# God's faithfulness...to me and my children?



## blhowes (Sep 1, 2004)

Lately, as I read the OT, I've been having reoccurring thoughts about God's faithfulness with regard to his covenants with his people and, more specifically, how God's faithfulness to the OT covenants relates to me and my family (or if it does).

Judges 2:10 And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. 

In the book of Judges you have an entire generation who had been unfaithful to tell the next generation who God is and what he had done for His people. Nevertheless, God was angry with the second generation who forsook Him, even though they hadn't been taught these things. Inspite of man's unfaithfulness, God was faithful, considered them to be His people, punished them, and then raised up judges for their deliverance.

When you read through Kings and Chronicles, you see king after king who are characterized as being evil or being more evil than previous kings. I'm sure (?) there was always a faithful remnant, but I would think that in general the people wouldn't be too different from their kings. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that when God sent the prophets to confront the people about their sins and to call them to repentance, it wasn't just one generation who had done evil who needed to be spoken to. I get the impression that there had been several generations that had forsaken God.

What strikes me is that it seems like you have generation after generation in the OT who have forsaken God, yet God still holds each generation accountable for forsaking God, even if there are several generations in a row that had forsaken God. 

I started wondering what it is that God would have me to learn from this truth of His faithfulness. Dispensationalists seem to look at this faithfulness as God being faithful to the nation of Israel, and therefore expect Him to be faithful to the nation of Israel in the future just as He was in the past. That's one way of looking at it.

Another way to look at it is at the family level instead of the national level. You start with a faithful man/family, followed by one or more evil generations. The man/family at the 'end of the line' was still considered God's people, chastised for their apostasy, and expected to repent - even though there may have been several generations in a row who didn't walk with God.

I'm wondering if this has any application to me and my family? If not, what am I to learn from God's faithfulness to successive apostate generations in the OT?


----------



## blhowes (Sep 1, 2004)

Continuing to think, but the wheels aren't turning as fast as I'd like  

I can't put my finger on it yet, but it seems there's a connection between how God dealt in families in the OT and the way he deals in families today. Maybe the CTers are right... 

Mulling it over,
Bob


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Sep 1, 2004)

didnt God punish Davids offspring due to his disobedience?

blade


----------



## FrozenChosen (Sep 1, 2004)

[quote:f7865a28c2="Bladestunner316"]didnt God punish Davids offspring due to his disobedience?

blade[/quote:f7865a28c2]

How far down the line do you mean? God set aside the tribe of Judah and would not let them be taken down on behalf of his relationship with David.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Sep 1, 2004)

thats why I was asking

blade


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 1, 2004)

You can look at it conversely: we often speak of the promises of God with respect to multi-generational Covenantal Fidelity, as we should. But how often do we speak of the curses of God with respect to multi-generational covenant-breaking?


----------



## blhowes (Sep 2, 2004)

[quote:7d760f73c4="Finn McCool"]You can look at it conversely: we often speak of the promises of God with respect to multi-generational Covenantal Fidelity, as we should. But how often do we speak of the curses of God with respect to multi-generational covenant-breaking?[/quote:7d760f73c4]
I agree. In the OT, God was faithful to his covenant promises of blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience, through all the generations of those who were in the covenant. 

God was faithful to his covenant promises and every successive generation, regardless of how many previous generations had forsaken God, were considered to be His people and were expected to obey. There was a strong bond between God and his people, a people who often were disobedient (and perhaps unsaved). I'm wondering how (if) this bond between God and His OT people throughout their generations relates to those who are part of the new covenant today?


----------



## JohnV (Sep 2, 2004)

If we take from the Ten Commandments as an example:[quote:a116e9ece3]for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 
[/quote:a116e9ece3]
If you figure that we are somewhere between the eigtieth and hundredth generation from Christ, and around the three hundredth from Noah (just a rough estimate),

and then:
[quote:a116e9ece3]but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. [/quote:a116e9ece3]
noting that it does not stop at a thousand generations, but goes on an indeterminate "thousands" of generations, ...

well, let's just say that there is more to Covenant Theology than meets the eye.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 2, 2004)

[quote:edfeabe3f5="blhowes"]God was faithful to his covenant promises and every successive generation, regardless of how many previous generations had forsaken God, were considered to be His people and were expected to obey. There was a strong bond between God and his people, a people who often were disobedient (and perhaps unsaved). I'm wondering how (if) this bond between God and His OT people throughout their generations relates to those who are part of the new covenant today?[/quote:edfeabe3f5]

For me, it's largely a simple matter of the fact that God nowhere gave us any indication that He was ever going to change that pattern. Furthermore, that is confirmed by the continuity between the Old and New Testaments on the matter (all Scriptures ESV):

-Genesis 17:7 "And I will establish my covenant between me and you [Abraham] and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you."
-Deuteronomy 30:6 (emphasis mine) "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart [i:edfeabe3f5]and the heart of your offspring[/i:edfeabe3f5], so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."
-Psalm 22:9-10 "Yet you [God] are he who took me [David] from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God."
-Psalm 103:17-18 (emphasis mine) "But the steadfast love of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and [i:edfeabe3f5]his righteousness to children's children[/i:edfeabe3f5], to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments."
-Proverbs 3:33 (emphasis mine) "The LORD's curse is on the house of the wicked, but [i:edfeabe3f5]he blesses the dwelling of the righteous[/i:edfeabe3f5]."
-Proverbs 11:21 (emphasis mine) "Be assured, an evil person will not go unpunished, but [i:edfeabe3f5]the offspring of the righteous will be delivered[/i:edfeabe3f5]."
-Isaiah 54:13 "All your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children."
-Isaiah 59:21 (emphasis mine) "'And as for me, this is my covenant with them,' says the LORD: 'My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, [i:edfeabe3f5]or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring[/i:edfeabe3f5],' says the LORD, '[i:edfeabe3f5]from this time forth and forevermore[/i:edfeabe3f5].'"
-Isaiah 65:23 "They [God's people] shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them."
-Jeremiah 32:39 (emphasis mine) "I will give them [the elect] one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good [i:edfeabe3f5]and the good of their children after them[/i:edfeabe3f5]."
-Luke 1:14-15 (emphasis mine) "And you [Zechariah] will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his [John the Baptist's] birth, for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and [i:edfeabe3f5]he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb[/i:edfeabe3f5]."
-Acts 2:39 "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
-1 Corinthians 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."

I think these passages clearly confirm the continuity between the times of Abraham and our own families today regarding God's spiritual promises and favor to covenant children, and the inclusion of believers' children in that covenant.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 3, 2004)

In Scripture we have explicit statements telling us that the "to you and your children" principle still applies today. Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 59, Jeremiah 32, and Zechariah 10 are a few examples where our children are included in the promise of the New Covenant. Only if the New Testament explicitly changed this principle could we deny it today, but in fact, we find nothing of the sort. So we must of necessity assume continuity on this point rather than discontinuity.

So now, in light of this, what do you think Peter meant in Acts 2:39?


----------



## blhowes (Sep 3, 2004)

John and Chris,
Thanks for your responses and the scriptures you shared. Your posts have been very helpful to me as I think through these things. Its funny how I've 'heard' these things many times before on the forum...only now I'm ready to hear them. 

[quote:3c14749a1d="Craig"]
In Scripture we have explicit statements telling us that the "to you and your children" principle still applies today. Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 59, Jeremiah 32, and Zechariah 10 are a few examples where our children are included in the promise of the New Covenant. Only if the New Testament explicitly changed this principle could we deny it today, but in fact, we find nothing of the sort. So we must of necessity assume continuity on this point rather than discontinuity. 

So now, in light of this, what do you think Peter meant in Acts 2:39?[/quote:3c14749a1d]
First, thanks for 'backing me into the corner' (in a nice way) with your post. It put pressure on me, forcing me to think, and I appeciate it.

I think I've been wrong about this verse all along. I've been taking it out of context and only looking at it as if it were a new revelation totally divorced from the OT. 

What did Peter mean? He meant the same thing that it meant in the OT. I'm still thinking through what it all means, but at least now I see the connection. The only thing that could have cemented it more for me would have been if Peter would have added the phrase 'as it is written' to the verse. After reading through Acts 2 this morning, I'm thinking that it may be there, not in so many words in this verse, but in the context of the whole sermon where he ties what's going on to prophecies in Joel and Psalms. 

I'm looking forward to spending time studying Acts 2. I don't want to get ahead of myself, but I found Joel's prophecy interesting where he mentions sons, daughters, young men, old men, servants, and handmaids being used of God. When I read the verse in the past, I always looked at what they did (prophesy, see visions, dream dreams, etc) rather than who they are (family members). 

[b:3c14749a1d]Prayer Request:[/b:3c14749a1d]
I'd like to ask for prayer from my brothers and sisters. Its exciting to learn new things, but I'm finding that its more than just a battle for the mind. I was thinking about the verses shared this morning as I waited for a bus, and the thought came to me "If I ever changed to CT, what would I tell my baptist brothers...or my family?" Then, I thought "Do you want to please others, or do you want to know and yield to revealed truth". And finally, I thought "Which concerns me more, what others will think if I change what I believe... or what God will think if I don't yield myself to what he teaches in favor of pleasing others."

I've been a baptist for 28 years now, so its not easy to change overnight. I don't know that it (ie. being a baptist) will change, but I'd like prayer that I will just be able to focus on the scriptures, focus out what others may think, swallow my pride if necessary, and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 3, 2004)

Bob,
Praise God for that which He is doing, as well as that which He will accomplish in your witness to those close to you. We will assuredly keep you in prayer.


----------



## blhowes (Sep 3, 2004)

Scott,
Thanks. I appreciate your prayers.
Bob


----------



## Radar (Sep 3, 2004)

Bob,

While you are at it, could you do me a favor and do some thinking about how a covenantal view of children necessitates baptizing at birth rather than at profession, and then would you share with me your personal reflections on that if you come to anything you feel worth sharing?

Cordially,

Radar


----------



## blhowes (Sep 3, 2004)

[quote:26a433976b="Glenn"]Bob,
While you are at it, could you do me a favor and do some thinking about how a covenantal view of children necessitates baptizing at birth rather than at profession, and then would you share with me your personal reflections on that if you come to anything you feel worth sharing?[/quote:26a433976b]
Glenn,
Thanks for your suggestion and I will definitely think about it. 
BTW, just curious if you, as a Baptist, hold to a covenantal view of children? 
Bob


----------



## Philip A (Sep 3, 2004)

Bob,

Remember Proverbs 18:17- [i:dd6c904ca6]The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.[/i:dd6c904ca6]

Craig said:
[quote:dd6c904ca6="luvroftheWord"]In Scripture we have explicit statements telling us that the "to you and your children" principle still applies today. Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 59, Jeremiah 32, and Zechariah 10 are a few examples where our children are included in the promise of the New Covenant. Only if the New Testament explicitly changed this principle could we deny it today, but in fact, we find nothing of the sort. So we must of necessity assume continuity on this point rather than discontinuity.[/quote:dd6c904ca6]
Actually, the New Testament does change the principle. I'm sure you are very familiar with the principles of typology, wherein spiritual truths are communicated by means of physical representations (levitical sacrifices as types of Christ's sacrifice, Aaronic priesthood as a type of Christ's priesthood, etc.) Covenant children are also typological. Note also that the promise given to Abraham regarding children is closely tied to the land. Both Reformed Baptists and Reformed Paedobaptists recognize the typology of the land (even though it is not explicitly stated as having been changed); only the Reformed Baptists recognize the typology of covenant children.

Here's a short, simplified catechism that I wrote on the subject, I hope it may be of some use to you.

[quote:dd6c904ca6]Q: Who is the Covenant Head of the Abrahamic Covenant?

A: Abraham.


Q: Who is the Covenant Head of the New Covenant?

A: Christ.


Q: Who is included in the Abrahamic Covenant along with their Head?

A: Abraham's Children.
Gen 17:7 [i:dd6c904ca6]And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: Who is included in the New Covenant along with their Head?

A: Christ's Children.
Isaiah 53:10 [i:dd6c904ca6]Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.[/i:dd6c904ca6]
Heb 2:11-13 [i:dd6c904ca6]For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, "œI will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise." And again, "œI will put my trust in him." And again, "œBehold, I and the children God has given me."[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: How did one enter the Abrahamic Covenant?

A: By physical birth, or by purchase.
Genesis 17:13 [i:dd6c904ca6]both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: How does one enter the New Covenant?

A1: Not by physical birth,
John 1:12-13 [i:dd6c904ca6]But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.[/i:dd6c904ca6]

A2: but by spiritual birth, and being bought by Christ.
John 3:5-8 [i:dd6c904ca6]answered, "œTruly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, "˜You must be born again."(tm) The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."[/i:dd6c904ca6]
1 Peter 1:3 [i:dd6c904ca6]Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead[/i:dd6c904ca6]
1 Cor 6:19-20 [i:dd6c904ca6]Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.[/i:dd6c904ca6]
Revelation 5:9 [i:dd6c904ca6]And they sang a new song, saying, "œWorthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: When did one receive the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant?

A: After one entered it by physical birth.
Gen 17:12 [i:dd6c904ca6]He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: When does one receive the sign of the New Covenant?

A: After one enters it by spiritual birth.
Acts 2:41 [i:dd6c904ca6]So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.[/i:dd6c904ca6]


Q: Spiritually, who then was in view when God gave the promise "to thee and thy seed" to Abraham?

A1: Not his physical children,
Luke 3:8 [i:dd6c904ca6]Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, "˜We have Abraham as our father."(tm) For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.[/i:dd6c904ca6]
John 8:39-40 [i:dd6c904ca6]They answered him, "œAbraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "œIf you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.[/i:dd6c904ca6]

A2: But his spiritual children.
Gal 3:7-9 [i:dd6c904ca6]Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "œIn you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.[/i:dd6c904ca6]
Gal 3:29 [i:dd6c904ca6]And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.[/i:dd6c904ca6][/quote:dd6c904ca6]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 3, 2004)

I'll be praying for you, Bob.


----------



## Radar (Sep 3, 2004)

Bob,

I have not reconciled/accepted some arguments on both sides of the fence. I can accept Apostolic admonition to children (eph 6:1), raising up a godly seed, promises to you and your children, etc., but hard pressed to pull the trigger on baptizing infants based on conceptual rather than didactic argument. I have withheld the water until the Spirit ceases to withhold the opening of the heart. Baptism based on "presumption and profession" versus based on "presumption without profession." Maybe I'm as much a dry Presbyterian as I am a baptist...rejected by all sides!! 

The last thing I want is to succomb to any measure of peer-pressure. 

Just curious about your thoughts; am not disapproving your final decision. 

Peace...


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 3, 2004)

[quote:5cbf85d036="Radar"]I have withheld the water until the Spirit ceases to withhold the opening of the heart.[/quote:5cbf85d036]

And how do you honestly know that the latter has not yet occurred? What about John the Baptist?

[quote:5cbf85d036="Radar"]Baptism based on "presumption and profession" versus based on "presumption without profession."[/quote:5cbf85d036]

"Presumption and profession" is simply a synonymous way of saying, "presumption and more presumption."

[quote:5cbf85d036="Radar"]The last thing I want is to succomb to any measure of peer-pressure.[/quote:5cbf85d036]

Amen.


----------



## Radar (Sep 3, 2004)

God testified about John the Baptist's condition. I haven't had that luxury with my kids. I don't think they are a new prophet of a newer testament.  

John was exceptional. The exceptional shouldn't become the rule. It highlights the rule. In general, most aren't like John.

As far as "presuming and more presuming," that is not a clear reiteration of "presuming and profession." Profession is all I have about you, but I would not be in fellowship with you without it. To define profession as useless presumption belittles profession. Profession is evidence, presumption is not. That is part of my hesitancy with typical paedo, not that I am without problems with typical credo too!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 3, 2004)

Radar,
I think Chris' example in John the Baptist was to substantiate that God does in fact regenerate in the womb; he (John) was not the only example. Do you believe God does not work along these lines?

I don't know that I would define profession as 'useless'. It certainlyt has it's value; We measure eachother along these lines. It does not validate however.


----------



## Radar (Sep 3, 2004)

In general, most aren't like John.

So, some are. :bs2: 

"Useless" may not have been a good adjective. But the heart behind it was that it isn't completely proper to equate profession with presumption, as was suggested with "presumption and more presumption." Thus I don't think that viewing children covenantally is antagonizing to a credo position by default.

I don't oppose paedos. Many baptists seemingly would ask paedo-baptized people to be rebaptized as part of joining their baptist church. I wouldn't consider such a thing. I think I recall a recent thread where Piper's church is addressing that very thing.

Gotta go!

Peace


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 3, 2004)

[quote:a12d4fc460="Radar"]As far as "presuming and more presuming," that is not a clear reiteration of "presuming and profession." Profession is all I have about you, but I would not be in fellowship with you without it. To define profession as useless presumption belittles profession. Profession is evidence, presumption is not.[/quote:a12d4fc460]

I definitely do not classify profession as anything even close to useless by any means - [i:a12d4fc460]quite the contrary.[/i:a12d4fc460] It is useful in that profession is one biblical ground on which to presume one's regeneration - but it is not a [i:a12d4fc460]certain[/i:a12d4fc460] ground for such, any more than is infant presumptive regeneration. This is why your statement that "profession is evidence, presumption is not" has no grounds. Both of them are ultimately no more than imperfect though educated presumptions made on certain biblical grounds - the former on the biblical ground of external evidence of repentance, the latter on the biblical ground of God's covenantal promises. Each one is a biblically valid and unique ground on which to presume regeneration - I say [i:a12d4fc460]unique[/i:a12d4fc460] because each ground has an advantage that the other does not. Adult profession has the external evidence of repentance, which infant presumption does not. Likewise, infant presumption has God's covenantal promises and blessings, which adult profession does not.


----------



## Radar (Sep 3, 2004)

[quote:272a263e4e]"It is useful in that profession is one biblical ground on which to presume one's regeneration - but it is not a certain ground for such, any more than is infant presumptive regeneration."[/quote:272a263e4e] 

I will know them by their fruit. I've seen this merry-go-round discussion on the forum before, so perhaps we're rehashing better threads. But paedos have argued that regeneration usually occurs down the line. Someone always suggests John the Baptist, a true example of regeneration in utero. But paedos normally refer to baptism as a sign of what is to come, namely, regeneration and profession of faith (not walking an aisle, but fruit). I really would like for the discussions to stop careening into the John example, as it stands as exceptional (not singularly unique, Scott, but an exception and not the rule). I'm only talking the usual/ordinary. 

I can either baptize my children and bring them up in the nurture of the Lord until, and of course continuing after, faith comes. Fine and dandy, I respect your concept though I don't hold it. I suppose what I do argue about is the insistence that paedo baptism is necessarily precipitated from the covenantal viewpoint concerning children. Thus, I raise my children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and they are baptized upon demonstrated faith. I still trust God's promise, not crossing my fingers but rather expecting that day to come. I still perform my parental duty. I don't act according to my presumption alone, but I do act when at least two are gathered together in equal presumption about the young tree, based on its fruit-bearing.

So, I suppose what would be more useful for your attempts to persuade me would be to focus on sacraments. Stop telling me [i:272a263e4e]that[/i:272a263e4e] paedo baptism is necessary, and start telling me [i:272a263e4e]why[/i:272a263e4e] it is necessary. That is what I would sincerely like to know. I think Bob would appreciate this as well.

Gentlemen, commence to convince!  

If ya can!  


Thanks,

Radar


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 3, 2004)

Philip A,

Perhaps you didn't go back and read those passages I referenced, but those are prophecies about the coming of the New Covenant, and they all explicitly include our children. If the NT tells us something different than what the OT said about the New Covenant, then we have a contradictory Bible.

All your catechism does is lay out Baptist theology. About 3 years ago I would have agreed with it. But now I wear glasses that are a different shade of red.


----------



## blhowes (Sep 4, 2004)

[quote:de0f7d52f9="Me Died Blue"]I'll be praying for you, Bob.[/quote:de0f7d52f9]
Thanks, Chris. I appreciate your prayers.

[quote:de0f7d52f9="Philip"]Here's a short, simplified catechism that I wrote on the subject, I hope it may be of some use to you.[/quote:de0f7d52f9]
Thanks for posting the catechism. Interesting.

I'm sure I'll have more questions after I've thought more about what you've written, but I was curious about a couple things. (...and, BTW, since I'm not sure what you believe about some of the things I mention, I run the danger putting words into your mouth, which I don't intend to do. Please feel free to spit out whatever words don't belong)

[quote:de0f7d52f9="Philip"]Covenant children are also typological. Note also that the promise given to Abraham regarding children is closely tied to the land. Both Reformed Baptists and Reformed Paedobaptists recognize the typology of the land (even though it is not explicitly stated as having been changed); only the Reformed Baptists recognize the typology of covenant children.[/quote:de0f7d52f9]

Does that mean that the OT references to covenant children have dual meanings (physical and spiritual) and that the NT references have only a spiritual meaning? With the OT sacrifices, Hebrews clearly helps us understand how the types are to be understood, what they represent, and how they are fulfilled. Are there other passages that help us in this regard regarding covenant children?

It seems to me that when it says in Acts 2:39, 'to you and to your children...', that it would have been understood by those who heard it to be a reference to other OT promises. I don't know if you agree to this but, if you do, how then should the phrase be understood? If I take at face value what I read in your post, when Peter said the promise is to 'you and your children', that would mean to those who got saved and to their spiritual children. Since physical age may or may not correspond to spiritual age, a child who gets saved could witness to an adult who gets saved. Spiritually, the adult is the child and the child is the adult. Is this how Acts 2:39 should be understood?


----------



## govols (Sep 4, 2004)

Was not John the last OT prophet?

Philip A. - I like your post.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 4, 2004)

[quote:9f1eafc3e7]Q: Who is the Covenant Head of the Abrahamic Covenant? 

A: Abraham. [/quote:9f1eafc3e7]

This is not only in error from a Covenant Theology perspective, but even from a basic biblical perspective. The ONLY covenant Head between God and man in the CoG is NOT Abraham, but Christ. Representatives total TWO: Adam, under the CoW, and Christ, under the CoG. Christ is the mediator of the CoG, not Abraham, not Moses, not Joshua, not Noah, not anyone. Abraham saved no one, and was not the mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant. Luke 1 demonstrates that BOTH Mary and Zechariah place mediation and fulfillment of promise on Christ of the ABRAHAMIC Covenant continuing.

Even your Confession teaches this:

7:2
Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a [b:9f1eafc3e7]covenant of grace[/b:9f1eafc3e7],[2] wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation [b:9f1eafc3e7]by Jesus Christ[/b:9f1eafc3e7], requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;[3] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.[4]

8:2
...yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man. (Rom. 9:5; I Tim. 2:5)

As the Scriptures teach:
Genesis 17:9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.

NOT: And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, [b:9f1eafc3e7]FOR[/b:9f1eafc3e7] you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.

Rather:

Exodus 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered [b:9f1eafc3e7]his [/b:9f1eafc3e7]covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Leviticus 26:42 then I will remember [b:9f1eafc3e7]my [/b:9f1eafc3e7]covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.

1 Chronicles 16:16 the covenant that [b:9f1eafc3e7]he [/b:9f1eafc3e7]made with Abraham, his sworn promise to Isaac,

Acts 3:25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that [b:9f1eafc3e7]God [/b:9f1eafc3e7]made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'

Acts 7:8 And [b:9f1eafc3e7]he [/b:9f1eafc3e7]gave him the covenant of circumcision. 

Abraham offered a big ZERO in terms of mediation. 
Isaiah 51:2 Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for he was but one when [b:9f1eafc3e7]I called him[/b:9f1eafc3e7], that [b:9f1eafc3e7]I might bless [/b:9f1eafc3e7]him [b:9f1eafc3e7]and [/b:9f1eafc3e7]multiply him. 

That was God's doing!

To begin on a faulty premise is to make the rest of the syllogism go "kaploowey." (Which it does with a nuclear explosion).

Phillip A., I really don't understand why you would say that. Do you have ANY other Baptistic quotes who say the same thing? I would like to see those if you do. (Or references to works - Gill, Bunyan, Howell, Shirreff, Tomes, etc - that would be helpful).

[quote:9f1eafc3e7]Covenant children are also typological. [/quote:9f1eafc3e7]

They never were or have been. Otherwise, every reference int he NT by both Christ and the apostles about children included int he covenant is in error. Christ said the kingdom of heaven "belongs" to children (i.e. they own it as covenant children). Mothers brought their covenant children to be blessed by the Messiah. If Christ thought them to be "pagan children" now in contrast to "spiritual children" then he would have rejected them. Instead, he confirms it by saying they own the Kingdom of heaven. 

Matthew 19:13-14 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, [color=blue:9f1eafc3e7][b:9f1eafc3e7]for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." [/b:9f1eafc3e7][/color:9f1eafc3e7]


James instructs Paul in Acts 21 to PROVE to the brethren that HE NEVER SAID that children are out of the covenant because they MISTAKINGLY thought he had said this. Paul demonstrates through upholding the law that that they misunderstood him - both by Apostolic sanction AND by physical illustration of keeping the law. The very question in that passage concerns the BRETHREN who thought Paul has said they shoudl STOP circumcising and including children in the covenant. some thought he had become "baptist." He demonstrated to them, both by the words of James, and by his actions that this was in ERROR. Otherwsie, children woudl not be regarded as holy. Otherwise they woudl not own the kingdom and have it belong TO THEM. Otherwise, Christ and the apsotles would be wrong if Baptists are right.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 4, 2004)

Philip A - 
I certainly think that both sides occasionally exhibit some dubious exegesis... but I must confess that I think your understanding of covenant children being "typological" for those people whom we lead to Christ is certainly fueled by an agenda that goes beyond normal grammatical exegesis.
God plainly worked through families in the OT... and he appears to continue that pattern in the NT as so many family units are dealt with AS A UNIT. (Even if you want to say that they all believed, it is still interesting that God effected belief in the entire unit at the exact same time, which still maintains the normative principle that God works through families.)

A friend who used to post on this board recently asked me what the difference is between my child and some kid who just hitches a ride with me to church. My answer is that the difference is that with my child I have both God's declaration of general intent as well as biblical precedent to have a CONFIDENCE concerning my child's status before God. With the other child I don't have any basis for confidence, though I have a basis for hope since this kid is hearing the Gospel preached.
This is, in part, what it means for your children to be "covenant children." 
But it certainly isn't "typological."

Ciau for now!
Ben


----------



## Philip A (Sep 4, 2004)

[quote:50f84916e5="SolaScriptura"]Philip A - 
I certainly think that both sides occasionally exhibit some dubious exegesis... but I must confess that I think your understanding of covenant children being "typological" for those people whom we lead to Christ is certainly fueled by an agenda that goes beyond normal grammatical exegesis.[/quote:50f84916e5]

Ben,

Thanks for pointing that out, that was sloppy writing on my part. I didn't mean to suggest that the spiritual children that we find in the NT references were the fulfilment of the type, but I can see how including it with the other points made it look that way. It was more of an appendix, so I corrected it. I appreicate the help.

I'll get back to your question and the others when I have more time.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 4, 2004)

[quote:c9d1e6dbcc]but I must confess that I think your understanding of covenant children being "typological" for those people whom we lead to Christ is certainly fueled by an agenda that goes beyond normal grammatical exegesis.[/quote:c9d1e6dbcc] 

I would agree. Well put.


----------



## Goosha (Sep 7, 2004)

Radar wrote
"But paedos have argued that regeneration usually occurs down the line. Someone always suggests John the Baptist, a true example of regeneration in utero." 

Actually, if anybody were to use John the Baptist for some sort of covenant regeneration they would be committing an is/ought fallacy. Universalizing any case example in scripture is a hermeneutic error.

Even as a paedo, I would have to knock down any argument from this passage.


----------



## Goosha (Sep 7, 2004)

*Adult Children*

I always love these discussions concerning the nature of the term "Children" in the New Covenant prophecies of old testament. This is where circularity becomes extremely evident. How does a baptist know that children spoken in those prophecies are non-literal and refer to those who are already regenerated? Well, because of the nature of the spiritual promises. How do presbyterians know to baptize their children and to expect faith from their children? Well, cuz the New Covenant promises were made to their children! Hahaha!! I laugh really hard every time these kinds of discussions come up with regards to what the term "children" means. Although, this particular thread looks pretty interesting because I'm not sure if all the baptists agree with each other on the term. Good discussion.


----------



## Philip A (Sep 7, 2004)

[quote:483e4fb360="blhowes"]With the OT sacrifices, Hebrews clearly helps us understand how the types are to be understood, what they represent, and how they are fulfilled. Are there other passages that help us in this regard regarding covenant children?[/quote:483e4fb360]

Bob,
As far as other passages, Romans 4 & 9 come to mind, and Galatians 3 & 4 are extremely helpful here. The connection might not be obvious, but then again, neither is the case for taking the land promises as typological either. A helpful way to work through this is to study the issue of the land; examine the passages that explicitly include it as part of the New Covenant (see my next post addressed to the others), and go through all the NT evidence for taking the land in a typological way. The case for a typological interpretation of the promises regarding children is identical to it, and based on the same logic and inferences. Ask the question, "œhow can we take the land promises as typological, and the children promises as physical?" The only answer you will ever get is a presupposition of the paedobaptist position, or an appeal to theological tradition.

[quote:483e4fb360]It seems to me that when it says in Acts 2:39, 'to you and to your children...', that it would have been understood by those who heard it to be a reference to other OT promises. I don't know if you agree to this but, if you do, how then should the phrase be understood?[/quote:483e4fb360]

Yes, I do understand Acts 2:39 covenantally, and as a reference to the promises of the OT. This is the main thrust of what Peter is implying by using a phrase that Jews would know quite well. He is identifying Christ as the substance of the promise made to the fathers and their children. As to how this should be understood, we have to be careful to observe that Peter is talking to Jews [i:483e4fb360]as Jews[/i:483e4fb360], and is referring to Christ as the fulfillment of those promises to them and their children [i:483e4fb360]as Jews[/i:483e4fb360]; and that on the basis of this, they should repent, believe, and be baptized. Not all who heard Peter"(tm)s preaching were believers, so to take this as a promise to believers and their children is an theological imposition based on the presupposition that the "œyou and your children" applies to believers in the physical sense. But because Peter is talking to Jews as Jews, both those who would believe and those who would not, the only proper way to interpret the passage is that Peter is identifying Christ as the substance of that promise made to them as Jews. This is why the Gospel went to the Jew first, according to Paul.


----------



## Philip A (Sep 7, 2004)

[quote:27c82d89f1="luvroftheWord"]Philip A,

Perhaps you didn't go back and read those passages I referenced, but those are prophecies about the coming of the New Covenant, and they all explicitly include our children. If the NT tells us something different than what the OT said about the New Covenant, then we have a contradictory Bible.[/quote:27c82d89f1]

Actually yes, I did read them. Did you go back and read them over again and notice the land promises? Virtually all of them also contain promises tied to the land as well, and in fact, Ezekiel 37"(tm)s promise regarding children is that they will dwell in the land. So then what are Presbyterians doing in America, or any other place other than that particular land that is part of the promise to them and their children?

Ez 37:25
[i:27c82d89f1]They shall dwell [b:27c82d89f1]in the land[/b:27c82d89f1] that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. [b:27c82d89f1]They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever[/b:27c82d89f1], and David my servant shall be their prince forever.[/i:27c82d89f1]

Jer 32:37-41
[i:27c82d89f1]Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. [b:27c82d89f1]I will bring them back to this place[/b:27c82d89f1], and I will make them dwell in safety. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of [b:27c82d89f1]their children after them[/b:27c82d89f1]. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them [b:27c82d89f1]in this land [/b:27c82d89f1]in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.[/i:27c82d89f1]

Zech 10:9
[i:27c82d89f1]Though I scattered them among the nations,
yet in far countries they shall remember me,
and [b:27c82d89f1]with their children they shall live and return[/b:27c82d89f1].[/i:27c82d89f1]


[quote:27c82d89f1]All your catechism does is lay out Baptist theology.[/quote:27c82d89f1]

Yes, Craig, I am still a Baptist!


[quote:27c82d89f1="Webmaster"]This is not only in error from a Covenant Theology perspective, but even from a basic biblical perspective. The ONLY covenant Head between God and man in the CoG is NOT Abraham, but Christ"¦.
To begin on a faulty premise is to make the rest of the syllogism go "kaploowey." (Which it does with a nuclear explosion)"¦.
Phillip A., I really don't understand why you would say that. Do you have ANY other Baptistic quotes who say the same thing? I would like to see those if you do. (Or references to works - Gill, Bunyan, Howell, Shirreff, Tomes, etc - that would be helpful).
[/quote:27c82d89f1]

Matt,

First of all, I don"(tm)t identify the Abrahamic covenant as THE Covenant of Grace, so, since you base all of your following arguments on this faulty premise, all of your following arguments suffer the same nuclear fate (I must say though, that was very well put, even if misdirected, and gave me a good laugh, which is quite healthy in these kinds of conversations). 
Secondly, no, I won"(tm)t quote you a Baptist that says the same thing, but rather a Scottish Presbyterian, the man who literally wrote the book on typology:
[quote:27c82d89f1]The Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob may be classed together on account of their being alike [b:27c82d89f1]covenant heads[/b:27c82d89f1] to the children of Israel; yet we are not to lose sight of the fact, that Abraham was more especially the person with whom the covenant took its commencement, and in whom it had its more distinctive representation.
(Fairbairn: Typology of Scripture, I:297)[/quote:27c82d89f1]
Your usage of Matthew goes contrary to the clear meaning of the parallel passages in the other gospel accounts, and in particular, your usage of Acts 21 is a textbook example of eisegesis. I honestly was shocked to read that in a post of yours.

[quote:27c82d89f1="SolaScriptura"]Even if you want to say that they all believed, it is still interesting that God effected belief in the entire unit at the exact same time, which still maintains the normative principle that God works through families.[/quote:27c82d89f1]
This too is a fallacy of the universal application of a particular.
Again, let me quote from Fairbairn"(tm)s Typology:
[quote:27c82d89f1]The difference in external form was in each case conditioned by the circumstances of the time. In circumcision it bore respect to the propagation of offspring, as it was through the production of a seed of blessing that the covenant, in its preparatory form, was to attain its realization. But when the seed in that respect had reached its culminating point in Christ, and the objects of the covenant were no longer dependent on national propagation of seed, but were to be carried forward by spiritual means and influences used in connection with the faith of Christ, the external ordinance was fitly altered, so as to express simply a change of nature and state in the individual that received it. Undoubtedly the New Testament form less distinctly recognises the connection between parent and child - we should rather say, does not of itself recognise that connection [b:27c82d89f1]at all[/b:27c82d89f1]; so much ought to be frankly conceded to those who disapprove of the practice of infant baptism, and will be conceded by all whose object is to ascertain the truth rather than contend for an opinion. (Fairbairn: The Typology of Scripture, Vol I, 313-314)[/quote:27c82d89f1]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 7, 2004)

[quote:0170c745b1]Matt, 

First of all, I don"(tm)t identify the Abrahamic covenant as THE Covenant of Grace, so, since you base all of your following arguments on this faulty premise, all of your following arguments suffer the same nuclear fate (I must say though, that was very well put, even if misdirected, and gave me a good laugh, which is quite healthy in these kinds of conversations). [/quote:0170c745b1]

 Always willing to throw in an ad hominem or two to liven things up!

[quote:0170c745b1]I don"(tm)t identify the Abrahamic covenant as THE Covenant of Grace[/quote:0170c745b1]

Well, not THE as if ONLY, but certainly part. Each one of the covenant progressions in the OT are the continuation of the COG.

[quote:0170c745b1]Secondly, no, I won"(tm)t quote you a Baptist that says the same thing, but rather a Scottish Presbyterian, the man who literally wrote the book on typology: 
Quote: 
The Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob may be classed together on account of their being alike [b:0170c745b1]covenant heads [/b:0170c745b1]to the children of Israel; yet we are not to lose sight of the fact, that Abraham was more especially the person with whom the covenant took its commencement, and in whom it had its more distinctive representation. 
(Fairbairn: Typology of Scripture, I:297) [/quote:0170c745b1]

I don't like the use of terms and will check Fairbain as to his greater context there. If he means "the person with whom the covenant took its commencement" I'm fine with that. If that is ALL he means. Is that what YOU mean?

[quote:0170c745b1]Your usage of Matthew goes contrary to the clear meaning of the parallel passages in the other gospel accounts,[/quote:0170c745b1]

Not at all if you are looking at the Bible from a Covenatal vantagepoint. What would your exegesis of that passage mean? HEre we have covenantal mothers bringing thier children to the Rabbi who is inuagurating the Kingdom "which is upon you" and they want their children in it. Christ says the Kingdom belongs to them. Now if you say they are unsaved, then that presses you to say what you said. If you believe in Presumptive Regeneration (the Reformed View) then you continue to have clear texts that propagate the doctrine seen through the entire OT and into the NT.

[quote:0170c745b1]and in particular, your usage of Acts 21 is a textbook example of eisegesis. I honestly was shocked to read that in a post of yours. [/quote:0170c745b1]

Don't be shocked. Explain why James would have Paul demonstrate to the Jews that they SHOULD NOT stop including their children in the covenant. The case there is VERY clear and often neglected by baptist commentaries on it. Please don't say that they were just "appeasing the Jews" or soemthing. That is NOT Paul's track record - shall we go over Galatians? Acts? The Pastorals? int he way Paul deals with heresy and error? Paul would have NEVER allowed this practice to go on if it was not right for them to do so.

Talk about Eisogesis on a passage:
"saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children; [b:0170c745b1]though this does not appear; it is true the apostle taught that circumcision was abolished[/b:0170c745b1], and that it was nothing; yea, that to submit to it as necessary to salvation, was hurtful and pernicious; but as a thing indifferent, he allowed of it among weak brethren; and in condescension to their weakness, did administer it himself; in which he became a Jew to the Jew, that he might gain some" (John Gill)

It doesn't appear but that is what he taught?!

Then in verse 24 he says it means, "that there is no truth in them" (i.e. that Paul did not say it!) Gill must have been sick the day he wrote this because he contradicts his own "ideas" here. First he says Paul did teach this, then he says "that there is no truth in them." That he did not. Huh? This is typical (Jewett does the EXACT same thing uin his work page 230).

This passage is not only negelcted by Baptistic Writers, but majorly misunderstood in the context of its force to the contrary fo their position. For if, AT ANY POINT the apostles sanctioned infant inclusion in the covenant, the Baptistic position is over.

How do you see the passage?


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 7, 2004)

[quote:6b43bfb3e8]Actually yes, I did read them. Did you go back and read them over again and notice the land promises?[/quote:6b43bfb3e8]

Yes Philip, the prophecies do speak of the land. But the problem is that the land promises have not been abolished. They still apply today, but they have been made better.

Matthew 5:5--
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit [i:6b43bfb3e8]heaven?[/i:6b43bfb3e8]" Nope. They shall inherit [i:6b43bfb3e8]the earth[/i:6b43bfb3e8].

Revelation 21:1-5--
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with him as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away."

The promise that God's people will one day inherit the whole earth is implicit even in the Abrahamic Covenant.

Romans 4:13--
"For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be [i:6b43bfb3e8]heir of the world[/i:6b43bfb3e8] did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith."

The New Covenant does give us better promises. I'm not waiting for a piece of land in Palestine. I'm waiting for the whole world.

[quote:6b43bfb3e8][quote:6b43bfb3e8]All your catechism does is lay out Baptist theology. [/quote:6b43bfb3e8]

Yes, Craig, I am still a Baptist! [/quote:6b43bfb3e8]

And the point is that your catechism begs the question, so why did you use it to try to prove your position?

And for that matter, to say "The land was typological, therefore covenant children were too" is a [i:6b43bfb3e8]non sequiter[/i:6b43bfb3e8].

And also, Fairbairn was a paedobaptist himself, so I'm pretty sure he'd take issue with the way you are applying him here.

You said to Ben:

[quote:6b43bfb3e8]This too is a fallacy of the universal application of a particular. [/quote:6b43bfb3e8]

If you understand that this is a fallacy, then why does your catechism say this:

[quote:6b43bfb3e8]
Q: When does one receive the sign of the New Covenant? 

A: After one enters it by spiritual birth. 
Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
[/quote:6b43bfb3e8]

You just universalized a particular! 

So why are you a Baptist? Because all of Baptist theology falls by this fallacy, unless you can give me the principle that Baptism is to only be administered to those who have first professed faith. Where is the passage of Scripture that gives us this principle?


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 8, 2004)

*O. Palmer Robertson on the land of Israel*

O. Palmer Robertson has given us tremendous insights into the theological significance of the land of Israel. All of the following quotes are taken from his excellent book, [u:ca7b3945ca]The Israel of God[/u:ca7b3945ca]. I couldn't resist posting these quotes since the subject of the land has been brought up. Robertson has shown masterfully that although the Promised Land in Palestine is a shadow that has its fulfillment in the New Covenant, this does not mean that the land promises have passed away. God has indeed made promises to us concerning the land in the New Covenant, and the land of promise today is greater than that of the Old Covenant. I encourage everyone to get this book and read it in its entirety. It is one of my primary OT hermeneutical resources.

---------------------

The concept of a land that belongs to God's people originated in Paradise. This simple fact, so often overlooked, plays a critical role in evaluating the significance of the land throughout redemptive history and in its consummate fullfilment. Land did not begin to be theologically significant with the promise given to Abraham. Instead, the patriarch's hope of possessing a land arose out of the concept of restoration to the original state from which man had fallen. The original idea of the land as paradise significantly shaped the expectations associated with redemption. As the place of blessedness arising from unbroken fellowship and communion with God, the land of paradise became the goal toward which redeemed humanity was returning. (p. 4)

---------------------

...the covenant promise of land made to Abraham takes on much greater significance when it is viewed from the perspective of fulfillment in the age of the new covenant. Now the patriarch's promise is understood to imply that he is heir of [i:ca7b3945ca]the cosmos[/i:ca7b3945ca], not merely the land of the Bible (Rom. 4:13). Because God is Lord of the whole universe, he will fulfill his covenant promise of redemption by reconstituting the cosmos. In this way, paradise will be restored in all its glory. The blessing of the land that humanity first experienced will finally be graciously given back to him. (p. 10)

-------------------------

Yet with all the emphasis on the distinctiveness of this land in comparison with all other lands, the reason for its selection must not be overlooked. From the beginning, it was declared that God had committed himself in covenant oath to Abraham, not that the patriarch might indulge himself with God's blessings, but that Abraham would be a blessing to all the nations of the world. (p. 11)

--------------------------

Like all old covenant shadows, these glorious prospects have been realized in the days of the new covenant, when people worship neither in Jerusalem nor in Samaria, but wherever in the world the Spirit of God manifests himself (John 4:21-24). The redemptive reality that the old covenant city could only foreshadow finds it consummate realization in the "Jerusalem above," which is the "mother of us all" (Gal. 4:26 KJV). This "Jerusalem above" is not merely a "spiritual" phenomenon that has no connection with the "real" world in which we live. Its reality injects itself constantly into the lives of God's people. Every time Christians assemble for worship, they join with the host of "heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb.12:22). (p. 17)

----------------------

So how does this long development of the concept of the land under the old covenant translate into the categories of the new covenant fulfillment? It must be remembered at the outset that any transfer from the old covenant to the new covenant involves a movement from shadow to reality. The old covenant appealed to the human longing for a sure and settled land; yet it could not compare with the realities of new covenant fulfillment. 

This perspective is confirmed by a number of references in the new covenant documents. Abraham is declared to be heir, not of "the land", but of "the world" (Rom. 4:13). By this comprehensive language the imagery of land as a picture of restored paradise has finally come of age. No longer merely a portion of this earth, but now the whole of the cosmos partakes of the consummation of God's redemptive work in our fallen world.

This perspective provides insights into the return to the land as described by Ezekiel and the other prophets. In the nature of things, these writers could only employ images with which they and their hearers were familiar. So they spoke of a return to the geographical land of Israel. Indeed there was a return to this land, though hardly on the scale prophesied by Ezekiel. But in the context of the realities of the new covenant, this land must be understood in terms of the newly recreated cosmos about which the apostle Paul speaks in Romans. The whole universe (which is "the land" from a new covenant perspective) groans in travail, waiting for the redemption that will come with the resurrection of the bodies of the redeemed (Rom. 8:22-23). The return to paradise in the framework of the new covenant does not involve merely a return to the shadowy forms of the old covenant. It means the rejuvenation of the entire earth. By this renewal of the entire creation, the old covenant's promise of land finds its new covenant realization.

The same perspective can be seen in Jesus' reference in the Sermon on the Mount to the promise in the Psalms of inheriting the land. What did Jesus mean when he spoke of the meek inheriting "the earth" (Matt. 5:5)? Although the Greek term found in the Beattitudes for "earth" is the same as that which is used in the Septuagint for "land", the context of Jesus' statement requires a larger frame of reference than the land of Palestine. Jesus teaches not that the Jewish race will inherit the Promised Land, but that in the new covenant the "meek", regardless of their ethnic background, will inherit the "earth", wherever in this world they might live. (p. 25-27)

----------------------

In his letter to the predominately Gentile church in Ephesus, Paul applies the promise of the inheritance of the land to a circumstance that reaches far beyond the typological experiences of the people of God under the old covenant. He relates that promise specifically to children of Christian believers who are obedient, not to people who are simply Jewish by birth. The fifth commandment of the Decalogue had promised that children who honored their father and mother would live long on "the land" the that Lord their God was giving them (Ex. 20:12). Now Paul applies the same promise to children of Christian parents. If they submit willingly to the authority of their parents, they will enjoy long life on "the earth" (Eph. 6:3). Clearly, the concept of the land has expanded in its new covenant fulfillment to include the entire Gentile world. It now extends, as does the Great Commission, to the uttermost parts of the earth (Matt. 28:19; Acts 1:8). (p. 28-29)


----------



## blhowes (Sep 8, 2004)

[quote:e5470ebb57="Philip A"]But because Peter is talking to Jews as Jews, both those who would believe and those who would not, the only proper way to interpret the passage is that Peter is identifying Christ as the substance of that promise made to them as Jews. [/quote:e5470ebb57]
I agree that Peter is identifying Christ as the substance, or fulfillment, of the promise. I'm not sure I'm following the distinction you're making about Peter talking to Jews as Jews, believers and unbelievers. 

The promise spoken of in Acts 2:39 seems to me to be more like Peter is talking to Jews as believers. The focus seemed to change from a sermon to the multitudes to a message zeroing in on believers. In verses 38 and 39, Peter responds to the question ([i:e5470ebb57]Men and brethren, what shall we do?[/i:e5470ebb57]) of some Jews whose hearts God had pricked. Although of course both believers and unbelievers could hear what was said, the focus is on believers.

Do you agree?


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 10, 2004)

Bob,

Has this thread been helpful for you? I hope it's helped your understanding. I'd also like to keep this thread from dying off, because the discussion has been quite good.


----------



## blhowes (Sep 10, 2004)

[quote:1069062ae5="luvroftheWord"]Bob,
Has this thread been helpful for you? I hope it's helped your understanding. I'd also like to keep this thread from dying off, because the discussion has been quite good.[/quote:1069062ae5]
Yes, I appreciate all those who shared their thoughts/scriptures in this thread. It was very helpful. 

I don't particularly like to admit that I was wrong about a verse (Acts 2:39) for so many years, but it sure is a blessing to see it in a new light. I can't help but think, "Now that I see this verse differently, I wonder if there are others NT verse(s) that I should consider next that I may not be seeing as clearly as I should?"


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 11, 2004)

Bob,

Whenever your worldview changes, you always see things differently. It will just be a matter of time as you read the Scriptures of the NT (and even the OT) that things will jump out at you that you never saw before. A covenantal understanding of Scripture is very different from an individualistic approach, and you will probably see this difference most clearly as you study Hebrews and all of the various warning passages of Scripture.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 11, 2004)

I can understand where Bob is coming from. As a former Baptist, the promises of God meant very little to me. I mean, I knew that God would be a God to me because I am a Christian, but all the good stuff would have to wait until I got to heaven. Seeing the BIble in a covenantal light and, understanding that children are included in the promises, has totally changed my worldview.


----------

