# The argument from silence aspect of the Paedo view



## B.J. (Jan 20, 2007)

As a Baptist on the ropes, feeling the effects of an Ali flurry of hooks and jabs from the Paedo's, I was wondering if someone could lay the knock blow to me.

I understand the argument from silence used by the Paedo camp, and it is devastating "to me." Call it my partial preterist need to place myself within the context of 1st century Christians, and make experience intelligible to them first, and me second. My question is this: If I grant the argument from silence, is this the only time we can grant an argument from silence? The reason I ask is because in a conversation with a Baptist brother he said that "for some reason, this is the only time Paedo's would ever grant any argument from silence in scripture...any other time they would jump all over someone for making that move, but when it comes to Baptism they are totally arbitrary."

Any thoughts? Is it true that no place else in scripture would a Paedo, or Baptist in this case, allow an argument from silence to be so deafening? 

I also understand that Baptist, in some sense use an argument from silence when they proclaim that "only" professing believers are to be Baptized. So maybe I could have pointed that out to him.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2007)

To me, it's not at all an argument from silence but a reflection of poor hermeneutics on the Credo's part.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 20, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> To me, it's not at all an argument from silence but a reflection of poor hermeneutics on the Credo's part.





The true argument from silence is the Baptist assertion that infant inclusion in the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace has been rescinded in the New Testament. God _has_ spoken with regard to placing the sign of the CoG on infants, namely in Genesis 17. Baptists also don't understand the difference between substance and administration. So I agree with Scott; it's an issue of hermeneutics - not arguments from silence (at least as far as the Paedobaptist arguments are concerned ).


----------



## Machaira (Jan 20, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> The true argument from silence is the Baptist assertion that infant inclusion in the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace has been rescinded in the New Testament.



 

In my experience the "argument from silence" comes from the credo side. Baptist often say to me, "How can you baptize infants when there is no explicit mention of such to be found in the NT?" There's an argument from silence if I ever heard one.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2007)

Machaira said:


> In my experience the "argument from silence" comes from the credo side. Baptist often say to me, "How can you baptize infants when there is no explicit mention of such to be found in the NT?" There's an argument from silence if I ever heard one.



But is really not an argument but a poor hermeneutic or an argument based upon ignorance.


----------



## gwine (Jan 20, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> In fact, doesn't the regulative principle rest on an argument from silence? If God is silenty about X, we are not permitted to do X in the context of worship?


A couple of questions, Paul, if I may.



> I. The light of nature shows that there is a God, who has lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and does good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.[1] But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.[2]





> Deu 5:32 You shall be careful therefore to do as the LORD your God has commanded you. You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.


If I understand this correctly this is saying that we are to worship only as God has commanded and if he has not commanded it (the silence part) then we are not to do it, which is what I believe you just said. But another way one could argue from silence would be to say that because God has not said that we can't worship him in such-and-such a way (the silence part again) then it is ok to do so.

Am I understanding you correctly, in that you are saying the first? And the second is never valid for this situation?

Moving on to Christian liberty:


> II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13]


So if God has not forbidden it (the silence part) then we are free to do it. But could one look at it this way: if God has not permitted it then we are not allowed to do it?

I have always been confused about the argument from silence because it seems that it gets used frequently on the PB in both ways. One of the recent EP threads used it, so maybe it applies differently depending on whether we are referring to the RPW or Christian liberty. I understand your wiki example but I am confused when you say that the infant baptism issue is not a 'deductive' argument.

And I'll take my answer off the air.


----------



## B.J. (Jan 20, 2007)

Thanks to Bahnsen's sermons (just listened to) on this subject I learned a couple of other arguments Baptist have to make from silence if one is to play this game.


1) Where do Baptist find NT scripture for a woman partaking of the Lord's Supper?

answer: There are none. However, ther are not any Baptist I know of that refuse to give the Lord's Supper to a women. Hence, to permit and be justified in said action would lead to an argument from silence.


2) There are no NT text that show a child repenting of sin, and being baptized, only adults. However, when Baptist children profess they are baptized. A Baptist could argue that there were children in the household examples, but I am not sure if they want to go that route. So to be stuborn, if need be, a Peado could press these two silly examples, and it would place the Baptist in the same boat they think they have the Paedo in. Welcome aboard!


There are still some points I have to explore in the Bahnsen series. They were very insightful as to better understanding the Paedo position. I have R.C. Sproul's series on the way for more insight.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 20, 2007)

B.J. said:


> 2) There are no NT text that show a child repenting of sin, and being baptized, only adults. However, when Baptist children profess they are baptized.



Exactly; If this is the norm, and almost all credo churches have young people coming to faith, why is it, _if that is the norm_, that we see no examples in scripture stating such, i.e. "and Simon's 14 year old son John came to faith and was baptized..."?


----------



## elnwood (Jan 21, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> For me, I see examples of the ways things always have been, i.e., adults have always had to profess.
> 
> ...
> 
> Third, the NT examples of prior faith for adults is the way it's always been. Adults have always had to profess.



We've been through this before, Paul. Where does the Old Testament say "repent and be circumcised"? Where do we see a profession of faith immediately followed by circumcision? Were the circumcised households, including adult circumcision, upon a profession of faith like the household of baptisms?

Or are you simply making an argument of silence regarding the profession of those who were circumcised?

Baptism and circumcision symbolize the same thing, but if you do a quick comparison, there are a LOT of differences in how they were applied in practice. You cannot simply assume a one-to-one correlation.


----------



## B.J. (Jan 21, 2007)

Down goes Frazier....1-2-3.....


----------



## B.J. (Jan 21, 2007)

As I told a good friend the other night...If one thing is new about the New Covenant it is that children are obviously out, according to my current (yet dwindling) Baptistic theology. To which my friend responded by saying, "So."


----------



## elnwood (Jan 21, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Yes, we've been through this before, refer yourself to the thread. There was nothing else I could say to convince you, so we'll just let the various readers decide fro themselves.
> 
> If I remember correctly, you were of the opinion that Moses ran around with a sharp rock, tying down people who adimantly refused to be circumcised, and then proceeded to cut off their members.



Actually, those were your twisting of my words. (Nice strawman argument). I said nothing of the kind. You made an assumption that because someone was willing to do something painful, that this was a profession of faith. And that's an argument from silence.

When Jonah went to preach to the Ninevites, and they all repented, were they also all circumcised?



Paul manata said:


> So, bottom line, you want an exact verse which says "repent and be circumcised." But if that's your hermeneutic, give me an explicit verse which says, "only those who repent may be baptised." So, your rejoinder to my argument actually ends up cutting the legs out from your own position.



And there are no verses that explicitly say that there are some that don't repent who may be baptized. I'm willing to admit that the arguments from silence regarding baptism in the New Testament cuts both ways. I am not willing to say, though, that because circumcision worked a certain way in the Old Covenant, that therefore baptism should as well, which is the crux of the paedobaptist argument.



Paul manata said:


> Every baptist I've talked to agrees with me that adults had to profess, including Gene Cook, your pastor. Many of them just use the "elect-only" argument to show that children should be excluded until profession of faith.



I've never discussed this with my pastor, but I don't speak for him, nor does he speak for me. But if you're interested, I'll ask him if he thinks that adult household servants had to give a profession of faith in order to be circumcised in the Old Covenant.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 21, 2007)

B.J. said:


> As I told a good friend the other night...If one thing is new about the New Covenant it is that children are obviously out, according to my current (yet dwindling) Baptistic theology. To which my friend responded by saying, "So."



BJ,
I'm not sure I understand why your Baptistic theology would conclude that. 
Bob


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 21, 2007)

blhowes said:


> BJ,
> I'm not sure I understand why your Baptistic theology would conclude that.
> Bob



I'll add to what Bob said: "Obviously"? If thats true, I guess no children were ever saved during the churchs' initial stages as there is no scriptural evidence of such conversions anywhere.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 21, 2007)

elnwood said:


> I've never discussed this with my pastor, but I don't speak for him, nor does he speak for me. But if you're interested, I'll ask him if he thinks that adult household servants had to give a profession of faith in order to be circumcised in the Old Covenant.



Let's just apply the favored hermeneutical principle of using historical narratives to form doctrinal understandings.

Look in Genesis 24 for the answer of whether adult servants had faith for your answer. I'm not aware of any example where a servant didn't have faith in Scripture. No need to speculate in the least.

Also, is it not interesting that Paul calls un_belief_ un_circumcision_ several times in the Scripture? You may have trouble acknowledging that circumcision required faith but the Scriptures are dripping with it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 21, 2007)

B.J. said:


> As I told a good friend the other night...If one thing is new about the New Covenant it is that children are obviously out, according to my current (yet dwindling) Baptistic theology. To which my friend responded by saying, "So."



THAT, my friend, is what makes this theology so sad. Not only does it cheapen the COG in the promise to Abraham (it was for land and faith is continually deprecated) but there is this eery, cold detachment from the fact that a Baptist argues that spiritual fellowship with one's own children is immaterial!

I've never understood how a Baptist can read anything in Proverbs and find much use for it to apply to their own children. I don't know how they read the Psalms that speak of the inheritance of faith and the joy of seeing your children's children call upon the name of the Lord.

Pfftt...So?!


----------



## Davidius (Jan 21, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> THAT, my friend, is what makes this theology so sad. Not only does it cheapen the COG in the promise to Abraham (it was for land and faith is continually deprecated) but there is this eery, cold detachment from the fact that a Baptist argues that spiritual fellowship with one's own children is immaterial!
> 
> I've never understood how a Baptist can read anything in Proverbs and find much use for it to apply to their own children. I don't know how they read the Psalms that speak of the inheritance of faith and the joy of seeing your children's children call upon the name of the Lord.
> 
> Pfftt...So?!



Perhaps one just becomes numb to such things after chanting the "repent and believe" mantra enough times.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 22, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Let's just apply the favored hermeneutical principle of using historical narratives to form doctrinal understandings.
> 
> Look in Genesis 24 for the answer of whether adult servants had faith for your answer. I'm not aware of any example where a servant didn't have faith in Scripture. No need to speculate in the least.



I'm not saying that there weren't faithful servants. I'm saying that we don't see a profession of faith *prior* to circumcision in the Old Testament in the same way we see for baptism in the New Testament.



SemperFideles said:


> Also, is it not interesting that Paul calls un_belief_ un_circumcision_ several times in the Scripture? You may have trouble acknowledging that circumcision required faith but the Scriptures are dripping with it.



Did they require faith before they circumcised infants? Your argument proves too much.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 22, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> I don't think so. But what you're missing here is that if they weren't it's because they weren't part of the church (Israel). Likewise, let's say that an Aborigine in Australia found a gospel track that had fallen out of a missionaries pocket, believed what was in there, repented, and trusted in Jesus. If he went back to his people he would not be baptised.



I believe you're correct that they weren't circumcised because they weren't a part of Israel, but why shouldn't they have been brought into the covenant?

Your analogy doesn't seem to fit because it was Jonah, a prophet from God, who preached to them, and not a gospel track. Surely Jonah could have circumcised them.

While we have a command to make disciples of all nations and baptize them, in the Old Covenant, there was no such directive to make disciples and circumcise them. This is a major difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 22, 2007)

elnwood said:


> I'm not saying that there weren't faithful servants. I'm saying that we don't see a profession of faith *prior* to circumcision in the Old Testament in the same way we see for baptism in the New Testament.


You missed the point. By your hermeneutical rule, I demonstrated that _only_ servants that had faith were circumcised. Indeed, by your formula of historical narrative, the _only_ examples we have demonstrate that all circumcised servants had faith. Your wooden formula of profession is desperate. It reminds me of a Calvary Chapel person I once heard say that Calvin wasn't a Christian because he never said he was "born again".



> Did they require faith before they circumcised infants? Your argument proves too much.



I prove only that Paul links _belief_ with _circumcision_. The Jewish community _always_ required it of proselytes. You're the only "reformed" person I've ever encountered who would present the impious argument that faith was immaterial to the application of the Covenant sign to adults.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 22, 2007)

elnwood said:


> While we have a command to make disciples of all nations and baptize them, in the Old Covenant, there was no such directive to make disciples and circumcise them. This is a major difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant!



The discipling of all nations is implicit in the Abrahamic covenant just as the "Gospel preached beforehand" is implicit. The fact that there was a means for the stranger to enter into Covenant demonstrates this. Israel _was_ clearly commanded to be a blessing to the surrounding nations. The New Covenant is a flowering of that promise which, by the power of the Holy Spirit, allowed the Gospel to proceed and expand. It is inaccurate to say that there was no command to make disciples and circumcise except that you seem to have a wooden approach to the Scriptures that causes you to misread the Covenant of Grace. Your pastor is much less given to dispensationalism. You should tune into his Thursday podcasts.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 22, 2007)

Rich, my point is not whether circumcised people will have faith. Obviously sometimes, even often, this is the case. Nor do I dispute that circumcision is linked with belief.

The point is that we don't see any indication of belief required *prior* to circumcision. The servant showed faith and belief, but that was subsequent to circumcision.

Further, if there was an "implicit command" to make disciples and circumcise ... why weren't the Ninevites circumcised? Was Jonah disobedient? You haven't even addressed this.

I don't know what hermeneutical rule you think I'm using, but you clearly misunderstand it. Perhaps you want to state the hermeneutical rule you think I'm using?


----------



## B.J. (Jan 22, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> I'll add to what Bob said: "Obviously"? If thats true, I guess no children were ever saved during the churchs' initial stages as there is no scriptural evidence of such conversions anywhere.





blhowes said:


> BJ,
> I'm not sure I understand why your Baptistic theology would conclude that.
> Bob



The person I was having said conversation with was taking the interpretation of Jer.31 that Malone, Barcellios, Waldron, and other Reformed Baptist take, and that is stressing the "Newness" of the NewCovenant. My point with said friend was that since this interpretation excludes those who dont make a profession of faith, and it has to all though they would try to argue that all infants that die are memebers, whats one "New" characteristic of the New Covenant is that God has excluded the infants of believers, which I dont believe.

This is a point that Paul Manata has been arguing. Where has God removed them? And since He is the only one who can tell us who, what, when, where and, why we have "no" justification for such a move as the Reformed Baptist tradition teaches. As I said before, my Baptistic Theolgy is dwindling, although I am giving Malone a fair shake in his book "Baptism: For disciples alone" which was suggested to me by said friend above, and my Elders.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 22, 2007)

B.J. said:


> This is a point that Paul Manata has been arguing. Where has God removed them? And since He is the only one who can tell us who, what, when, where and, why we have "no" justification for such a move as the Reformed Baptist tradition teaches.



This was crucial for me when I made the switch. Once I realized that circumcision was a _sign_ of regeneration and of "righteousness that Abraham had by faith" and then realized that it wasn't necessary for that sign to only be put on those who had made their own profession of faith, but was applied to those people and their children as a reminder to the Church of God's promise, and that the only change in CoG administration was that the focus has switched somewhat to the Gentiles (not changing family inclusion, only adding Gentiles alongside Jews), accepting Paedobaptism became very easy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 22, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Rich, my point is not whether circumcised people will have faith. Obviously sometimes, even often, this is the case. Nor do I dispute that circumcision is linked with belief.
> 
> The point is that we don't see any indication of belief required *prior* to circumcision. The servant showed faith and belief, but that was subsequent to circumcision.
> 
> ...



Don,

First of all, forgive me for my impatience. I'm trying to teach you some things and I should be bear more with your misunderstandings. That said, you really do need to study the nature of the Covenant more because you're missing some significant features of the Abrahamic Covenant. Your misunderstandings are not completely peculiar to being a Reformed Baptist because, as I stated, your Pastor would not be making the same kind of basic errors you're making in your argumentation. I'll try, at least once more, to explain to you what you're missing about the circumcision of adults but if you cannot understand it then I suggest you study more before interacting further. If I fail to respond on that point then that will be the reason. If you really want to understand it better then I'll explain it.



> Further, if there was an "implicit command" to make disciples and circumcise ... why weren't the Ninevites circumcised? Was Jonah disobedient? You haven't even addressed this.


I wasn't aware I had to address this. You assume that the question is germane to the micro-discussion we're having within this thread. Let's remind ourselves what that question is: Did adult converts to Judaism have to be believers before they could receive the sign of circumcision?

The issue of the Ninevites bears not in the least on that question. If Jonah had circumcised the Ninevites before he heralded God's judgment and they repented then you would have a case for your point. "See!" you could say, "there is an example of an unbelieving adult who was circumcised. Thus, circumcision did not require belief."

The real question for the Ninevites is this: Were those that repented and believed in Yahweh now candidates for inclusion among the Covenant people of God? The answer is yes. They would have to present themselves before the congregation of God's people expressing that desire. There was still a necessity for those that desired to make Yahweh their God and His people, their people to present themselves to the "visible Church" so they could undergo the rites that accomponied proselyte circumcision.

Did any Ninevites avail themselves of this? I don't know but it is quite immaterial to the question. What was that question again? The question was: Did adult converts have to believe in order to be circumcised? Try not to argue now but to understand where your error was. You actually used an argument from silence on "What happened to the Ninevites?" to establish that circumcision did not require faith. At best you can ask: Can we now circumcise the Ninevites?

In fact, Jonah is a perfect illustration of God revealing the nature of the Abrahamic covenant that would bless all nations. Here, God condescends to save a whole city of perhaps one of the most wicked cultures that history has ever witnessed. Do you suppose, for a second, that if a Ninevite had shown up and just said: "Hey I want to become circumcised" to a Rabbi that he would have just broken out the knife, cut off his foreskin, and said: "You are now one of us. You may marry my daugther." Jonah didn't even want to warn them that they were going to be destroyed and got ticked off at God that He relented from His judgment! At the _very least_, the Ninevite would have to "justify" his desire to be circumcised by professing fealty to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.



> I don't know what hermeneutical rule you think I'm using, but you clearly misunderstand it. Perhaps you want to state the hermeneutical rule you think I'm using?


The flawed hermeneutical rule that you use to establish a "believe and be baptized" formula is using descriptive language (historical narrative) to form doctrine that is best expressed in prescriptive language (didactic teaching). Toward that end, you overthrow clear NT didactic teaching that links circumcision with belief. Circumcision signified and sealed the faith that Abraham had by faith. Using your criteria of descriptive language to form a wooden "believe and be baptized" forumla you cannot reconcile [KJV]Galatians 3:8[/KJV] that clearly teaches that Abraham believed the Gospel beforehand. Where's that illustrated in Genesis that he had a "profession" as you keep insisting?

I simply turned the tables on your use of historical narrative and gave descriptive examples of circumcised adults that evidenced faith. Does it really prove anything? No, and your frustration with the argument ought to be turned back upon your own weak argumentation in this area.

You may persist and say: "But I'm talking about belief preceding baptism!" It's quite immaterial but, in case you just can't get over this weak line of argumentation using narratives to form doctrine, then let's look at the instances of "God fearers" in the Scriptures. There are at least two clear examples in the NT of centurions who are not only said to fear God but, in one case, they are commended by no less than Christ for having faith. These are men who, even you cannot argue, have faith. Do you know that a God fearer was a _pre-requisite_ in the Jewish community for becoming a full-blown convert? That is to say that the Scriptures recognize the difference between Gentiles, God-fearers, Samaritans, and Jews. A God-fearer could become a Jew but he could be a believer for some time and even offer sacrifices prior to his circumcision. What _could not happen_, however, is for a man to be circumcised before he demonstrated that he believe. 

Thus, if you absolutely must cling to historical narratives and descriptive language then I have given you sufficient descriptive language to leave behind this silly idea that a man could become a circumcised Jew as an adult without any demonstrable faith in the God of Abraham.


----------



## B.J. (Jan 22, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> This was crucial for me when I made the switch. Once I realized that circumcision was a _sign_ of regeneration and of "righteousness that Abraham had by faith" and then realized that it wasn't necessary for that sign to only be put on those who had made their own profession of faith, but was applied to those people and their children as a reminder to the Church of God's promise, and that the only change in CoG administration was that the focus has switched somewhat to the Gentiles (not changing family inclusion, only adding Gentiles alongside Jews), accepting Paedobaptism became very easy.



Ahhh....sorry brother. If I would have noticed before I would I would have reported you. 

I did not think "Tardheels" were allowed on such a distinguished baord! I hope that in the future you will come to see the light in your University selection just as you did with Baptism. That is of course that DUKE is far superior in every way to that of unc.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 22, 2007)

B.J. said:


> The person I was having said conversation with was taking the interpretation of Jer.31 that Malone, Barcellios, Waldron, and other Reformed Baptist take, and that is stressing the "Newness" of the NewCovenant. My point with said friend was that since this interpretation excludes those who dont make a profession of faith, and it has to all though they would try to argue that all infants that die are memebers, whats one "New" characteristic of the New Covenant is that God has excluded the infants of believers, which I dont believe.



I was thinking of this from the 1689 BCF regarding infants who die in infancy, which to me would mean that the reformed baptist's interpretation doesn't exclude all who don't make a profession of faith:

1689 BCF Chapter 10
_Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases..._


----------



## elnwood (Jan 22, 2007)

Rich,

The discussion has branched into two lines of arguments, and you seem to have intermingled the two. Let me break it down again for you.

One is that there is no "make disciples and circumcise them" commission in the Old Covenant in the same way that there is a "make disciples and baptize them" in the New Covenant. If there had been, Jonah would have been a complete failure. If you had been sent to a foreign village and converted the whole lot, would you fail to baptize them? Of course not.

This argument was not intended to answer the question: "were all adults required to give a profession of faith before circumcision?" It is merely a side issue illustrating the discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

Regarding professions of faith before circumcision, I am do believe that Abraham believed before he was circumcised, and that circumcision represents belief. The question, though, is not whether some believed before circumcision, but whether *all adults* believed before circumcision, including household servants.

[bible]genesis 17:12-14[/bible]

This is the first place that circumcision is mentioned, so we ought to expect that God's instructions to Abraham to be clear. Notice it says *every* servant (bought or born in) shall *surely* be circumcised. Does it say only the servants who confess Yahweh as their God? No, it say *every* servant. Did Abraham have to go chasing them down with a knife, as Paul Manata mis-characterizes my position? No, they were his *servants*. They did what he told them to. In verses 23-27, Abraham circumcised *every* male, *all* the men of his household.

What does God say in the case that one of the servants don't believe? Say Abraham went out and bought a foreign servant that didn't believe? God says *every* servant. So either the servant gets circumcised anyway, or you would expect that God would put a provision in that says the servant can't be in the household. However, we see no such provision. Therefore, when God says "*every* servant," he means every servant.

One might argue that v. 14 is such a provision, but it clearly says "circumcision in the flesh of his foreskin," not circumcision of the heart, nor unbelief.

I'm not saying that *none* of them believed before they were circumcised, but if you compare this passage to the household baptisms you find in Acts, where whole households believed and were baptized, you'll notice quite a contrast.

So in conclusion, a) circumcision in the Old Covenant was given to those whom today wouldn't be baptized (adult household servants), and b) circumcision in the Old Covenant was not given to those who today would be baptized (foreign converts like those in Ninevah).

Paedobaptists can assume continuity all they want, but it seems pretty clear to me that the intended recipients of the covenant sign in the Old Testament is different than the intended recipients of the covenant sign in the New Testament.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 22, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Rich,
> 
> The discussion has branched into two lines of arguments, and you seem to have intermingled the two. Let me break it down again for you.
> 
> One is that there is no "make disciples and circumcise them" commission in the Old Covenant in the same way that there is a "make disciples and baptize them" in the New Covenant. If there had been, Jonah would have been a complete failure. If you had been sent to a foreign village and converted the whole lot, would you fail to baptize them? Of course not.


Why would it have been a complete failure? Paul didn't convert everybody at Mars Hill right away in his herald. Further, nobody has argued that the signs are identical. A great deal more pain and travel was necessary for a God fearer to go the extra mile and actually convert. The OT has a less matured version of the news of God's grace but Jonah is a glimmer of that. It was certainly a success in God's eyes. Your additional argument (which again did _not_ bear upon the question originally of whether adults had to be circumcised) concerned the idea that there has to be a Pentecost-like mass circumcision at Ninevah to support the case that God desired Israel to disciple the nations around them. I stated that it was _implicit_ in the COG. I did not say that God had provided His Spirit yet for that unfolding. The bottom line, however, is that God added to His Covenant people the same way: If you're an adult, you have to have faith before the sign is applied.



> This argument was not intended to answer the question: "were all adults required to give a profession of faith before circumcision?" It is merely a side issue illustrating the discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.


And it fails at that point in the discontinuity you desire. It is better to view it as moving from a bud to a flower but not a mutation to a whole different species.



> Regarding professions of faith before circumcision, I am do believe that Abraham believed before he was circumcised, and that circumcision represents belief. The question, though, is not whether some believed before circumcision, but whether *all adults* believed before circumcision, including household servants.
> 
> [bible]genesis 17:12-14[/bible]
> 
> This is the first place that circumcision is mentioned, so we ought to expect that God's instructions to Abraham to be clear. Notice it says *every* servant (bought or born in) shall *surely* be circumcised. Does it say only the servants who confess Yahweh as their God? No, it say *every* servant. Did Abraham have to go chasing them down with a knife, as Paul Manata mis-characterizes my position? No, they were his *servants*. They did what he told them to. In verses 23-27, Abraham circumcised *every* male, *all* the men of his household.


Notice how your little homily here _reads into_ the passage. That's called eisegesis by the way. Because you're convinced that God is just permitting Abraham, and any other man, to buy whatever pagan he desires and cuts off the foreskin of his penis that everything is right in the eyes of God. You are now, again, overthrowing clear didactic teaching that Israelites were to have nothing to do with unblievers. A Jew might have done precisely what you just described but he would be in violation of God's precepts elsewhere by taking an unbeliever into his house. You say you believe that circumcision represents belief but then you take away that statement in this crass idea that God is giving license to men to just hire anyone they want as long as they go through the external motions of the rite. Unbelievable!



> What does God say in the case that one of the servants don't believe? Say Abraham went out and bought a foreign servant that didn't believe? God says *every* servant. So either the servant gets circumcised anyway, or you would expect that God would put a provision in that says the servant can't be in the household. However, we see no such provision. Therefore, when God says "*every* servant," he means every servant.


Fortunately, Abraham, the father of the faith, had much more faith in the promise of God then you just did by that gross account.



> One might argue that v. 14 is such a provision, but it clearly says "circumcision in the flesh of his foreskin," not circumcision of the heart, nor unbelief.


That would resound perfectly with a Pharisee but not a man who should be reading Genesis in light of the New Testament.



> I'm not saying that *none* of them believed before they were circumcised, but if you compare this passage to the household baptisms you find in Acts, where whole households believed and were baptized, you'll notice quite a contrast.
> 
> So in conclusion, a) circumcision in the Old Covenant was given to those whom today wouldn't be baptized (adult household servants), and b) circumcision in the Old Covenant was not given to those who today would be baptized (foreign converts like those in Ninevah).


You've demonstrated neither.

Time to go back and study Covenant theology some more.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 22, 2007)

G907
βαπτίζω
baptizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a derivative of G911
Citing in TDNT: 1:529, 92


----------



## B.J. (Jan 22, 2007)

blhowes said:


> I was thinking of this from the 1689 BCF regarding infants who die in infancy, which to me would mean that the reformed baptist's interpretation doesn't exclude all who don't make a profession of faith:
> 
> 1689 BCF Chapter 10
> _Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases..._



Yes. As I said above they would argue that point. However, Reformed Baptist may need to change thier position if you dont have to make a profession.

Typically thats not what they say, or courses other than the LBC1689, that I know of.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 22, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Why would it have been a complete failure? Paul didn't convert everybody at Mars Hill right away in his herald. Further, nobody has argued that the signs are identical. A great deal more pain and travel was necessary for a God fearer to go the extra mile and actually convert. The OT has a less matured version of the news of God's grace but Jonah is a glimmer of that. It was certainly a success in God's eyes. Your additional argument (which again did _not_ bear upon the question originally of whether adults had to be circumcised) concerned the idea that there has to be a Pentecost-like mass circumcision at Ninevah to support the case that God desired Israel to disciple the nations around them. I stated that it was _implicit_ in the COG. I did not say that God had provided His Spirit yet for that unfolding. The bottom line, however, is that God added to His Covenant people the same way: If you're an adult, you have to have faith before the sign is applied.



If Jonah was charged with making disciples AND circumcising them (as you believe), then he failed. If he was just charged with only making disciples (as I believe), he succeeded. It is your view that would have to conclude that Jonah failed in some way.

In the New Testament, baptism is rooted in making disciples. Ninevah shows that circumcision is not similarly rooted.



SemperFideles said:


> Notice how your little homily here _reads into_ the passage. That's called eisegesis by the way. Because you're convinced that God is just permitting Abraham, and any other man, to buy whatever pagan he desires and cuts off the foreskin of his penis that everything is right in the eyes of God. You are now, again, overthrowing clear didactic teaching that Israelites were to have nothing to do with unblievers. A Jew might have done precisely what you just described but he would be in violation of God's precepts elsewhere by taking an unbeliever into his house. You say you believe that circumcision represents belief but then you take away that statement in this crass idea that God is giving license to men to just hire anyone they want as long as they go through the external motions of the rite. Unbelievable!



I know what eisegesis is (I hope you're not being smart with me). I am making implications from the text. I don't see implications from the text that say only to circumcise them if they believe. Nor do I see any place where Abraham is told not to have an unbeliever in his house. Where is this found?



SemperFideles said:


> Fortunately, Abraham, the father of the faith, had much more faith in the promise of God then you just did by that gross account.



Please don't insult my faith. I may disagree with your position, but I don't insult your faith, and I expect the same from you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 22, 2007)

elnwood said:


> If Jonah was charged with making disciples AND circumcising them (as you believe), then he failed. If he was just charged with only making disciples (as I believe), he succeeded. It is your view that would have to conclude that Jonah failed in some way.


This is our last interaction on this topic as you fail to understand the basic point. I did not say that Jonah was charged with a command as you have stated. It is an ignorant and gross mischaracterization. Please read what I wrote.



> In the New Testament, baptism is rooted in making disciples. Ninevah shows that circumcision is not similarly rooted.


Baptism is rooted in applying the Covenant sign to the people God has drawn to Himself. Circumcision is similarly rooted.



> I know what eisegesis is (I hope you're not being smart with me). I am making implications from the text. I don't see implications from the text that say only to circumcise them if they believe. Nor do I see any place where Abraham is told not to have an unbeliever in his house. Where is this found?


It is eisegesis. You drew the implication. It is another argument from silence. You assume the passage permits the circumcision of unbelievers for the purpose of just plain work. Once again, DIDACTIC teaching prohibits this practice.



> Please don't insult my faith. I may disagree with your position, but I don't insult your faith, and I expect the same from you.


I am not insulting your faith. You are, nevertheless, speaking in a most impious fashion presuming that Abraham would allow a man into his household that believed in and served other gods. When a man was circumcised, even a servant, it bound him to the whole covenant community and all the stipulations and commands of the Covenant. When you see the sign of circumcision for what it is you begin to realize how horrid an act Levi and Simeon committed by circumcising a bunch of pagans before massacering them. You seem to see to only be able to associate a physical act with the sign. The Scripture gives it spiritual significance.

You don't know what spirit you are of in making such an assertion even for the sake of argument. It is charitable of me to rebuke such folly rather than just pretend like this is some heady discussion. You are speculating on Scriptural implications out of pure silence and drawing conclusions that the text does not demand.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 22, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> But the main problem is that none of this disproves that adults have had to make a profession of faith in order to be circumcised.



Paul, I stated the same thing above regarding the Ninevite argument. Make sure you read my posts thoroughly before responding.



Paul manata said:


> Lastly, that Nineveh had some sort of saving faith (i.e., what Christians must have to be saved from hell, justified, etc.,) is debatable. We read that they repented from the evil they were doing. So God did not judge them, i.e., with a temporal and physical judgment. This shows that repentence leads to the avoidance of destruction. God teaches us that if we repent we will be saved. Though analogous, does Nineveh provide an argument that these people had *saving* faith?



So you would refuse to baptize a repenting adult because you were unsure whether they had saving faith? No one can be sure whether a person truly has saving faith. You have to trust their profession of faith. Whether or not the Ninevites truly had saving faith is irrelevant.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 22, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> This is our last interaction on this topic as you fail to understand the basic point. I did not say that Jonah was charged with a command as you have stated. It is an ignorant and gross mischaracterization. Please read what I wrote.



You wrote this:


SemperFideles said:


> It is inaccurate to say that there was no command to make disciples and circumcise



So was there a command to make disciples and circumcise or not? You're saying two different things.



SemperFideles said:


> I am not insulting your faith.



You did insult me, and you are insulting me. You insulted my faith, called me impious and given to dispensationalism, and likened me to someone from Calvary Chapel. I am not interested in continuing this conversation if you continue to insult me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2007)

elnwood said:


> You wrote this:
> So was there a command to make disciples and circumcise or not? You're saying two different things.


I've stated the same thing all along. As I've said before, you have a lot of learning to do wrt CT and the fundamental errors you keep making. You seem to think that the Great Commission is repent and be baptized. That is not what the Commission is. The Commission is _make disciples, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you_, which means bringing people into the Church. It would be unacceptable, today, for a man named Jonah to hold a crusade in Ninevah, have the city repent, baptize them all, and then leave. I would laugh if you called them disciples and _that_ a success. That's not making _disciples_, that's making converts. That's revivalism.

Church Membership 101: if a person believed, they had to present themselves to the Church (the called out, aka *Israel*) to be circumcised. Again, this period was a bud and the New Covenant is the flower but the principle is the same. It was much harder for a convert from afar to become a member of the visible Church at that time due to geography but, in order to become a member of the visible Church, they still had to receive the sign of Covenant inclusion. They were also now under obligation to go to Jerusalem 5 times a year and to Synagogue once a week. One of the blessings of the New Covenant is not that the character of needing to be in the visible covenant has changed but the visible Church is no longer confined to a small tract of land in the Middle East.



> You did insult me, and you are insulting me. You insulted my faith, called me impious and given to dispensationalism, and likened me to someone from Calvary Chapel. I am not interested in continuing this conversation if you continue to insult me.


You _have_ posted impiously and I pointed it out. What you do with and how you react to a rebuke is up to you. It is a rebuke and not an insult.

You insult the actual faith of a man called Abraham who believed the Gospel preached to him beforehand in a promise that all the nations would be blessed. He believed God mightily to the point that he would not even accept a gift of land to bury his dead or the spoils of war that were his to keep lest he ever be accused of getting anything from the pagans among which he was a sojourner. You then propose a scenario in which he takes a complete pagan into his household, pollutes the minds of everyone around them with their idolatry, and applies a sign that signifies that faith he has in the Gospel.

If I _wanted_ to insult you, I could state that _you_ would marry a pagan woman in clear violation of the Scriptures or approve of your daughter or son doing the same thing. _That_ would be slanderous, _that_ would be mean. _Then_, you would have reason to be upset because I really called into question your obedience to the Word of God and faith that He is the one God.

For _that_ kind of treatment and slander of your faith, I _would_ repent. I implore you to do the same.


----------

