# Good Summary Argument for Infant Baptism?



## tellville (Sep 1, 2007)

Is this a good summary of the Infant Baptism argument? It is from Matt Slicks Website called the Calvinist Corner. 

http://www.mslick.com/infant.htm​Infant Baptism​ 
 Occasionally Christians will discuss baptism and confidently proclaim that infant baptism isn't a biblically valid concept. This may or may not be the case, but what concerns me most about the topic is not so much whether a person believes or disbelieves in infant baptism. The concern is that those who condemn it often do so in such a way as to show little grace and in their condemnation they inadvertently aid in bringing division in the body of Christ by encouraging a subliminal or even deliberate negative reaction against infant baptism and those Christians who hold to it.

Those who say that they know infant baptism is not true because it is not recorded in the Bible, have made a potentially fundamental error in biblical examination. The doctrine of the Trinity, as an example, is not explicitly laid out in the Scriptures, yet Christians believe in it. Why? because it is systematically arrived at. Now, let's look at the possibility of infant baptism. But first understand that I am not trying to convince anyone in this paper that infant baptism is a biblical truth. What I'm trying to do is convince you, if you don't believe in it, that there is a sound reason for accepting infant baptism (not for salvation but as a covenant sign). I am concerned more with a person understanding the argument, and if they disagree, fine. But, they should outright reject it without first hearing a defense of it. This is important because it helps bring unity in the body of Christ when we see that others we disagree with have rational reasons for their beliefs. Furthermore, this opens us up to the possibility of being wrong ourselves on a position and encourages us to be more gracious with those who disagree with us.
I have produced an outline laying out an argument for infant baptism. If you want to understand the argument quickly, than just read the points in bold.
​
 *God works covenantally. *
 A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties. God undoubtedly works covenantal. A quick computer Bible search in the NASB shows that there are 300 verses that have the word covenant in them. By contrast, dispensation(al, ism, s) occurs a total of one time in Zech. 7:9. obviously, God works covenantally.

 *God's covenants have covenant signs*.
The covenant with Adam had the covenant sign of the tree.: "_And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die,_’" (Gen. 2:16-17). 
The covenant with Noah had the sign of the rainbow, (Gen. 9:9-17). 
The Covenant with Abraham had the sign of circumcision: _"And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed,” _(Gen. 12:7). 
There are other covenants and covenant signs..

 *The Abrahamic Covenant included infants and the sign of their entrance into that covenant was circumcision. *
The fact is that infant males were included in the Abrahamic covenant via the sign of circumcision.
Females were included in the covenant via federal headship, the doctrine that the male head of the family represents his descendents. Heb. 7:7-10 is a good example of this.
"The federal headship view considers Adam, the first man, as the representative of the human race that generated from him. As the representative of all humans, Adam’s act of sin was considered by God to be the act of all people and his penalty of death was judicially made the penalty of everybody."1 


 * The Abrahamic Covenant is called the gospel in Gal. 3:8 *
_"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.”_

 *Therefore, the Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect.*
Since the covenant is that in Abraham all the nations shall be blessed and that is called the gospel by Paul, then the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect.
To say the Abrahamic covenant is not in effect now, is to contradict what Paul said when he called it the gospel. Remember, God's covenant promise was to bless all nations in Abraham. This is a reference to the coming Messiah in whom we have redemption.

 *Infants were included in the Abrahamic Covenant which is still in effect. *
Whether or not infants understood what was occurring in their participation of the covenant sign is immaterial since it was God who ordered that the infants be included in the Abrahamic covenant.
Since the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect -- by being equated with the gospel - infants should still be included in that same covenant.

 *Where is the biblical admonition to exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant that is still in effect?*
There is no command at all to exclude infants from the same covenant that is still in effect.

*Baptism is the New Testament covenant sign and is to be applied to infants.*
Since the normal biblical pattern is to include infants in the Abrahamic covenant, doesn't it make sense to continue to include them in that same covenant? Yes. The new covenant sign is now baptism which is why Paul equates baptism and circumcision.
_"and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead,"_ (Col. 2:11-12).

*Questions answered*
Then why are then no accounts of infants being baptized in the New Testament?
Actually, there are. 
Acts 16:15, _"and when she and her household had been baptized,"_
Acts 16:31, _"he was baptized, he and all his household."_


The term household does not necessary mean infants are included.
If this is so, do you think that in all the households that were being baptized in Israel that none of them had infants? (Remember, covenant Jews were commanded to have children - see Gen. 2-3). 
What is the natural thinking of a Jew regarding infants and God's covenant? The natural thinking is that they were included in God's covenant system. Would you have us now believe that the Jew who became a Christian would then say something to the effect of, "Now that the promised Messiah has come and God's covenant of promise in Abraham has been realized, I now understand that I am to *exclude* my infants from God's covenant work and promise." Of course not. This is why it says in Acts 2:38-39, _"And Peter said to them, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 “For the promise is for you and your children..." _ Notice that Peter includes children in that fulfilled promise of God...and baptism is part of the subject.
Where is the command in scripture to exclude infants from the very same covenant that is still in effect; namely, the Abrahamic Covenant which is called the gospel by Paul in Gal. 3:8? If you cannot find a command to restrict them, then don't do it.

Infants are not circumcised now. Why? 
Because the covenant sign is now baptism, Col. 2:11-12. _"and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." _Since the blood of Christ was shed, the blood-sign-of-circumcision has been fulfilled in the Federal Head known as Christ. This means that Christ represented us on the cross. Covenant blood-shed is no longer necessary. Now, the covenant sign is baptism which is why Paul equates the two in Col. 2:11-12

In Acts we only see people get baptized who have first believed.
This is true only if you assume that of all the households in Israel that were baptized, none included infants. This is an assumption that is without substance especially since we know that good Jews were to obey God's command to multiply and replenish the earth.
Also, remember that the context in Acts is mass conversions and of course you'd see the great majority of accounts of baptism after belief. But this does not mean that God's covenant system of including infants is negated.
Finally, many epistles were written to correct error. Why do none of the epistles include a restriction of infants being included in God's covenant via baptism? Why? Because theologically, infants were included in the covenant of God and since the Abrahamic covenant is equated with the gospel, 

Doesn't this then mean that infants were saved if they are baptized?
No. Infants in the Abrahamic covenant in Old Testament times were not guaranteed salvation anymore than infants baptized into the same covenant today are promised salvation. 
It is the error of the Roman Catholic church and some cults that teaches that baptism saves. 


*Conclusion*​  The primary reason for writing this article is not convince anyone that covenant infant baptism is biblical. The primary reason I wrote it is to try and convince people to be more gracious in their opposition to this doctrine. It is perfectly fair for someone to examine the argument and not accept it. But it would be better if once the argument is rejected, that the person who does so sees that there is a reason that people have for believing this teaching and that when disagreeing with the position, that graciousness and humility would be combined with a disagreement of it.
Finally, I would suggest anyone who disagrees with the argument to provide an answer as to why we should now exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant, that is still in effect per Gal. 3:8. Remember, God commanded that infants be included in this covenant. What justifies anyone from changing God's command on this?


----------



## JBaldwin (Sep 1, 2007)

Thanks for posting that. It is a thoughtful article.


----------



## 44jason (Sep 2, 2007)

Thanks for Matt's article. Very clear rendering of the paedo position. In fact it is clear that paedobaptism is based on the premise that circumcision is the SAME AS baptism only one looks forward and one looks back to the cross. If that were true then why did Paul equate circumcision with the Law and contrasted it with grace in Galatians 5:3-4? According to your systematic linking of circumcision to baptism, baptism would be opposed to grace and rendered meaningless according to Galatians 5:6.

Matt said that circumcision was "a blood-sign" that was no longer needed because of the cross. True. But it was also a "family-sign" and the family is no longer by blood of men but by the blood of Jesus, no longer just Israel but Gentiles and Greeks and even Barbarians! So any sign that is given because of your parents faith is to go back to a LAW sign.

And the problem I see with Matt's usage of Col. 2:11-12 is that the "circumcision not made with hands" is being applied to those who have "received Christ Jesus as Lord." These people are described as having been born "dead in trespasses" (2:13), as having come to "faith in Christ Jesus" (1:4) and had lived a very sinful life (3:5-11). In fact, many of them were still practicing such sins even though they were believers and were being called to stop such sins immediately. So I see no evidence of these people having been born "in the faith" (AC language) and growing up "in the faith" and living consistent with that faith. Rather I see people who lived for years as sinners, came to faith, and were now in a church being discipled. I don't see any thing that tells them to think that their children immune from this reality of sin.

Well.... that is enough that should get me in a lot of hot water by my paedo brothers. Hopefully they will just sprinkle me with that hot water and not immerse me. In the end, thanks for giving me Matt's argument to consider, but forgive me if I find it falling short of NC theology. If Matt was just trying to convince me that Paedo's had thought through their position and feel strongly that they have enough to not jettison their views, well I already knew that. But Dispensationalism is an example of the fact that just because people have a comprehensive system of theology and feel passionately about it does not mean they are right.

And finally, Mark you referred to Galatians 3:8 as proof that the AC is still in effect. That is true but only in the sense that it is now manifested in the brighter light of the New Covenant -- which is the context of Galatians 3. In fact, Paul says that "those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham" (Galatians 3:9). NOTICE: the covenantal blessings are not promised to family lineage, to children of believers, BUT to those who are OF faith. Not "of the faith" but "of faith." Show me a child who is "of faith: and I will baptize him, not exclude him. 

And for the record we have as many children in our church as adults. In fact, we have even had to discuss as elders whether or not we should turn children away who are trying to get into our discipleship program because we run out of space. We have children of local pastors being dropped off at our church on Sunday nights to be discipled by our church. Thankfully, we have never had to turn away anyone.

Furthermore, we have never excluded any child who is "of faith" from being baptized. My church baptized me very early because I was by God's grace "of faith" and I began teaching the Bible at the age of twelve [even to adults]. Does that sound like exclusion to you?

I just simply find paedobaptism lacking biblical support.

Nevertheless, may the Lord bless us all as we worship Him tomorrow in the corporate settings of our churches. May His name be exalted and His gospel proclaimed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 2, 2007)

First with respect to the Original Post, it is a brief but decent summary of the position.

On another note, this is incorrect:


44jason said:


> Thanks for Matt's article. Very clear rendering of the paedo position. In fact it is clear that paedobaptism is based on the premise that circumcision is the SAME AS baptism only one looks forward and one looks back to the cross. If that were true then why did Paul equate circumcision with the Law and contrasted it with grace in Galatians 5:3-4? According to your systematic linking of circumcision to baptism, baptism would be opposed to grace and rendered meaningless according to Galatians 5:6.



Jason,

Respectfully, you are missing the force of what Paul is laying out in Galatians if you think that he is laying out the notion that the full meaning of circumcision is found in Galatians 5:3-4. This completely a-contextualizes the issue that Paul is dealing with. Here is the issue:



> Galatians 2
> 11 Now when Peter[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
> 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you* compel Gentiles to live as Jews?[c] 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. *


*
This was what was at stake with respect to the type of circumcision that the Judaizers were calling Christians back into. The Judaizers, in calling Gentile believers to be circumcised were, in fact, calling them to something that circumcision had never Biblically signified. He is rebuking a perversion of doctrine. Why would we expect Gospel denying Judaizers to have a correct view of circumcision? The Law had NEVER been given to justify men. The Judaizers, in fact, complete goon up Covenant theology. I frankly find it shocking that this obvious point is so often missed by sober men. Paul continues:




Galatians 3
1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth,[a] before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

Click to expand...


Does anyone really believe that circumcision signified "...being made perfect in the flesh..."? This, of course, is why Paul is railing against the Gentiles being circumcised. Thus, is it because, in fact, that circumcision always signified perfection in the flesh or is it because this is what the Judaizers wanted them to think it signified? The answer is clearly the latter.



5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[c] 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.”[d] 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

Click to expand...

Indeed, oh Judaizers, how can circumcision signifiy righteousness according to the Law when Abraham was accounted righteous according to faith 430 years before the Law came?! This is a clear repudiation of the Judaizer's notion of circumcision. Paul, elsewhere in Romans 4, states that circumcision is:



...a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

Click to expand...

It is NOT, very clearly, something, which signifies perfection according to the flesh.

If you miss this quite obvious point as Paul develops this through the end of Galatians 3 and through Galatians 4, then one may import any meaning whatsoever into Galatians 5. Nevertheless, within the context of the Epistle, Paul is clearly decrying a circumcision according to the nature of what the Judaizers were demanding. For, were the Galatians to be circumcised it would constitute a denial of the Gospel. Why, because it would signify that they believed that the pursuit of God's righteousness was according to the strength of the flesh - something that Paul calls zeal without knowledge in Romans Chapter 10.

Were it true, in fact, that the nature and significance of circumcision was what the Judaizers claim and as you have quoted it from Galatians 5, you would be accusing Abraham himself of denying the Gospel by being circumcised! That is to say, if the circumcision signified righteousness according to the perfection of the flesh then what business did a Gospel-believing Abraham have in placing that mark upon his own flesh?*


----------



## reformedman (Sep 2, 2007)

I disagree wholeheartedly with points 6-9. I know most here are paedos and the last thing I want to do is cause any argument over a matter that doesnt save, but brother to brother and iron sharpening iron, those points are either weak or downright presuppositional.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 2, 2007)

Actually, it didn't seem like he was asking for a critique.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 2, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Actually, it didn't seem like he was asking for a critique.



True, except insofar as to whether the summary was an good summary of the paedobaptist position or not. As a presentation in brief, I would say it is.


----------



## Davidius (Sep 2, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it didn't seem like he was asking for a critique.
> ...



You're right. Perhaps a critique from a paedobaptist would have been appropriate. I was referring more to Jason, who, after having stated that he believed it clearly represented the Paedo position, felt like he had to write a full response to the article, even using the second person singular pronoun to address Matt Slick directly. I didn't even realize that Matt was a PB member.


----------



## 44jason (Sep 2, 2007)

Lt.Col.,
Thanks for the response saying:


> Respectfully, you are missing the force of what Paul is laying out in Galatians if you think that he is laying out the notion that the full meaning of circumcision is found in Galatians 5:3-4.


But I wasn't attempting to exegete all of Galatians but to point out the lack of support Galatians has for Mark's and Matt's usage of it.

And David, as far as a critique is concerned. Mark asked for the following:


> Finally, I would suggest anyone who disagrees with the argument to provide an answer as to why we should now exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant, that is still in effect per Gal. 3:8.


That is what I did. Thank you.
I was simply pointing out that Mark (and Matt for that matter) are accusing credo's of something that just isn't true -- at least in my humble little mind that sits in my hard head that once was fully immersed at a very young age for the glory of God.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 2, 2007)

> And David, as far as a critique is concerned. Mark asked for the following



Mark isn't asking for that. He posted Matt Slick's asking for that.



> I was simply pointing out that Mark (and Matt for that matter) are accusing credo's of something that just isn't true



Mark's a credo himself....


----------



## 44jason (Sep 2, 2007)

Forgive me for now knowing where the quote ended. But in the end, the response was asked for and I gave it. My critique stands. Out.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 2, 2007)

I'm not asking for a justification, was just clearing things up. My clarification stands. Out.


----------



## reformedman (Sep 2, 2007)

tellville said:


> Is this a good summary of the Infant Baptism argument? It is from Matt Slicks Website called the Calvinist Corner.



In my opinion, no, because I believe this is a very rudimentary display of what a paedobaptist believes. By rudimentary I mean to say I don't object to it being too basic or simplified, but that it is so basic and simplified that it makes their position somewhat unguarded. Even though the first few points are a good summary of the Infant Baptism argument, some of the arguments display a weakness, in that if you have to resort to them, then it shows that you are really reaching. Some of the arguments leaves room for a person falling into doubt of their belief.

For example, I can't imagine that a paedobaptist would use point 8 to present his perspective, without feeling guilty of stretching a coorelation between circumcision and baptism.

So to answer your question, "do I think this is a good summary of the Infant Baptism argument," I would say no; paedobaptist have a better display of their beliefs than this one.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 2, 2007)

Gentlemen,

Jason made an honest error assuming that the concluding portion was written by the OP and responded to it. Let's not pick nits.



44jason said:


> Lt.Col.,
> Thanks for the response saying:
> 
> 
> ...


Jason,

Please call me Rich. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, Marine nor civilian. 

It was Matt's use of the term. I understand you weren't trying to offer a full exegesis of the Galatians text. I am suggesting that what I noted about Galatians be studied more carefully. The reason has to do more with understanding Galatians more carefully instead of shoring up a position on Baptism.

I would not go to Galatians myself to fully establish paedo-Baptism although Galatians 3 is a good place to go to clearly establish Abraham's participation in the substance of the New Covenant from afar off.

Nevertheless, and I want to say this plainly but not pejoratively, there is a tendency among many Baptist luminaries to mis-cite Galatians. As I pointed out, the word _circumcision_ as used by Paul in Galatians means "perfection according to the flesh" for this is what the Judiazers were trying to circumcize the Gentile into. Thus, when you read "...circumcision means nothing..." you must be careful to distinguish Paul's use of the word. I've seen no less than John Piper and Greg Welty quote the end of Galatians 3 as if the full significance of circumcision was summed up within it as Paul turns and calls it nothing. I don't read a lot of Baptist literature but I think this use must circulate in articles for it to be a-contextualized so often because I encounter it very often from Baptists.

Whether or not Baptists agree with me on the subjects of baptism is less important to me, at this point, than simply using the Galatians passages properly. Galatians needs to be understood less for what it is teaching positively about circumcision in the Abrahamic Covenant and more for what it is teaching negatively about those who would pervert the Gospel by trusting in the perfection of the flesh. It is also an excellent place to learn about our full inheritance of all the Promises in Christ. It is frankly a great sadness to me, in fact, when people mis-quote Paul on these points not because I'm worried about it being a foil to my position but because the person has just weakened Paul's repudiation of salvation by the strength of the flesh and focused people away from the intent of Paul's polemic.

Finally, I should note that I would modify my support of the Slick article just a bit because this last part is problematic:


> Finally, I would suggest anyone who disagrees with the argument to provide an answer as to why we should now exclude infants from the same Abrahamic covenant, that is still in effect per Gal. 3:8.


I wouldn't quite say it this way. I don't think it is proper to say that the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect. I would rather note that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promise and that Galatians 3:8 is, in fact, a good place to show that Abraham wasn't about the Law but was about the Gospel which is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith that the just shall live by faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 2, 2007)

reformedman said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> > Is this a good summary of the Infant Baptism argument? It is from Matt Slicks Website called the Calvinist Corner.
> ...



I think you need to be a bit fairer to Matt on this point. He's trying to summarize the point in a brief article. It's true as far as it goes. Now, I know how the Baptist is going to object to it and have a response for that objection but the basic paedo position that Baptism and Circumcision are both siginifications of the same substance is intact in that brief summary.

Here is how the WCF summarizes that point in brief:


> Chapter XXVII
> Of the Sacraments
> 
> IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.10
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 2, 2007)

Calvinism used to be so simple. Start adding all these debates and it becomes convoluted. We need to begin where we have been taught to begin all discussions of salvation -- with election. Does God have His elect amongst infants, or no? Is baptism the means of salvation, 1 Pet. 3:21? Well then, the answer is quite simple.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 2, 2007)

> But it was also a "family-sign" and the family is no longer by blood of men but by the blood of Jesus, no longer just Israel but Gentiles and Greeks and even Barbarians!



"Gentiles and Greeks and even Barbarians" came into the OT church.

You're making a distinction that is foreign to the text.

If it was also "just a family sign" then why didn't the "families" in the wilderness give their children "just a mere family sign?"

_And, why did proselytes who were not "organic family members" get the sign, and why did their infant children? What did it signify for those infants? Not that the Messiah would come from their stock. Not that they were children of Abraham after the flesh. What, then?_



> So any sign that is given because of your parents faith is to go back to a LAW sign.



Circumcision was given 400 years _before_ the "LAW" came. 



> And the problem I see with Matt's usage of Col. 2:11-12 is that the "circumcision not made with hands" is being applied to those who have "received Christ Jesus as Lord." These people are described as having been born "dead in trespasses" (2:13), as having come to "faith in Christ Jesus" (1:4) and had lived a very sinful life (3:5-11). In fact, many of them were still practicing such sins even though they were believers and were being called to stop such sins immediately. So I see no evidence of these people having been born "in the faith" (AC language) and growing up "in the faith" and living consistent with that faith. Rather I see people who lived for years as sinners, came to faith, and were now in a church being discipled. I don't see any thing that tells them to think that their children immune from this reality of sin.



That's the nature of proselytes. The same thing could have been said to proselytes to the "one tree" back in OT times. What they would say to them is different than what was said to their children. Infant baptism is a second generation issue. You're addressing first generation proselytes. So, I would see no "evidence" of proselytes in the OT "having been born "in the faith" (AC language) and growing up "in the faith" and living consistent with that faith. Rather I see people who lived for years as sinners, came to faith, and were now in a church being discipled."



> And finally, Mark you referred to Galatians 3:8 as proof that the AC is still in effect. That is true but only in the sense that it is now manifested in the brighter light of the New Covenant -- which is the context of Galatians 3.



Right, the one where "all the _families _of the earth would be blessed."



> In fact, Paul says that "those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham" (Galatians 3:9). NOTICE: the covenantal blessings are not promised to family lineage, to children of believers, BUT to those who are OF faith. Not "of the faith" but "of faith." Show me a child who is "of faith: and I will baptize him, not exclude him.



In fact, the blessings were _never_ promised apart from faith.

And, I'd say that you're flat out wrong that the generational principle is not in tact. Mary applied the principle to her day and every day after that.

What was that principle:

"Showing _mercy_ to generation to generation, towards those that fear him."

This was first said in the OT.


----------



## tellville (Sep 2, 2007)

Thanks for all the replies! I was looking for a good summary of the padeo position and Matt's was in a form I liked. If there are any other 'tweaks' to it that any padeo here would make please do so. It just helps me see the argument more easily when it is put in a form such as this.


----------

