# John Tombes on Genesis 17



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2008)

Dr. Mike Renihan recommended a portion of his book (Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes) to me while we were discussing Genesis 17:7,8 in an earlier thread. So I asked him if I could type it out so we could use it for reference. So here is a link to it. 



John Tombes on Genesis 17:7 - The PuritanBoard


----------



## JM (Apr 3, 2008)

Nice, thank you.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 3, 2008)

> In review, Tombes’s original, foundational argument was stated thus:
> Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful
> Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
> Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful.



Syllogisms

Major Premise: God is love.
Minor Premise: I love spinach.
Conclusion: God is spinach.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> > In review, Tombes’s original, foundational argument was stated thus:
> > Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful
> > Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
> > Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful.
> ...



Man,
That is a bad syllogism.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 3, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > > In review, Tombes’s original, foundational argument was stated thus:
> ...



No worse than Tombes' in my opinion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Presbyterian Deacon said:
> ...



At least in his syllogism he relates testimony of Scripture and infant baptism in both premises. You jump from love is God to love of spinach to making spinach God in the conclusion. 

You can't be serious. 

Please....


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2008)

This is not about syllogisms. It is about what he sees in Genesis 17 and what the Covenants are. 

I left the intro to the Exegetical Arguments on so that it would explain the method of arguing that he did in his historical context. Don't make this about the syllogisms. There are two of them. Make it about the exegesis.


----------



## danmpem (Apr 3, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > > In review, Tombes’s original, foundational argument was stated thus:
> ...


----------



## MW (Apr 3, 2008)

*Stephen Marshall's pro-paedobaptist rejoinder*

Stephen Marshall's Sermon on the Baptising of Infants:



> And whereas some who see which way the strength of this conclusion bendeth, do allege, that though circumcision was to be applied to their infants, yet it was not as a seal of the spiritual part of the covenant of grace, but as a national badge, a seal of some temporal and earthly blessings and privileges, as of their right to the land of Canaan, &c., and that Ishmael, though he was circumcised for some temporal respects, yet he was not thereby brought under the covenant of grace, which was expressly said to be made with Abraham in relation to Isaac and his seed (Gen. 17:18-21) --
> 
> I answer, there is nothing plainer than that the covenant whereof circumcision was the sign (Rom. 4:11) was the covenant of grace; Abraham received circumcision a sign of the righteousness of faith, and the Jews received it not as a nation, but as a church, as a people separated from the world, and taken into covenant with God. It is true indeed, that circumcision bound them who received it to conform to that manner of administration of the covenant which was carried, much, by a way of temporal blessings and punishments, they being types of spiritual things; but no man can ever show that any were to receive the sacrament of circumcision in relation to these outward things only, or to them at all, further than they were administrations of the covenant of grace. Sure I am, the proselytes and their children could not be circumcised in any relation at all to the temporal blessings of the land of Canaan as they were temporal, because notwithstanding their circumcision they were not capable of receiving or purchasing any inheritance at all in that land; sojourn there they might, as other strangers also did, but the inheritance of the land, no, not one foot of it could ever be alienated from the several tribes to whom it was distributed as their possession by the most High: for all the land was divided unto twelve tribes (Deut. 32:8; Lev. 25:13, &c.), and they were not any one of them allowed to sell their lands longer than till the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:13, etc.). Yea, I may boldly say that their circumcision was so far from sealing to them the outward good things of the land, that it occasioned and tied them to a greater expense of their temporal blessings by their long, and frequent, and chargeable journeys, to worship at Jerusalem. And as for what was alleged concerning Ishmael, the answer is easy: God indeed there declares that Isaac should be the type of Christ, and that the covenant of grace should be established and continue in his family; yet both Ishmael and the rest of Abraham's family were really taken into covenant, until afterward by apostasy they discovenanted themselves, as also did Esau afterward, though he were the son of Isaac, in whose family God had promised the covenant should continue.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2008)

One more thing. I left the same spelling and grammar he used in the quotes by John Tombes. Just read it a few times. I had to.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Stephen Marshall's Sermon on the Baptising of Infants:



This really doesn't interact with John Tombes. But thanks for the quote.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 3, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > PuritanCovenanter said:
> ...



I have love in both premises. There is no greater "jump" in my syllogism than his. But, of course, you are correct.

I am not serious. If I believed God was spinach, I wouldn't have been given membership here at the PB. I merely use this absurd syllogism to point out that the so-called locigal constructs of syllogistic reasoning are not always so cut and dried as we like to think.

I was a credo-baptist for about 28 years. Even as a credo I found this kind of argument from silence to be a stretch.


----------



## MW (Apr 3, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This really doesn't interact with John Tombes.



How so?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2008)

Which John Tombes quote are you sighting to deal with?


----------



## MW (Apr 3, 2008)

"Domestique and Civill promises were many; of the multiplying the seed of Abraham, the birth of Isaac; of the coming of Christ our of Isaac; the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and deliverance thence; of possessing the Land of Canaan, Gen 15.13,18. Gen. 17.7, 8.15,16. Act. 7.4,5,6,7,8. and many other places. (18)"

"For Tombes, circumcision sealed an earthly promise and identified Abraham’s seed as set apart to God for God’s purpose."

"That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ismael, God had said, that his covnenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac."

The quoted portion of Marshall's sermon deals directly with these allegations.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2008)

Thanks Rev. Winzer. I think your quote misses the full point and that Tombes explains it well enough in his understanding of the various aspects of the Covenant made with Abraham.


----------



## MW (Apr 3, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Thanks Rev. Winzer. I think your quote misses the full point and that Tombes explains it well enough in his understanding of the various aspects of the Covenant made with Abraham.



Tombes fails to account for the very point made by Marshall, which is that proselytes were circumcised who had no share in temporal privileges.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Rev. Winzer. I think your quote misses the full point and that Tombes explains it well enough in his understanding of the various aspects of the Covenant made with Abraham.
> ...



Actually, He does mention them.



> 4. That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ismael, God had said, that his covnenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac; and yet he was circumcised, Gen. 17.29, 21.25 Rom. 9.7,8,9. Gal. 4.29,30. the same may be said of Esau; All that were in Abrahams house, whether strangers, or born in his house, were circumcised, Gen. 17.12,13. of whom nevertheless, it may be doubted, whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham, did belong to them; there were other persons, to whom all, or most of the promises of the covenant pertained, that were not circumcised; this may be affirmed of the females coming from Abraham, the Infants dying before the eighth day, of just men, living out of Abrahams house, as Melchisedech, Lot, Job.



I do believe their circumcision did permit them to remain with Abraham which was a blessing in and of itself. It was civil.


----------



## MW (Apr 3, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I do believe their circumcision did permit them to remain with Abraham which was a blessing in and of itself. It was civil.



The argument of Marshall shows that Gentile proselytes had no interest in the temporal privileges which belonged to Israel as a nation. Why were they circumcised? They were taking God to be their God. Why were their infants circumcised? Not for temporal advantage, but in order to show their covenant interest in God. Tombes' antipaedobaptist thesis is sufficiently answered.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 3, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I do believe their circumcision did permit them to remain with Abraham which was a blessing in and of itself. It was civil.
> ...



That's interesting to me, because when I was a dispensationalist I would have agreed completely with the premise that Gentile proselytes had no interest in the temporal privileges which belonged to Israel. But I also had no concept of covenant as I understand it today since I've turned my attention to CT.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I do believe their circumcision did permit them to remain with Abraham which was a blessing in and of itself. It was civil.
> ...



In that regard I agree that that might be true. Then they were credo's and that would not be what he is disputing here. But at the same time I am sure there were those who were just interested in dwelling with Isreal as a nation.

I still disagree with his very first line saying that, *"there is nothing plainer than that the covenant whereof circumcision was the sign (Rom. 4:11) was the covenant of grace"*, and we have discussed that before. And the article does discuss this also. I think the article does refute it. 

I also don't believe this is correct... *"but no man can ever show that any were to receive the sacrament of circumcision in relation to these outward things only, or to them at all, further than they were administrations of the covenant of grace."* If anyone wanted to dwell with Abraham's household he had to be circumcised according to Genesis 17. It mattered not if he sought the Eternal Covenant or not. If someone wasn't circumcised he was cut off and couldn't dwell in Abraham's household. Concerning owning land... Abraham was a nomadic person. So Strangers who dwelt with him were not even concerned with this necessarily yet. The land issue doesn't appear until the Mosaic. The Promise of Land is before but it is not fulfilled until the Mosaic. This guy bounces from the Abrahamic and Mosaic to much and only in an affective manner if someone doesn't have the knowledge to understand his bouncing around. This guy also doesn't even touch Ishmael in a correct light. Ishmael was never included in the Eternal Covenant. When Abraham petitioned God for Ishmael God just said He was not included in the Covenant. He didn't become apostate from it. He was never allowed into it. God did give Abraham Promise in a Covenant with Abraham that Ishmael would have some benefits though. But that is only in a civil manner. Not an eternal manner.


----------



## MW (Apr 3, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> In that regard I agree that that might be true. Then they were credo's and that would not be what he is disputing here. But at the same time I am sure there were those who were just interested in dwelling with Isreal as a nation.



Then it's settled: the "credos" who joined themselves to the people of God were to include their children -- the credos were to be paedos. That was easy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 3, 2008)

You're funny. Thanks Rev. Winzer.


----------



## JohnTombes (Apr 4, 2008)

Two things:

Equivocation voids an argument. PresbyterianDeacon's argument is not cute, it is laughable and shows the sorts of equivocation and shape-shifting many Paedoes have used in the argument from the analogy of circumcision to baptism. Tombes invoked the imagery of Proteus, the ancient shape-shifter to make this point. To think badly is to sin--it is not loving God with all of our minds. Someone should repent on this one. ;-)

Secondly, Tombes answered Marshall, in "An Examen of the Sermon of Mr. Stephen Marshal," London, 1645, Part III, pp35ff. I have the pdf file if anyone is interested. ;-)

If you don't like, or understand how thought ought to be structured, you won't find Tombes unto edification. If you want answers to tough questions and are willing to look into this matter seriously, let me know....

MTR


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 4, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > > In review, Tombes’s original, foundational argument was stated thus:
> ...



But Tombes argument is subject to serious reductios.

Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful
Minor Premise: But this *Doctrine of women-taking-the-Lords-Supper*, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful

Remember, if you make inferences that women took the Lord's supper, you are doing the same thing paedos do.


----------



## JohnTombes (Apr 4, 2008)

> But Tombes argument is subject to serious reductios.



{I'd call them applications}



> Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful
> Minor Premise: But this *Doctrine of women-taking-the-Lords-Supper*, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
> Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful
> 
> Remember, if you make inferences that women took the Lord's supper, you are doing the same thing paedos do.



The question is not about good and necessary inferences, it is about non-sequitors, things that do not follow from the argument given. I would use the laughable one already introduced into this discussion, but I do not want to continue to use the Lord's name in vain. So, I'll use your argument. Thanks. 

This syllogism is only half of the story. Tombes knew there were indifferent matters outside of the worship of God, that need only to be made doubtful. He would then go to more general principles of the word to test the 'doubtful' character of conclusions. He is not throwing the baby out with the baptismal water; he is only rendering the belief or practise lacking in the Word of God as doubtful. 

The puritans handled the issue of women taking the Lord's supper. Tombes was among them. From 1 Cor 11, they and he deduced that women must have been present. Therefore, 

Major premise: That which is in scripture by command, principle or precedant is to be believed and practised.
Minor premise: That women partook of the Lord's Supper is found in scripture as a command, principle or practise.
Ergo: Women may partake of the Lord's Supper.

Infant baptism is not found in the scriptures, therefore it is doubtful. That is all this argument is intended to prove. Even Daniel Ritchie in his work on RPW, admits that much. If I understand him correctly. 

MTR


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2008)

JohnTombes said:


> Secondly, Tombes answered Marshall, in "An Examen of the Sermon of Mr. Stephen Marshal," London, 1645, Part III, pp35ff.



In which he fails to acquit his argument against Marshall's reasons; and for which Marshall wrote "A defence of infant baptism."


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2008)

JohnTombes said:


> Infant baptism is not found in the scriptures, therefore it is doubtful.



Adult baptism of believers' children is not found in the scriptures, therefore it is doubtful.

Infant baptism is found in 1 Cor. 10.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 4, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> JohnTombes said:
> 
> 
> > Infant baptism is not found in the scriptures, therefore it is doubtful.
> ...




Well then so is paedo communion. This is not NT baptism. And that is what is being addressed. You are making a slight of hand here. And redefining what is being mentioned. Apples and Oranges again. 

Concerning the response to Tombes.... He who rights last is always correct I see. I am not sure who responded last but a response does not necessarily mean that it was a good one. Just like I showed above the guy was mixing The Abrahamic and Mosaic concering the property issue. He missed the mark. 

I will let JT respond to your posts above concerning the replies because I am not familiar with the gentleman. But I am not impressed with his exegesis thus far on the issue.


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Well then so is paedo communion. This is not NT baptism. And that is what is being addressed. You are making a slight of hand here. And redefining what is being mentioned. Apples and Oranges again.



The general statement was, "infant baptism is not found in the scriptures." Regardless of the nature of the baptism in 1 Cor. 10, it refutes the point.

1 Cor. 10 does not speak of "communion," whereas it specifically uses the word "baptism."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 4, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Well then so is paedo communion. This is not NT baptism. And that is what is being addressed. You are making a slight of hand here. And redefining what is being mentioned. Apples and Oranges again.
> ...




Concerning Communion....



> (1Co 10:3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
> 
> (1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.



The stretch can be made here just like your baptism stretch can be made where you made it.


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Concerning Communion....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A gratuitous stretch it is too. If I were to say there is no example of infant communion in the Scriptures, you would be hard pressed to prove infants communed because the identification is not made between the action of eating and drinking Christ and communion. You are making that identification, not the Scriptures. Whereas the Scriptures make the identification in the case of baptism and the Red Sea crossing, and specifically says that they were ALL baptised.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 4, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Concerning Communion....
> ...



The baptism mentioned into Moses is not an individual baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that is what the syllogism is concerned with. A Gospel Covenant Baptism. Not one done into Moses. 

I am just illustrating the stretch. When we partake in the Lord's Supper are we not to partake of the body and blood of Christ?


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The baptism mentioned into Moses is not an individual baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that is what the syllogism is concerned with. A Gospel Covenant Baptism. Not one done into Moses.



Please refer to the gentleman's statement. He is speaking of baptism. You are making qualifications which he never made, and which would have altered the form of his argument if he did make them. You can't accept his argument as is, and then proceed to make qualifications once it is proven wrong.

As for the way in which you are dichotomising the baptism into Moses and Christian baptism, that goes against the grain of the apostle's admonition. Why didn't the Corinthians think of this dichotomy? "Now, Paul, it's not true the Israelites enjoyed the same external privileges with us, because their baptism wasn't Christian baptism; ergo, their falling in the wilderness is no warning to us." Paul's admonition is based on the fact that both groups of people shared common privileges.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 4, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > The baptism mentioned into Moses is not an individual baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that is what the syllogism is concerned with. A Gospel Covenant Baptism. Not one done into Moses.
> ...



In other words, both groups were part of the visible church which has children in it who are entitled to the ordinance of baptism? Is that right?


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> In other words, both groups were part of the visible church which has children in it who are entitled to the ordinance of baptism? Is that right?



At present we're only looking at the apostle's admonition in its own context, but that would eventually be a relevant theological abstraction for the doctrine of the church.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 4, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > PuritanCovenanter said:
> ...



The children were not set as the example here. They were not overthrown. Those who sinned were overthrown and the age of those overthrown was 20 and above when the sin happened if I am not mistaken. The example is set to say, Don't be displeasing to God or you will face judgment. Kind of like 2 Cor 13:5.

Moses Covenant is a mixed Covenant. I don't believe the New Covenant is. It is an example.


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The children were not set as the example here. They were not overthrown. Those who sinned were overthrown and the age of those overthrown was 20 and above when the sin happened if I am not mistaken. The example is set to say, Don't be displeasing to God or you will face judgment. Kind of like 2 Cor 13:5.
> 
> Moses Covenant is a mixed Covenant. I don't believe the New Covenant is. It is an example.



Paul's admonition requires a different construct. The two parties are placed on equal footing so far as privileges and warnings are concerned. You are seeing a "mixed covenant" because the apostle is dealing with the external administration of the covenant ... in both Testaments.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 4, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > The children were not set as the example here. They were not overthrown. Those who sinned were overthrown and the age of those overthrown was 20 and above when the sin happened if I am not mistaken. The example is set to say, Don't be displeasing to God or you will face judgment. Kind of like 2 Cor 13:5.
> ...




I am not sure about that. He is dealing with the people of God needing to be pleasing to God though.


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am not sure about that. He is dealing with the people of God needing to be pleasing to God though.



Verse 12, "Wherefore" applies the admonition -- "let him that thinketh he standeth take heed LEST HE FALL."


----------

