circumcision ‘made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh’ has come in the place of the circumcision made with hands. The circumcision of Christ has come in place of the circumcision of the law. Never once in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as the seal of the New Covenant; rather is the Holy Spirit the seal (Eph 1:13; 4:30 )."

Divine Covenants by A. W. Pink


----------



## Semper Fidelis

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> I'm not arguing for "logically separating" the signs from the spiritual realities which they signify. I'm arguing that the NC reflects the principle of applying the covenant sign to Abraham's children of rebirth by faith, rather than Abraham's children by physical birth.


In other words, the principle is to apply the Covenant sign to the elect alone.

Could you point me to the principle of the NC where it states that the Church will know who has been regenerated so they can apply this principle?


> It actually takes quite a bit of qualification to find a basis for giving the covenant sign to people who are not Abraham's children by faith or by birth, and creates a much greater practical disjunction between the sign and the thing signified (since, in the case of infant baptism, the faith of those receiving the sign is not even part of the equation).


Just curious, was the faith of Simon the Sorceror "part of the equation" when he was baptized? How about Demas, who was a missionary with Paul?

Since you're about avoiding this "practical disjunction" as a cornerstone of your argument, perhaps you can provide a Scriptural basis for this bare assertion. In other words, as we're trying to avoid extensive qualification, it ought to be easy for you to provide some Scripture that didactically instructs the baptism of the regenerate and, further, that this is to avoid a confounding of the sign of baptism as more proximate to "the people who should be _really_ marked out" in contrast to that sloppy OT methodology that created far too many that didn't possess the spiritual reality.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

BC,
Pink doesn't explain _grammatically_ how v12 happens to sit (in space?), in relation to the rest of the sentence, which is v11. Perhaps he didn't do Greek grammar? But his whole analysis is based on a reading of the English KJV text, even ignoring the punctuation in his Bible.

The circumcision _without hands_ (of the heart, an *OT* phrase, I must add, e.g. Dt.10:16) is connected to
"baptism [-]is[/-] administered _with_ hands"?!? (quote, Pink)

I hope you'll understand why it might make sense to me that the clear connection is:
"spiritual" OT to "spiritual" NT.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> I'm not arguing for "logically separating" the signs from the spiritual realities which they signify. I'm arguing that the NC reflects the principle of applying the covenant sign to Abraham's children of rebirth by faith, rather than Abraham's children by physical birth. It actually takes quite a bit of qualification to find a basis for giving the covenant sign to people who are not Abraham's children by faith or by birth, and creates a much greater practical disjunction between the sign and the thing signified (since, in the case of infant baptism, the faith of those receiving the sign is not even part of the equation).



Aside from the excellent grammatical points made above, you have another problem with your argument. You previously said there are multiple everlasting covenants. Therefore, in your scheme how can Gentiles be Abraham's children at all (whether by birth or rebirth), if we are not under the same covenant as Abraham in some way?


----------



## A.J.

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> It certainly does. I'm looking at the original argument and I've nowhere made the disjunction which you (and Rich) appear to think that I have. I affirmed from the outset that "circumcision and baptism are being brought into close connection here." *My argument has been that the connection is typological, yours is that it is equivalent.* To say that one of these two connections is actually a disjunction is to obfuscate the matter.
> 
> I'm not arguing for "logically separating" the signs from the spiritual realities which they signify. I'm arguing that the NC reflects the principle of applying the covenant sign to Abraham's children of rebirth by faith, rather than Abraham's children by physical birth. It actually takes quite a bit of qualification to find a basis for giving the covenant sign to people who are not Abraham's children by faith or by birth, and creates a much greater practical disjunction between the sign and the thing signified (since, in the case of infant baptism, the faith of those receiving the sign is not even part of the equation).



You seem to be denying this: 

_Circumcision of the flesh_ (*sign*) -> _Circumcision of the heart_ (*thing signified*)

_Water Baptism_ (*sign*) -> _Circumcision of the heart_ (*thing signified*)

Baptism and circumcision of the flesh signify the *same reality*, namely, the circumcision of the heart. This is established by Col. 2:11-12. Baptism, therefore, is the sacramental equivalent of circumcision. The sign did change, but the thing signified did not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

As I've noted previously, this boils down to a discussion on Covenant Theology. The problem with this thread as it has developed:

1. A weak presentation of CT in the premises.
2. Begging the question in premises.
3. A novel multi-Covenantal system that remains unpresented in full but merely asserted in snippets in response to challenges to the premises.
4. A less than patient attitude toward others that have every reason to be impatient with "prooftext fly bys".

I'm waiting to see how the response proceeds but will likely close this thread down as it serves no purpose. Premises to an argument have to contain some definitions and you have not given any common definitions. You are admittedly extra- or contra-Confessional in your use of terms and your understanding of the Covenants.

It is not an "appeal to authority" to require a common framework for understanding if the Confessions are to serve as a normative or standard exposition of the Scriptures. It is even in the forum rules that those that desire to depart from the Confessional understanding of the Scriptures bear the burden of proof because the exegetical work that went into the Confessions is in the public domain. We're not hiding anything or slipping anything under the door when we state that we agree with the conclusions.

In contrast, you simply want to assert an argument and have provided no basis for key premises.

If all you want us to do is to say: "Ah, well, if we ignore our understanding of the meaning of words then your argument is airtight" then I suppose some can oblige. Yet that is hardly compelling except in the small universe of people that know what color the sky is in the world in which you are standing. You haven't described where you're coming from yet in adequate detail so we can apprehend what this multi-Covenantal view of yours is.

Thus, I'm not going to waste any more of the board's time with orthodox answers that get brushed aside and you are not required to defend the ground you are standing on. I don't see that you've done any exegetical or systematic work to even begin to mount an external critique.


----------

