# Thomas E. Peck on the link between circumcision and baptism



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 16, 2020)

Commenting on Acts 2:39, Thomas E. Peck made the following comments in relation to the link between circumcision and baptism:

The connection between this mention of the promise and the command to repent and be baptized in the preceding verses: “For the promise,” etc. Baptism is here treated as having the same relation to the promise as circumcision hitherto had; and this implies that no fundamental or organic change was about to take place in the church as it was passing from its Jewish to its Christian form, much less that the old church had ceased to exist and a new one was about to begin. ...

For more, see Thomas E. Peck on the link between circumcision and baptism.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 16, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Commenting on Acts 2:39, Thomas E. Peck made the following comments in relation to the link between circumcision and baptism:
> 
> The connection between this mention of the promise and the command to repent and be baptized in the preceding verses: “For the promise,” etc. Baptism is here treated as having the same relation to the promise as circumcision hitherto had; and this implies that no fundamental or organic change was about to take place in the church as it was passing from its Jewish to its Christian form, much less that the old church had ceased to exist and a new one was about to begin. ...
> 
> For more, see Thomas E. Peck on the link between circumcision and baptism.


I’m just not following this...

Circumcision pointed to Christ (Genesis 17:7 - Galatians 3:16). The promise mentioned here refers to the pouring out of the Holy Spirt (Acts 2:33) which is connected with Baptism.

Two different things. The reason circumcision was made obsolete is because Christ had arrived. Baptism which corresponds to those who are truly saved, is sensibly administered to male and female... believers. Repent and by baptized.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 16, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I’m just not following this...
> 
> Circumcision pointed to Christ (Genesis 17:7 - Galatians 3:16). The promise mentioned here refers to the pouring out of the Holy Spirt (Acts 2:33) which is connected with Baptism.
> 
> Two different things. The reason circumcision was made obsolete is because Christ had arrived. Baptism which corresponds to those who are truly saved, is sensibly administered to male and female... believers. Repent and by baptized.


Pretty much _everything _in the OT pointed to Christ; that's the reason for every religious impulse. Moreover, _everything _in the NT points to Christ; all our religious activity finds its focus in the gospel of our Lord and Savior.

The promise of the Holy Spirit is referred to by Peter in conjunction with the prophecy of Joel (quote Jol.2:28ff). Joel, like every OT prophet, ties the ongoing hope in Israel's redemption to the fundamental promise given to Abraham, "I will be your God," see vv23 & 27, immediately prior to the passage that is quoted in Act.2. Peter isn't ripping verses out of context; he's preaching Joel's Hope: the sending of the Spirit shall take place (according to Joel) in fulfillment of the covenant promise made to Abraham back in Genesis; and Peter preaches that it has just then happened.

We oughtn't divide up the promise of the Covenant of Grace, which is essentially one, though given in many parts. "All the promises are in him (Christ) Yes and Amen," 2Cor.1:20. "I will be God to you (and to your children)" Gen.17:7, is a statement of the promise (originally given in Gen.12) repeated in various forms again and again in the history of the people of God. E.g. Ex.6:7, Lev.26:12, "I will walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people;" "My sons... my daughters," Is.43:6, cf. 2Cor6:18; Jer.32:28, etc.

Circumcision (OT) and baptism (NT) serve essentially the same function (initiation into the visible covenant community), and teach essentially the same truths under comparable if distinct signs. Such a statement may be challenging to your thinking, however it is the doctrine we Presbyterians believe is biblically derived and eminently defensible.

Yes, circumcision is obsolete since Christ's coming. It has been replaced by baptism; and we (Presbyterians) understand it belongs to the same sort of people--basically converts and their children, their household--to whom it belonged in the OT. Peter preaches the fulfillment of the oldest and greatest hope of Israel in Jesus the Crucified. He tells this crowd that they may yet be admitted to the promise--which has been awarded to the One Seed of Abraham--if they turn to him and away from their sin. Peter echoes the familiar language of the foundational promise, to preserve the unity of the faith.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 17, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> We oughtn't divide up the promise of the Covenant of Grace, which is essentially one, though given in many parts.


But that's what the Presbyterian Covenant Theology does with the Covenant of Grace. They bifurcate it into a blessing for the true elect _and_ the "external" church.

I agree, Christ is our Lord and ultimately everything in the Bible gravitates around him. But I'm not certain we should categorically state _everything points directly to Christ_. The Holy Spirit, though inextricably linked, is a _separate_ and _equal_ person to Christ, with a different role - which includes baptism.

And why would we replace the sign of circumcision which applies only to males with another sign that applies to both genders?

Perhaps God chose a covenant sign for Abraham that only applied to males because the whole purpose of that aspect of the covenant was to bring about the physical offspring, namely Christ. Since genealogies are always traced through male offspring, it makes sense that the covenant sign was only born by them. Under the New Covenant, the sign of baptism is not related to a physical seed but is rather picturing the spiritual union with the Seed that already came. The spiritual union involves participation in his death, burial and resurrection. Therefore it makes sense that baptism is applied both to males and females.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 17, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> But that's what the Presbyterian Covenant Theology does with the Covenant of Grace. They bifurcate it into a blessing for the true elect _and_ the "external" church.
> 
> I agree, Christ is our Lord and ultimately everything in the Bible gravitates around him. But I'm not certain we should categorically state _everything points directly to Christ_. The Holy Spirit, though inextricably linked, is a _separate_ and _equal_ person to Christ, with a different role - which includes baptism.
> 
> ...


I'm assuming you would like some honest replies, and not a debate. So I'm just going to respond with explanations and answers from the Presbyterian perspective. It is an invitation to think, but it isn't meant to bend you to another view.

You say what "Presbyterian Covenant Theology does with the Covenant of Grace" is _divide it up._; and for proof you cite our teaching of the two-fold administration of it; which then becomes your basis for saying that I deny in practice what I affirm in saying, "We oughtn't divide up the promise of the Covenant of Grace." In other words, I'm schizophrenic.​
You seem to have missed my point. The *unity* of the covenant of Grace is the doctrine that all the covenants of the Bible after the covenant of works (Eden) are bound together in a singleness of purpose: the sending of the Christ into the world to bring about salvation for his people. There are different expressions, different public or private administrations; but all are finally working together for one Christ-centered goal, and serving a common spiritual purpose: namely, individual salvation, the union with Christ that in a completed work forms a corporate body, the church.

AND within those covenant expressions, whatever various particular promises are made, they are not atomized from one another. The promise of _land_ is not separable from the promise of _descendants,_ or from the promise of a _permanent king, _or from the promise of the _Holy Spirit._ All of these are tied together, and are traceable back to the fundamental promise: "I will be your God." This is *unity*.

So, what I indicated in the first post was: it is not correct to say that Peter in Acts 2:39 ONLY refers to the promise of the Holy Spirit when he says, "the promise...." For one thing, Joel himself, as he issues the divine promise of the Holy Spirit, grounds that promise in the Abrahamic original. Therefore, Peter should not be interpreted as if he confines the meaning of "promise" to the narrowest referent.

This leaves the question: Does teaching a two-fold administration of the covenant--one external and visible, one internal and spiritual--amount to "dividing the covenant of grace." I think the distinction in administration is borne out by the text of Scripture, never more plainly than when Paul uses the language of "outwardly" and "inwardly" in Rom.2:28-29. Or when he defines "Israel" as a name that only truly belongs to the elect or remnant, Rom.9:6. If not all are Israel (the true identity) who are of Israel (related to the stock, who have the name formally), we have a categorical division between those that are *fully invested*, and those who are *partly invested*.


Another way (a non-Presbyterian way) of handling the distinction is to regard only those who are fully vested in salvation (the elect) as being at all associated with (we might say, "in the sphere of") the covenant of grace; and then treat the covenants on earth--meaning the OT covenants--as if they are _purely symbolic _covenants, paralleling the spiritual covenant in one or another time and place, and wholly external. OT covenants themselves don't minister Christ to the participants, but must give the same things to all (believers and unbelievers) who are formally associated with it.

The price of this sort of "unsullied" approach to the Covenant of Grace is (in my view) too high. In the Presbyterian perspective, the holy and undefiled Covenant of Grace is "out of this world," in the realm of election and eschatology, in heaven. In the world, the Covenant of Grace reaches right into our lives here and now (and then). It has always had a human and fallible administration to go along with the perfect divine administration. If in New Covenant terms all fallibility is removed, leaving only the Holy Ghost administration of the realized Covenant of Grace, this means no earthly administration of the New Covenant exists.

It seems one must make a choice (in the terms as I've stated them). Either unity is shot-through the one covenant story, having both an eternal and an historical aspect, with Scripture bearing witness to that unity through promises that speak of-and-by symbols. Or else unity is confined to the eternal Covenant of Grace; below, in history that unity is _symbolized_ by grossly earthbound OT covenants binding together believers and unbelievers as equal partners; and in the NT age the church is ideally presented as an assembly of verified saints alone.

I cannot accept the principle that believers and unbelievers, elect and non-elect, were ever joined together in even one covenant-expression, OT or NT, and treated as equally engaged partners. That is one form of disunity that I find foreign to my understanding. Alongside, I cannot see any real unity among various discrete promises made under one or another OT covenants. It seems to me that under the latter concept, this or that divine promise is made to Israel irrespective of faith (believers and unbelievers being treated equally), therefore irrespective of any meaningful unifying collective aspiration; but such promise is then appropriated and applied in a new vein by prophets and later by apostles. That's not a "built-in" unity, so far as I see it.


I would just like to encourage you--no matter how you settle down in terms of covenant theology--to keep pondering the centrality of Christ. The Holy Spirit's purpose is to bear witness to Jesus Christ, his words and his possessions, Jn.15:26; 16:14-15; Act.5:32; 1Jn.5:6; through the preaching of the gospel, 1Pet.1:12. He is called the Spirit of Christ, Rom.8:9; Gal.4:6. The pouring out of the Spirit is for the increase of this witness to and of Christ, that the people of God should come to fullness. He is sent to bring glory to Christ, not glory to himself, Jn.16:14.

As for why the one sign would be replaced by another, my longer answer may just as well be replaced by: the New Covenant is better. And that superiority is reflected in the fact that women as well as men receive the sign of it: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus," Gal.3:28.

The fact that one sign (circumcision) and the other (baptism) have a handful of dispensation-specifics attached to each, does not overturn the overwhelming nature of the overlap respecting the function and witness of them. I don't do much to tout things I've written, but you might consider the correspondences I've compiled here: https://puritanboard.com/ams/baptism-and-circumcision-compared.19/

Let me repeat what I said above: my aim is education, not conversion. I sincerely mean that, even as I also don't mind if someone adopts my position. But I don't want anyone adopting it because of intimidation, or any superficial attraction. You said in your initial reaction, "I'm just not following this." And your second post included a further question. Hence, my presentation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 17, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm assuming you would like some honest replies, and not a debate. So I'm just going to respond with explanations and answers from the Presbyterian perspective. It is an invitation to think, but it isn't meant to bend you to another view.
> 
> You say what "Presbyterian Covenant Theology does with the Covenant of Grace" is _divide it up._; and for proof you cite our teaching of the two-fold administration of it; which then becomes your basis for saying that I deny in practice what I affirm in saying, "We oughtn't divide up the promise of the Covenant of Grace." In other words, I'm schizophrenic.
> 
> ...


Bruce, I look forward to mulling over your response when I have time later. This is a subject (among many) I have been wrestling with laterly. I just wanted to briefly mention I didn't intend to come across as being argumentative. I appreciate your response (and your insights in the past) and will respond later with either more questions or comments. Thanks.


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 18, 2020)

I liked the presentation you made in the other post you referenced. I have to say though I am still scratching my head and need to meditate on this more. It seems we agree on a lot of points, yet end up on different sides of this issue. I've read your response several times and I might need some help in understanding your logic.

You make this statement...


Contra_Mundum said:


> I cannot accept the principle that believers and unbelievers, elect and non-elect, were ever joined together in even one covenant-expression, OT or NT, and treated as equally engaged partners.


...to which I absolutely agree. This is why I consider myself a Baptist, since I see this whenever an infant is baptized and considered a member of the church.

You assert all the covenants (post covenant of works) are united towards Christ. This I can somewhat agree with. But, you later seem to imply this means that baptism _replaces_ circumcision. This seems like a stretch and asserts all covenants and their respective signs mean the same thing. Did circumcision replace the rainbow sign of the Noahic covenant?

A Scripture section I keep coming back to on this subject is John 4:23-24, where Jesus lectures the Samaritan woman at the well about how the hour has come when true worshipers will worship God in spirit and truth. Thus departing from the ceremonial laws God had prescribed to Israel, which had been continually sullied (to borrow your term) by all its generations.

I worry about the insistence of the Presbyterian tradition to maintain ceremonial ties with the Old Covenant.


----------



## Colin (Apr 19, 2020)

An Analysis of Reformed Infant Baptism


I dearly love Reformed Paedobaptists. These brothers and sisters in Christ are co-laborers in the cause of the gospel. We owe them and their tribe very much for their vital … More




founders.org

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 19, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> You make this statement...
> 
> 
> > Contra_Mundum said:
> ...


You say agree.... OK, so I have to ask the question: what do you make of OT circumcision? I don't refer to the meaning within the covenant sign; but to the giving of it, and the assigned subjects. It is my contention that circumcision was for _believers, _and only for them. Nor does it matter that it was given prior to the expression of that belief; what matters is that belief is eventually joined with it. One sort of recipients (e.g. infants) have the sign, then later exhibit the faith; while converts to Abraham's faith take the sign after professing their faith. In either case, one will have some false profession and false possession.

So, I deny that believers and unbelievers, elect and non-elect, were joined to Abraham's covenant, or to Moses', as equals and both entitled to the sign. Do you accept that reasoning? I would say your objection to baptizing an infant in this NT era might as well be lodged against the practice of circumcising an infant in the OT era--a practice that saw the person so touched considered thereafter a member of the covenant and church at that time. Now, you could have a very different view of circumcision, but Gen.17:10.

Perhaps you only consider _believing _to be the result of a "crisis." You might consider _believing _is possible to come about through the process of "nurture" as well, Eph.6:4. Personally, I know what I believe right now for salvation; which is much the same as I have believed and professed since I was about 13-14yrs old, being examined prior to my first communion; also believing what I was taught from my earliest memories concerning the faith, never (to my knowledge) doubting or questioning its facts, demands, and promises. Teaching the faith of the gospel is nothing but discipleship, baptism belonging to disciples.



Wretched Man said:


> You assert all the covenants (post covenant of works) are united towards Christ. This I can somewhat agree with. But, you later seem to imply this means that baptism _replaces_ circumcision. This seems like a stretch and asserts all covenants and their respective signs mean the same thing. Did circumcision replace the rainbow sign of the Noahic covenant?


The covenant-scheme of the OT is a rich tapestry. The covenants are integrated. This means not that one gives way to the next, replaced by the next, etc., in a dispensational series; or that they are like a museum art-collection, united on display as representing an era. They relate organically. There is no reason to jump to a conclusion that "all covenants and their respective signs mean the same thing." Such a claim would need an exegetical argument, and I know of none.

What sort of reason exists to suggest anyone thinks circumcision might have replaced the rainbow? Has the Noahic covenant ceased? I don't believe it has, and as a result I don't think there's any reason to suppose we've lost the benefit of the rainbow sign. The earth post-flood needed to remain for the sake of Christ's coming; and it needs to remain still until he comes again. When God made covenant with Abraham, the prior necessity of a promise to maintain the world--a stage for the coming redemptive acts to benefit the elect--was firmly in place. And it shouldn't move aside.

Nor does a general sign in the sky, for man and beast to see, Gen.9:9f, signify the same things a personal sign delivers within a special sphere. The idea that if one later sign demonstrably replaces another (an exegetical conclusion) then all successive signs must replace each previous: is a bad assumption. Ex.31:12-17 says that the Sabbath takes on duty as a covenant sign specially tied to the Sinai covenant; but clearly it does not supplant circumcision, mainly because the Abrahamic covenant continues and circumcision is reiterated at Sinai, Lev.12:3.

Gal.3:29 teaches that the NT church is where one must look to find Abraham's children; hence one no longer looks to circumcision to discover them. At the same time, the very idea that we are Abraham's children implies serious and substantive continuity between his covenant with the fundamental promise: _I will be God to you, and to your children; _and the covenant-conditions in operation today. We are encouraged to lay hold of the same promise given him, and in consequence look to the sign as a tool aiding us in holding onto it. What sign? Not circumcision; but is there a (new) sign that is fit to replace the first, performing the same function and teaching the same basic concepts?



Wretched Man said:


> A Scripture section I keep coming back to on this subject is John 4:23-24, where Jesus lectures the Samaritan woman at the well about how the hour has come when true worshipers will worship God in spirit and truth. Thus departing from the ceremonial laws God had prescribed to Israel, which had been continually sullied (to borrow your term) by all its generations. I worry about the insistence of the Presbyterian tradition to maintain ceremonial ties with the Old Covenant.


Is what Jesus meant by his comment in Jn.4:23, the removal of contaminated Old Covenant ceremony? There he announces that centralized worship on earth, the maintenance of an earthly sacrificial altar, is about to be done away in and by his Messianic Person. True and complete worship will take place henceforth on earth in every synagogue-like congregation of the faithful, who attend to the Object and High Priest of their worship at his heavenly Temple-reality.

In Jn.4, is there an end announced to Old Covenant ceremony? Yes, without a doubt; such a thing is hinted at (according to Calvin) in the language "and now is." Certainly the declaration that "in spirit" (or in Spirit) worship is meant to convey, not that spirit-and-truth worship was absent from the previous era, but that "it was enveloped in so many outward ceremonies, that it resembled something carnal and earthly." But it is never the case that it was said the removal of these things was due in any sense to the rude way in which these things were often abused.

Again, it seems there's a subtle insinuation (by "worry") that Presbyterians like myself, and Calvin himself, are schizophrenic. Because we don't wholly eschew all ceremony? Ceremony is nearly all removed from NC worship, but there are still the simplified sacraments (fewer in number, and with less outward glory, WCF VII.6). We still conduct ourselves in a form of worship governed by a Scriptural rule, the pattern shown to us. Rome is in great error by her multiplication of ceremony, her self-conscious aim at reinstituting the glory-show of Israel. But it strikes me as an error of equally misplaced zeal to allege that when it comes to worship, continuity of the one people of God throughout the ages is erased.

Furthermore, to quote Scott Clark, "Abraham isn't Moses," the New Covenant is new relative to the Old or Sinai covenant. Moses' covenant, in all its temporary aspects, is done and gone. What continues about it is either fulfilled and presently exercised in heaven on our behalf (such as Christ's High Priesthood); or else what remains is nothing other than what pre-existed it through Abraham, which terms Moses enfolded and administered through Sinai's organs while they lasted. We are connected to Abraham, to promise, and to grace; in a way that we are not connected to Moses, to the letter, and to law. The Christ-covenant fulfills the Abrahamic in a different way than it fulfills the Mosaic.

One would need to prove just how it happened that avowed strict conformity to the rules of NT worship yet issued in a kind of ceremonial bondage to antiquated, Old Covenant authority. To ask an analogous question: is it "worrisome" in patriotic terms to value a Constitutional tradition, because then those of such mind must be (insistence) still ruled from the grave by decrepit authorities from a bygone century? Or does that characterization replace a typical mainstream conservative outlook with a fringe, radical, reactionary one as if the center of the opposition?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 19, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> It is my contention that circumcision was for _believers, _and only for them. Nor does it matter that it was given prior to the expression of that belief; what matters is that belief is eventually joined with it. One sort of recipients (e.g. infants) have the sign, then later exhibit the faith; while converts to Abraham's faith take the sign after professing their faith. In either case, one will have some false profession and false possession.


God commanded Abraham and his descendants to circumcise _all _males within their households/community. God also stated he hated Esau. If God intended circumcision to be only for believers, why did he command Abraham to have his preordained reprobate grandson circumcised? He also commanded Abraham to baptize Ishmael and his latter sons of Keturah, whom God had cast away from the covenant community.

To answer your opening question, "what do you make of OT circumcision?": I'll first state my (current and developing) view of the Abrahamic covenant is that it essentially promises the Messiah. God is reminding his people he will provide a physical seed - through Abraham - to save them from their sin. He then prescribes the sign of circumcision, as a reminder and seal God will deliver his Son through his descendants. Later in the Mosaic Covenant (which I take to be the Old Covenant), this sign would continue through the prescribed law, reassuring the people God would provide a messiah to fulfill the law they were unable to maintain and subsequently convicted by (Matthew 5:17-18).



Contra_Mundum said:


> Gal.3:29 teaches that the NT church is where one must look to find Abraham's children; hence one no longer looks to circumcision to discover them. At the same time, the very idea that we are Abraham's children implies serious and substantive continuity between his covenant with the fundamental promise: _I will be God to you, and to your children; _and the covenant-conditions in operation today. We are encouraged to lay hold of the same promise given him, and in consequence look to the sign as a tool aiding us in holding onto it. What sign? Not circumcision; but is there a (new) sign that is fit to replace the first, performing the same function and teaching the same basic concepts?


I can't agree with this statement in the context you seem to be implying. Walk into most churches with "baptized" members and I doubt you will find many (spiritual) children of Abraham. Paul writes a few verses earlier in Galatians 3:25-27, "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For *as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ*."

An unregenerate infant who never accepts Christ as their lord and savior is not in Christ and is not Abraham's offspring.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 20, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> God commanded Abraham and his descendants to circumcise _all _males within their households/community. God also stated he hated Esau. If God intended circumcision to be only for believers, why did he command Abraham to have his preordained reprobate grandson circumcised? He also commanded Abraham to baptize Ishmael and his latter sons of Keturah, whom God had cast away from the covenant community.


I wrote this:
​I cannot accept the principle that believers and unbelievers, elect and non-elect, were ever joined together in even one covenant-expression, OT or NT, and treated as equally engaged partners.​
and you wrote this:
​...to which I absolutely agree.​
Which prompted my question: "OK... what do you make of OT circumcision?"

And so in response, in the above quote, it appears you claim that elect (believers) and non-elect (unbelievers) are joined in one covenant-expression (circumcision) on the same basis.

The first statement and the second are exactly opposite each other. You can't agree with the first (and I believe you don't agree _because of your Baptist conviction, _and so maybe you misunderstood) and also maintain the second, without encountering a contradiction. I believe the second statement is more true to your Baptist convictions.

To answer the question in your quote, I believe circumcision was *for* believers only, for the same reason I believe *baptism *is *for* believers only, both in the final analysis. We could ask questions like: Why didn't God reveal to Philip he shouldn't baptize Simon Magus (Act.8:13), who clearly was not a true believer, v23, if baptism should only be applied to true believers?

If the answer is: "We baptize on criteria Scripture gives, and not because we have infallible knowledge of true belief," then you have also my answer for why circumcision was applied to all the members of Abraham's house/church or covenant-community. _Because circumcision was applied on Scriptural criteria, and not because of supposed prior knowledge of someone's eternal destiny. _Formal church discipline is action taken against a member up to removal (expulsion, like in the case of Ishmael), when a person demonstrates his lack of faith and life in conformity to Christ.



Wretched Man said:


> I can't agree with this statement in the context you seem to be implying. Walk into most churches with "baptized" members and I doubt you will find many (spiritual) children of Abraham. Paul writes a few verses earlier in Galatians 3:25-27, "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For *as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ*."
> 
> An unregenerate infant who never accepts Christ as their lord and savior is not in Christ and is not Abraham's offspring.


Is your statement about "most churches" applicable to the OPC you've been attending? Doesn't sound theology and the presence of the gospel matter? If I walk into a random Baptist church, is it your claim that among the baptized of that body I will undoubtedly find the majority are the true children of Abraham? Because, I venture to guess the stats aren't that good among the Baptists. Stalemate.

Since you can't promise me that the ideal of adult baptism is perfectly represented by your quote of Gal.3:27, I understand you to only be saying that it is an approximation of the facts. A reprobate adult, though baptized, remaining apart from Christ, isn't in Christ nor is he Abraham's offspring.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 20, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I wrote this:
> ​I cannot accept the principle that believers and unbelievers, elect and non-elect, were ever joined together in even one covenant-expression, OT or NT, and treated as equally engaged partners.​
> and you wrote this:
> ​...to which I absolutely agree.​
> ...


Hmmm... well it appears I have contradicted myself. Touche. Thinking on this more though, I will state (tentatively) it appears there are older covenant expressions that apply towards elect and non-elect. For example, God's rainbow is a sign he will not flood the Earth again, which impacts the entire human race. Circumcision of course being applied to all males in the community. A non-elect Israelite during the OT period may have received circumcision, but not necessarily fail to receive the associated earthly blessings God promised for following the prescribed law. Ahab comes to mind (1 Kings 21:27-29).

Regarding the New Covenant, I remain convicted the covenant signs (baptism and communion) should not be shared with elect and non-elect. A non-elect person does not inherit the blessings (eternal salvation) of the New Covenant. The New Covenant doesn't promise the physical blessings of the Old Covenant - in fact it promises just the opposite (suffering) during this life. This I think Presbyterians generally agree with (you wouldn't baptize an adult who refuses to profess acceptance of Christ), however make an exception for infants.


> Jeremiah 31:31-32, 34, "Behold, the days are coming declares the Lord, when* I will make a* *new covenant* *with the house* of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers... For *I will forgive their iniquity*, and I will remember their sin no more."


I simply cannot reconcile applying a sign of an eternal covenant God makes only with his elect to infants who may not be included in the covenant. Of course, people can lie or be self-deceived in their salvation when they undergo the physical ceremony of baptism. I think the caution Paul provides in 1 Corinthians 11 could be applied equally here as well. Ultimately the deceiving recipients will add more wrath to themselves and the elder administering the sacrament will not be held accountable.

By "churches", I was referring more to the bulk of churches (non-denominational/mega/charismatic/etc. churches). I've been in several large churches and seen many attendees... but few people who persuaded me they were truly Christians.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 20, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Thinking on this more though, I will state (tentatively) it appears there are older covenant expressions that apply towards elect and non-elect. For example, God's rainbow is a sign he will not flood the Earth again, which impacts the entire human race. Circumcision of course being applied to all males in the community. A non-elect Israelite during the OT period may have received circumcision, but not necessarily fail to receive the associated earthly blessings God promised for following the prescribed law. Ahab comes to mind (1 Kings 21:27-29).


The earth is prolonged, and judgment suspended, not for the sake of the world in general including those who despise the God who saved a remnant from the total destruction (note the sign), but for the sake of the church in the earth. If there's no elect to save out of successive generations, then there's no reason for a covenant, no reason not to extinguish the world in order to display his wrath and power, to the praise of the glory of his justice.

Why does the sun and rain come upon the evil and the good, the just and the unjust? Surely not because the Lord has regard for the vessels prepared for destruction, Job.35:13; Prv.15:29; Jn.9:31; etc. Noah's covenant was made between the LORD and a "new creation," with all mankind (that are alive on earth), which IS the *church* at that instant; and all living creatures under them. So, noticing that the whole human race--including fresh rebels arising, taking advantage of divine patience--is no reason to conclude that God covenants _with them _indiscriminately. No one benefits from that covenant (other than temporarily and incidentally) unless the preaching of it is mixed with faith.

If the very best, elect Israelite received earthly blessings (mere signage!) while living under the Old Covenant, it never was for his law-keeping. Neither Israel as a whole nor the individual Israelite ever merited one single blessing promised by the Law. All they ever received was grace, because no one ever met the demands of the Law, or even came close. Ahab's public repentance earned him a reprieve, but what he did was neither prescribed in the Law, nor did the Lord fail to destroy him and all his, 1Ki.21:21 cf. 2Ki.10:17. _God showed grace and mercy even (!) unto a man like Ahab_ is the lesson of the text, and not wages for compliance.

Does a gracious and merciful God acknowledge faithful effort, as flowing from genuine gratitude and love on the part of man in covenant? Yes, and that's as close to consequentialist ethics one ever gets.



Wretched Man said:


> Regarding the New Covenant, I remain convicted the covenant signs (baptism and communion) should not be shared with elect and non-elect. A non-elect person does not inherit the blessings (eternal salvation) of the New Covenant. The New Covenant doesn't promise the physical blessings of the Old Covenant - in fact it promises just the opposite (suffering) during this life. This I think Presbyterians generally agree with (you wouldn't baptize an adult who refuses to profess acceptance of Christ), however make an exception for infants.


Neither covenant nor signs of the covenant belong to the non-elect; but there's no such thing as as elect-detector. So, _whatever the prescription is for identifying subjects of baptism _(and we don't agree, I know), we should give baptism to them, and not make baptism's criteria an index to knowledge not entrusted to men. The best man can do is faithful shepherding and discipline of the visible flock.

I don't believe: the Old covenant promised physical blessings, while in contrast the New covenant promises spiritual ones or physical trials. Job is part of the OT, and a worry-free life was not assured without qualification to earnest Israelite effort. Mk.10:28-31 says that the New covenant age is a mixed bag in this life; and Heb.11:10-16 says that the faithful of the OT looked past the signs (the physical things) to see the spiritual reality that was promised. The physical inheritance was worthless apart from obtaining the spiritual inheritance promised by them. Abraham knew this. Noah knew this. Moses knew this. David knew this. Those all who lived by faith prior to the New knew the tangible blessing of covenant life (whatever they had of it) was not fulfillment, which could only come to them in Christ.

When you write about Presbyterian "exceptions" made for baptizing infants in the NT, you do not yet understand why we do what we do. And I think it starts with the fact we don't agree why infants were circumcised in the OT.

Peace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 20, 2020)

I agree with with much of what you're saying, and well-stated at that.


Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't believe: the Old covenant promised physical blessings, while in contrast the New covenant promises spiritual ones or physical trials.


I would challenge you on this. I think God made it pretty clear to the Israelites in various passages, notably in Deuteronomy 28-29, there would be _physical_ blessings and cursings in response to how they obeyed his law. Granted God did still extend mercy to them, but mercy from what? His Covenantal law. At their acme, God established for them a dominant and thriving nation under king Solomon in the wake of David's devotion to God, only to gradually dissipate with with the ebb and flow of wicked kings and "righteous" kings who strove to abide by God's word until eventually, God uprooted them for their wickedness and rebellion against his law (2 Kings 21:10-15) The length of their exile was then correlated with the accumulated quantity of sabbath years they failed to honor. 

I don't recall any spiritual blessings associated with keeping the old covenant. But yes, the true elect looked forward to eternal blessings, beyond what they could achieve through the Old Covenant, which would come through Christ. And the sign of circumcision pointed to this in the midst of their failure to uphold the law, which convicted them.

As for the New Covenant...
Ephesians 1:3: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places"
Hebrews 9:15: "Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may received the promised eternal inheritance..."
Matthew 10:38: "And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
Romans 8:16-17: "The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs - heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him that we may also be glorified with him."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 21, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I would challenge you on this. I think God made it pretty clear to the Israelites in various passages, notably in Deuteronomy 28-29, there would be _physical_ blessings and cursings in response to how they obeyed his law. Granted God did still extend mercy to them, but mercy from what? His Covenantal law. At their acme, God established for them a dominant and thriving nation under king Solomon in the wake of David's devotion to God, only to gradually dissipate with with the ebb and flow of wicked kings and "righteous" kings who strove to abide by God's word until eventually, God uprooted them for their wickedness and rebellion against his law (2 Kings 21:10-15) The length of their exile was then correlated with the accumulated quantity of sabbath years they failed to honor.


First, it is necessary to note that my whole phrase (not just the first words) is what I said _I don't believe, _which takes into consideration the contrast you offered as marking a distinction between Old and New covenants, physical blessings vs. physical trials and the like.

Second, _*Why *_dd God teach those things (e.g. Dt.28-29) to Israel? That is a bone of contention here, you having one way of explaining it; I, a quite different one.

"You cannot serve the LORD," Jos.24:19, one of the last things the leader of Israel told the nation. The same promise the people made at the foot of Sinai, Ex.24:3,7; they basically echo upon entrance to the land, Jos.8:33ff. They so promise in the aftermath of their spectacular failure at Ai. Immediately after the memorial ceremony, they fail in respect to the Gibeonites. The people couldn't stay true to their promise for 40 days, still in the shadow of the quaking, noisome, and fire-engulfed mountain. Their promise at the close of Joshua restates their previous resolve, and it is no better kept.

These promises to obey, in conjunction with the Law itself, were to teach them the greatness of their sin and misery. Their instant failures, when repented of, taught them that being led to the land (instead of being abandoned in the wilderness), conquering it, and staying there would never be on a legal basis, but because of the Promise, because their God was gracious and patient. They rehearsed the Law to be impressed by its fullness and exactitude, and to walk away from such ceremony mixed with resolve and terror. If considered as a covenant of works, on its face, they were a failure by the next day.

So the people never received even one temporal (physical) blessing simply considered on the basis of conformity to the Law. Did God grade on a curve? Did he accept their "best effort" in lieu of perfect righteousness according to the Law? Gal.3:10, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed _is_ every one that continueth not in *all* things which are written in the book of the law to *do* them. "

Israel's approximations of obedience, at their height, were pretty pathetic. King David? His glorious achievements, rising from obscurity to the pinnacle of holy dignity, it was all nearly wiped from memory when sat next to his sins of adultery, murder, and blasphemy (counting the nation). King Solomon? He started at a great height, from which he advanced a little in the completion of the LORD's Temple, and then corrupted the citadel with a host of shrines to alien gods, having multiplied wives in violation of Dt.17:17.

So, Israel eventually got the curses they earned; but all their blessings were not the result of striving but of grace, always. Hebrews basically spells it out for us: the people's annual feast of Atonement was a reminder that it would always be that way under that covenant. Each year contained a reminder that they had to have a fresh start--imagine the shape they'd be in if there was no "reset!" The Passover was another reminder and a reset--purge out the old leaven, and start again as a new lump. All the sabbaths: the weekly, the monthly, the annual feasts, the Sabbath years and the Jubilee year--all promptings for making a fresh start, new obedience. And they never trusted the LORD to provide for them in those years, not once.

"Ye cannot serve the LORD." Of course it was fitting for the LORD to punish the nation according to their oaths. What better tool could there be than to use their word against them? The history of Israel is not an example of what under the law is _possible; _but a lesson in the righteousness of work that is _impossible_, the grace of God that is unfailing, and the justice of God that is inevitable. It is primarily, again to borrow the concept from another teacher, an extremely long and detailed _illustration _of human sin and failure; and the goodness and success of God in bringing about salvation for sinners.

The Old covenant cannot be *about *the physical blessings that were offered, because they were *never *awarded.

You say you don't recall information about any spiritual blessings of the Old Covenant? What was the Tabernacle for? What was the priesthood's function? Were sins forgiven under the instrumentality of the altar? "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile," Ps.32:1-2; quoted in Rom.4:6. No, it wasn't a finished work, and in that sense the writer to Hebrews can say, "it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin," Heb.10:4.

But on the other hand, Leviticus 10X says, "it shall be forgiven him." Sacrifices of the OT were efficacious _because _they were proleptic, and had connection to the ultimate sacrifice made by Christ, the High Priest forever according to the order of Mechizedek. If the blood of animals stood alone in consideration, apart from the Referent, the Antitype, then it could not achieve the hope assigned to it. Thank God it did not.

This is speaking of OT and Old covenant believers: "Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection, " Heb.11:35. Did people like them think they were hoping _in spite of _the covenant they lived under? How do you explain a spiritual hope such as the resurrection, if it is not taught to such people under the covenant they know? I think the NT tells us that OT saints--who used the covenant-instruments they knew to hope by them as signs of something better--they were using them correctly; and those whose hope terminated in the temporal (physical) things (the signs) were terribly mistaken.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 22, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> First, it is necessary to note that my whole phrase (not just the first words) is what I said _I don't believe, _which takes into consideration the contrast you offered as marking a distinction between Old and New covenants, physical blessings vs. physical trials and the like.
> 
> Second, _*Why *_dd God teach those things (e.g. Dt.28-29) to Israel? That is a bone of contention here, you having one way of explaining it; I, a quite different one.
> 
> ...


Ok, you’ve given me much to consider and have helped me better understand how Presbyterians view the Covenant of Grace as administered through the OC and NC. I’m still not persuaded, but will continue wrestling with this.

Quick question: do you view the Mosaic Covenant as _a_ covenant of grace?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 22, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> Ok, you’ve given me much to consider and have helped me better understand how Presbyterians view the Covenant of Grace as administered through the OC and NC. I’m still not persuaded, but will continue wrestling with this.
> 
> Quick question: do you view the Mosaic Covenant as _a_ covenant of grace?


Before I answer the question, I first want to say two things.
1) The "white flag" is partly a rebuke to me (whatever you actually think) for my failure to not bludgeon with words. I never meant to draw you into a contest, and there is an asymmetry to the experience we both bring to this discussion. I said I did not want any part of intimidation, and I meant it. But I tend to give "thick" answers, and not "thin." An overpowering response can have (if unintentional, still) a bullying cast about it.​​2) In order to be a well-trained, well-balanced Baptist and teacher of others, you should read the best of men who advocate for that side of this debate. And, in _also _reading some Presbyterian, you could eventually be in position to both represent and respond to that side accurately.​Now, that I have added more superfluous words...

In simple terms, Moses' covenant no less than any other divine covenant since the fall is, or contains, the Covenant of Grace. Where the covenant meets believers in this life, I believe it is part of the blessing of it that is has some way to _administer _it to embodied persons. Of those persons, those who have _faith _(and only they) are thereby able to take full advantage of the grace presented in and by it. And no, I do not view the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works, even though the moral law (along with numerous ceremonial and civil ordinances) has a prominent place in it.

The various OT covenant-expressions while one in substance yet have unique elements about them. For an illustration, we may consider the various ways a child is engaged with his family and the world around him as he grows to adulthood. The person is the same at every stage, while at the same time even his physical aspect undergoes some remarkable transformations. Likewise, his manner of life shifts (for many in our society) at around age 5yrs, and for quite some time his days are dominated by a schedule of formal education, the rules of which shackle him to a way of life: getting up at the same (early) time, making the bus, sitting in the classroom, raising his hand to talk, taking tests, and many other things.

So returning to the subject of Moses' covenant: with Paul, Peter, and James in Act.15; or especially through certain places in NT speeches and epistles; it seems to me stated plainly enough that the covenant at Sinai, functioning as a national-constitution and accompanied by much outward glory, was under such aspects marked by a pronounced legal color. Just as a school does not exist for its rules and pomp, but for the purpose of _education; _so too the multitude of prescribed manners (Law) of ancient Israel I believe were the _color _of it, but not the _essence_ of it. And I also believe that many in Israel mistook the color or character of the Mosaic covenant for its essence, and tried to make that their gain.


----------



## Wretched Man (Apr 22, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Before I answer the question, I first want to say two things.
> 1) The "white flag" is partly a rebuke to me (whatever you actually think) for my failure to not bludgeon with words. I never meant to draw you into a contest, and there is an asymmetry to the experience we both bring to this discussion. I said I did not want any part of intimidation, and I meant it. But I tend to give "thick" answers, and not "thin." An overpowering response can have (if unintentional, still) a bullying cast about it.​​2) In order to be a well-trained, well-balanced Baptist and teacher of others, you should read the best of men who advocate for that side of this debate. And, in _also _reading some Presbyterian, you could eventually be in position to both represent and respond to that side accurately.​Now, that I have added more superfluous words...
> 
> In simple terms, Moses' covenant no less than any other divine covenant since the fall is, or contains, the Covenant of Grace. Where the covenant meets believers in this life, I believe it is part of the blessing of it that is has some way to _administer _it to embodied persons. Of those persons, those who have _faith _(and only they) are thereby able to take full advantage of the grace presented in and by it. And no, I do not view the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works, even though the moral law (along with numerous ceremonial and civil ordinances) has a prominent place in it.
> ...


I don't interact on this board to receive terse and assenting responses. Please don't take my white flag as rebuke. If anything it is self-rebuke, as I can tell you are far more knowledgeable on this and have properly responded to what I requested in learning more about your view and covenant theology in general - and thus increased my hunger in learning more on this topic.

That said. My dad can beat up your dad.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

