# Baptism based on Genesis 17?



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 22, 2007)

I was searching around trying to find some writings on Infant Baptism when I came across this:


> A Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant
> by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, et. al.
> 
> 
> ...



Now we read in Genesis 17:1-14


> 1Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him,
> "I am God Almighty;
> Walk before Me, and be blameless.
> 2"I will establish My covenant between Me and you,
> ...



Now, if you conclude that this is so for the NC, let me then ask you how you would interpret Galatians 3:


> 7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.





> 9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.





> 14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.





> 16Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.



I'm still having trouble with the language Presbyterians use, so, if you could help in defining your terms as well, that would be great.


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Aug 22, 2007)

Given what Paul says in Galatians, was it wrong (or incorrect) of God to require the circumcision of all the male descendants of Abraham?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 22, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> Given what Paul says in Galatians, was it wrong (or incorrect) of God to require the circumcision of all the male descendants of Abraham?



No. From a baptistic perspective, this is where we define the line between OC and NC. We teach that the NC, as hebrews puts it, is a "better covenant" and a "better ministry"; "not like the covenant which [God] made with their fathers".


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Aug 22, 2007)

OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I really don't see how your original post ties together.

Could you make yourself a little more clear as to your argument? I know and understand the passages you supplied, but not what you want to know about them.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 22, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I really don't see how your original post ties together.
> 
> Could you make yourself a little more clear as to your argument? I know and understand the passages you supplied, but not what you want to know about them.



My question is(not argument, since I'm trying to understand) how is an infant made part of the COG? What are the promises to the infant?

I'm having trouble understanding this concept. =/


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Aug 22, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Exagorazo said:
> 
> 
> > OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I really don't see how your original post ties together.
> ...


Ah, I see. 

In a sort of oddly shaped nutshell, an infant is part of the CoG by virtue of their believing parent/s (1 Cor 7:14). The promises made are identical to those made to believing adults, provided they continue in the covenant.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 22, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Exagorazo said:
> ...



So, the elect parent has eternal life through Christ, yet, the son/daughter has it until they apostasize?


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Aug 22, 2007)

No, they are visible members of the new covenant and show by their apostasy that they were never elect. You're getting your categories mixed.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 22, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> No, they are visible members of the new covenant and show by their apostasy that they were never elect. You're getting your categories mixed.



Hmm, so, the CoG is not salvific?


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Aug 22, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Exagorazo said:
> 
> 
> > No, they are visible members of the new covenant and show by their apostasy that they were never elect. You're getting your categories mixed.
> ...


Eh? That statement makes no sense. 

If you are asking whether or not people can be members of the covenant and not be saved, then I'll answer _that_ question. Since the fall, there have been members of the CoG that have not been saved, correct.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 22, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Exagorazo said:
> 
> 
> > No, they are visible members of the new covenant and show by their apostasy that they were never elect. You're getting your categories mixed.
> ...



Read Romans 9.



> But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel (read: covenant community) belong to Israel.
> Romans 9:6 ESV



Parenthesis mine.


----------



## elnwood (Aug 23, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Exagorazo said:
> ...



How is it a covenant of grace if you can fall out of it? Is not grace unmerited favor? Then why is it conditional? It seems to be a misnomer.

If it is conditioned on obedience, then how is it different from a covenant of works?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 23, 2007)

Andrew,

To answer your question in part, let me post my reply that I gave to a brother recently regarding those that participate visibly in the Church but not in the substance of Christ:

A brother sent me this e-mail:


> Hi Rich,
> 
> My question is related to our assurance of salvation I need your help to cross out or check some tougths I have
> 
> ...


My response:


> These are good questions that require a fairly detailed response but I'll try to give you a simple one.
> 
> Within the Church, there are those that are united to Christ by their faith in Him and then there are those that never place their trust in Christ. As we have been studying, we have come to understand that it is the Father's initiation in us that causes us the see and respond to the things of the Gospel and, because He caused us to be made alive, we see the Gospel and trust in faith. Thus the faith of those united the Christ is sure. It is a Gospel trust and is the fruit of a heart that has been transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit that is within us cries out Abba, Father and demonstrates to us that we are His adopted children in Christ. Remember, when Paul, in Romans 7, was talking about the struggle that we have with remaining sin as we do the things we don't want to do? It is the evidence of life within us that we struggle with these things.
> 
> ...


----------



## dannyhyde (Aug 23, 2007)

Hello Andrew,

Here are two paragraphs from my book, _[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Loves-Little-Children-Baptize/dp/0965398196/ref=sr_1_3/103-9411190-6822245?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187812005&sr=1-3"]Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children[/ame]_ (Grandville: Reformed Fellowship, 2006), 26–27:





When we say that baptism is a sign of already-being-saved we forget what is so amazing about the story of Abraham. In Romans 4:11 we are told that Abraham’s circumcision was a seal of the righteousness that comes by faith. Abraham was a believer already. As Genesis 15:6 says, “He believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” So he was circumcised after he believed. But what did God then command Abraham to do in Genesis 17? He was commanded to administer the sign of circumcision to his seed. As the story unfolds, Abraham takes his son Ishmael, all those born in his household and household servants, and circumcises them. Later, after Isaac is born, Abraham circumcises him although he is only eight days old and has given absolutely no indication that he believed already. Abraham, then, was circumcising people before they professed faith in the LORD. Circumcision was still a sign of the righteousness that comes by faith, but since there is not a simultaneous relationship, the sign could be given first, then latter in Isaac’s life the blessing of the sign, righteousness by faith, could come. We, as Abraham’s children (Gal. 3:7), need to follow Abraham’s example. Although we may not understand how a baby can be baptized now and come to faith later, this is how God has worked throughout history. He did it then and he can do it now – he does do it now!

Thus God’s covenant sign of baptism is to be given to the children of believers because it has replaced circumcision. The same “seed” or descendants of Abraham that were circumcised in the Old Testament are the same “seed” that are now baptized. As we have seen above in the equating of circumcision and baptism: “The _essence_ of the sign was never abolished. The _form_ was.” This means that God’s grace is the same throughout the covenants, although the sign is different: circumcision then, baptism now.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 23, 2007)

It is interesting, Rich, that a Baptist who knows his Bible would answer that email in exactly the same way, even with our differing views of who is *really* in the New Covenant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 23, 2007)

Doug,

That's exactly right. In fact, I gave that answer to a Baptist brother. When I was listening to Gene talking about Hebrews 8 last night and criticizing Paul on who were members of the New Covenant I realized that, if I asked them (and plan to), they would have to admit they're not really talking about the whole Church.

That is, their discussions of Hebrews 8 became a discussion of the invisible - the ideal: "We insist we don't know who is in the New Covenant personally but we do want to insist that they are elect."

The point to my answer above is that both groups exist within the visible Church. 

- Paedobaptists want to start training those that they find in the visible Church from the earliest moments in their lives and say they're in the New Covenant to extend to them all the means of Grace for their conversion and sanctification.

- Credobaptists start training their kids right away too, from the earliest moments, see them in the visible Church and extend some of the means of Grace to them for their conversion or sanctification. They just won't say they're in the NC (or even members) until they intellectually assent to it.

My 5 year old is being home-schooled right now. He can read a little bit. In my mind, the Baptist view would say he's a student only after he can read a book without help.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 23, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Doug,
> 
> That's exactly right. In fact, I gave that answer to a Baptist brother. When I was listening to Gene talking about Hebrews 8 last night and criticizing Paul on who were members of the New Covenant I realized that, if I asked them (and plan to), they would have to admit they're not really talking about the whole Church.
> 
> ...



Rich,

Even though I don't have kids I can tell you that as a baptist, I would say that childeren are a student the minute they are born. I could argue from the womb since they can hear voices but that's for those scientific type...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 23, 2007)

Andrew,

But that is what a disciple is in some respects, which is why I used the analogy.


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 24, 2007)

May I suggest a listen to http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5607203511 and http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6130619374


----------

