# Children part of the NT Church in Scripture



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 23, 2005)

Follow me for a second if you will ...

- The Jerusalem council met over a controversy related to Jewish customs and practices being imposed on the Gentiles.
- At this time, the Church was _largely_ Jewish, with the Gentile mission being relatively new
- Jews were commanded at Pentecost to baptize, in order to bring one into the NC Church (Acts 2:41), not circumcize (which was the method to bring one into the OC congregation)
- The Jerusalem council allowed the Jews to continue circumcising their sons (Acts 21:21), but did not force it on the Gentiles, as their exclusive sign of the covenant was baptism (Remember Paul was accused of not allowing the Jewish Christians to continue circumcision, an accusation he denied)
- The Jews practiced both circumcision and baptism (at least until A.D. 70 when the "age of the OC" ended); the Gentiles practiced only baptism
- The Jews continued circumcising their children, as a "promise" related action, until the "end of the age", at least

So, would it not be right to conclude that we have, at this point, several children (Jewish boys) who were brought into the covenant community (the Church at this time, meeting in synagogues; cg James 2:2; 5;14) by circumcision (and likely baptism as well)?


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 23, 2005)

And the point . . . .?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 23, 2005)

I guess you missed it, unless you're just being rude:



> So, would it not be right to conclude that we have, at this point, several children (Jewish boys) who were brought into the covenant community (the Church at this time, meeting in synagogues; cg James 2:2; 5;14) by circumcision (and likely baptism as well)?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 23, 2005)

Which God Gabe? By what authority or name was it done in? What are the parents beliefs? Maybe I am not getting your point.

[Edited on 6-23-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 23, 2005)

I understand the 70th week being fulfilled, but what makes you say that the OC ended at 70 AD? Just curious.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Which God Gabe? By what authority or name was it done in? What are the parents beliefs? Maybe I am not getting your point.
> 
> [Edited on 6-23-2005 by puritancovenanter]



I think he is basically pointing out that due to the Jewish and Gentile differences in the apostolic era, the time-period when circumcision was performed "overlapped" with the time-period that baptism was performed. Thus, when the New Covenant community had definitely been established already (since even the Jews were commanded to baptize), we see Jews still practicing circumcision for a short time, which included children - hence his main point of it possibly showing that children were considered a part of the covenant in the New Testament church.

Gabriel, while I of course agree that children were covenantal members of the New Testament church, one point at which I think the above situation fails to serve as applicable evidence for that fact is that, as you noted, in Acts 2 the Jews were commanded to use mark covenantal membership with baptism, _rather than_ circumcision. That leads me to see the Jerusalem council in Acts 21 as allowing them to still circumcise their children simply as an allowance for their cultural comfort, rather than still serving as a covenantal sign. Thus, without the covenantal significance still attached to circumcision (even though it was still permissible), the situation fails to serve as evidence for children's covenantal inclusion in the New Testament Church at that time.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 23, 2005)

We're still missing the information for that conclusion, as well, though. I'm basing this on the info we have, and, although admittedly vague, we have some indication that children of believers were considered part of the church at this point in time. There's nothing in the NT stating anything about circumcision's "covenantal significance" as having changed.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I understand the 70th week being fulfilled, but what makes you say that the OC ended at 70 AD? Just curious.



God's judgment against apostate Judaism in the destruction of Jerusalem, desolation of the Temple, etc. by Titus' Roman armies, fulfilling Christ's message in the Olivet Discourse.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> We're still missing the information for that conclusion, as well, though. I'm basing this on the info we have, and, although admittedly vague, we have some indication that children of believers were considered part of the church at this point in time. There's nothing in the NT stating anything about circumcision's "covenantal significance" as having changed.



I see what you're saying. I suppose the issue is whether or not we can conclude that there could biblically have been more than one _effectual_ sign of the covenant at the same time.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 23, 2005)

Yep.


----------



## doulosChristou (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Follow me for a second if you will ...
> 
> - The Jerusalem council met over a controversy related to Jewish customs and practices being imposed on the Gentiles.
> ...



Gabriel,

You've assumed several prior conclusions that seem Scripturally unwarranted (at least by the references you've provided.) The first one is that circumcision brought one into the covenant. The second one is that baptism brings one into the covenant. The third is that baptism was the exclusive sign of the covenant for Gentiles. On the first point, it seems to me that Jewish children were born into the covenant because they were born into the household of Abraham, thus they received the sign of the Abrahamic covenant because they were *already* members. On the second point, baptism brings no one into the New Covenant. Paedobaptists, I think, would argue that their children are born into the covenant (just as in the OT) and are therefore baptized (which is basically the new circumcision in their system). Baptists like myself would argue that there is no correlation between circumcision and baptism, that only believers are members of the New Covenant (Jer 31) and are publicly baptized out of obedience to the Lord as an answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Pet. 3:21). On the third point, you assume that baptism is the _sign_ of the New Covenant. God nowhere says such a thing. I would argue that the exclusive sign of the New Covenant for Gentiles and for Jews is the cup. Christ said, "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood." I'm not interested in arguing credo vs. paedo for the millionth time  , but I do think you should subject your three assumtions above to the scrutiny of Scripture before answering your main question.

In Christ,

dC


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> You've assumed several prior conclusions that seem Scripturally unwarranted (at least by the references you've provided.) The first one is that circumcision brought one into the covenant.



Where do you see that assumption in his post? I don't see it. He said nothing and implied nothing about circumcision bringing people into the covenant.



> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> The second one is that baptism brings one into the covenant.



Again, where do you see that assumption in his post? I don't see it. He said nothing and implied nothing about baptism bringing people into the covenant.




> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> The third is that baptism was the exclusive sign of the covenant for Gentiles.
> 
> ...



Is there any connection between water baptism and baptism by the Holy Spirit? Or do you think that they have no relation to one another whatsoever? I would argue that the one signifies (though does not effect) the other.

The Holy Spirit seals us in salvific covenantal relation to God (cf. Ephesians 1:13, 4:30). The Holy Spirit seals our membership with the invisible church.

Water baptism pictures Spirit baptism. So it seals our membership with the visible church.


You cannot say that baptism isn't a seal of covenant membership, without also denying the Holy Spirit's seal of covenant membership, unless you suggest that water baptism has no relation whatsoever to Spirit baptism.


In other words:

physical circumcision - pictures - heart circumcision

and

water baptism - pictures - Spirit baptism


And interestingly enough, the apostle Paul ties together heart circumcision with Spirit baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. 

Thus, physical circumcision and water baptism ARE tied together!


----------



## doulosChristou (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> ...


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 23, 2005)




----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstood him but when he wrote, "children (Jewish boys) who were *brought into the covenant community* (the Church at this time, meeting in synagogues; cg James 2:2; 5;14) *by circumcision (and likely baptism as well)*," that's what I got.



Fair enough . . . but I honestly don't think that's what he was getting at. He will have to speak for himself, but I imagine he looks at the tie between covenant membership and baptism/circumcision as closely as I do, *without* making them simultaneous.

In Genesis 17:14, we find that the babies were automatically covenant members before circumcision. They were automatically circumcised *because* they were already covenant members.

Nevertheless, in the very same chapter, God said of circumcision, "this is my covenant". So the sign itself is tied directly to covenant membership. The two are not precisely identical, but we shouldn't be driving a wedge in between them either.

You mentioned the Lord's supper in an earlier post. Jesus said, "this is the new covenant in my blood" . . . do you therefore think that a person is not in covenant with Christ until they partake of their first communion? Of course not. You realize there is a close connection, without making first-communion simultaneous with becoming a covenant member.

Somewhat similarly, I would not say that Israelite babies were not covenant members prior to circumcision. But at the same time, I don't have a problem with people using language suggesting that circumcision "brings them into the [visible] covenant community".

Anyway, that's what I think he was really getting at. But I can still see why you took it like you did. Fair enough.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Which God Gabe? By what authority or name was it done in? What are the parents beliefs? Maybe I am not getting your point.
> 
> [Edited on 6-23-2005 by puritancovenanter]



No, not trying to be rude (not sure why I would be asked), but I still am not getting the point entirely.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I guess you missed it, unless you're just being rude:
> 
> Sorry, pushed the wrong "quote" button.:bigsmile:


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



It was basically a challenge to the Reformed Baptists on the board, attempting to be yet another way to demonstrate children's membership in the New Covenant as biblical.

[Edited on 6-24-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 24, 2005)




----------



## Steve Owen (Jun 25, 2005)

The question of the Jewish believers prior to AD 70 is a very interesting one. Acts 2:41. *'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.'* There is no mention of infant children here or in verse 47; indeed they appear to be specifically excluded unless one supposes that such children can understand and believe. There is not the slightest suggestion anywhere in Acts that infants were baptized.

However, all those who were baptized had also been circumcised since they were Jews. They continued to attend the Temple (2:46 ) and to follow the various Mosaic laws (10:14 ). Perhaps it seemed natural to them that, as male children were born to them, they should have them circumcised. After all, the Temple was still standing, and all the Old Covenant practices were still being performed. Doubtless it would have been better if the Apostles or the elders had prevented this, but perhaps even they were confused (Gal 2:11ff).

When Paul made his return to Jerusalem for the last time (Acts 21:15ff), he found a situation in which the church leaders were at odds with their congregation. The leaders were delighted to hear of Paul's actions among the Gentiles, but the people were still *'zealous for the law'* (v21 ). 

Paul's (and therefore God's) teaching is very clear: the 'wall of separation' between Jew and Gentile had been broken down in Christ (Eph 2:14 ) and 'the law of commandments contained in ordinances' (v15 ), including circumcision, had been 'abolished'. However, he allowed himself to be persuaded to sponsor some men in a Jewish purification rite (Acts 21:26 ). It seems that God was prepared to give the Jews time to wean themselves away from their former customs. In AD 70, however, the Judean Christians had to decide whether to fight along side their fellow-countrymen or follow their Lord's command to flee (Luke 21:20-21 ). Church history tells us that they fled, presumably leaving their Jewish customs behind them. That which had already been, *'obsolete and growing old'* (Heb 8:13 ) had finally passed away.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 25, 2005)

Martin,
To begin with, welcome! 

Consider those of the past whom hold to covenant theology and their level of intelect. If it is as simple as you imply, how do you reconcile thier deduction? Obviously they did not just have a bad theological day.

Hermeneutics! Question: Would the Jewish hearers think that their children were excluded? Is the tithe in the NT excluded, since following your premise, there is no mention of the tithe either; or woman taking the supper for that matter.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> The question of the Jewish believers prior to AD 70 is a very interesting one. Acts 2:41. *'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.'* There is no mention of infant children here or in verse 47; indeed they appear to be specifically excluded unless one supposes that such children can understand and believe. There is not the slightest suggestion anywhere in Acts that infants were baptized.



This statement is logically indefensible. Infant baptism is not "specifically excluded" here. The only way it would be excluded would be if the text said that "*only* those who gladly received his word were baptized." (And even then, we would have to discuss the question of infant faith.) 

But the text does not say that "only" the glad receivers were baptized. Were some glad receivers baptized? Of course! We would hope so! But the text doesn't say whether others were or were not baptized. You would have to read that into the silence of the text.

However, it IS clear that children were included in the covenant promises in this text. In Acts 2, Peter relies heavily on prophecy in Joel 2, which has a covenantal focus. And Peter *explicitly* tells his listeners that the promises are not only for them, but for their *children* too.

We need to pay attention to what IS specifically said in this text, rather than trying to import pet theologies in places where the text is silent.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 25, 2005)

By the way, Martin, now that I'm temporarily off my soapbox . . . 

Welcome to the Puritanboard!  Wow . . . you jumped right into the baptism section of this board . . . get your flak jacket on quick!!!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 25, 2005)

Gabe,

Noble effort indeed!

Calvin once said regarding Acts 2 (the promise is to you, your children, etc..) that this should forever silence all questions regarding the marking of believers children. It is THAT obvious. He is absolutely correct. 

When I first was reading in Acts many moons ago I came across this passage and before ever reading John Calvin, I pretty much was shaken in my baptist boots and began thinking the same thing. Yet, when I asked other brother baptist about it - they'd patronize my query and explain it away with "spiritual children" blah blah blah. I thought to myself, "Now that's interesting. Who is now bringing something TOO the text for the system which requires it?"

My point is not to argue that passage here, oy vey, but simply this; when someone is staring at the noon day sun and you say, "That's the sun" and they reply, "No its not", you realize for the first time that you've got an uphill battle.

Ldh


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 25, 2005)

When someone asks, "Are Children part of the NT Church in Scripture?" I would immediately want to ask why they are asking a silly question. There are silly questions. Silly questions come about when hermeneutics are ignored. Its always the death of theology when that happens. If I were asking the question, I would have intended it as a trap for Dispensationlists to answer. If they answered it, it would prove their dispensationalism immediately. 

Its a silly question because 1) the church is the church and has always functioned like the church from the time of its inception in the garden with Adam. 2) If you asked the Apostle Paul or Peter the same question, in the time subsequent to Jesus' ascension, they would have pulled out their Scriptures and explained it to you, and their bible was the the Old Testament - so start there. 3) As more Scriptures were written, they would have not, in any way, contradicted the OT ideas about a child's inclusion in the church by way of covenant.

To throw all that away is to disregard hermeneutics.

When we stray from that line of thought at the outset (i.e. considering our overall hermeneutic) then we will walk down Darby Lane, take a right onto Schaffer blvd, to wind up at Walvoord Manor. Our shortcut, there, would bypass The Early Church Tavern (a very nice spot with some great brew) Reformation Street (lots of great stores there), and a world reknown social club that plays really cool music known as the Westminster Brass.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> When we stray from that line of thought at the outset (i.e. considering our overall hermeneutic) then we will walk down Darby Lane, take a right onto Schaffer blvd, to wind up at Walvoord Manor. Our shortcut, there, would bypass The Early Church Tavern (a very nice spot with some great brew) Reformation Street (lots of great stores there), and a world reknown social club that plays really cool music known as the Westminster Brass.



Now that has got to be one of the coolest bits I've read in a while!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...


----------



## Presbyrino (Jun 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> When we stray from that line of thought at the outset (i.e. considering our overall hermeneutic) then we will walk down Darby Lane, take a right onto Schaffer blvd, to wind up at Walvoord Manor. Our shortcut, there, would bypass The Early Church Tavern (a very nice spot with some great brew) Reformation Street (lots of great stores there), and a world reknown social club that plays really cool music known as the Westminster Brass.





I once was stuck on Scofield Ave, even though the sign said "Warning, Dead End".


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 26, 2005)

Good words, webmaster. I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 26, 2005)

I knew you did.


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 26, 2005)

Sarcasm....the only biblical form of humor. 

You guys are a hoot!


----------



## Steve Owen (Jun 26, 2005)

First of all, thanks for your welcome, everybody 

Gosh! I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here! Perhaps it would have been better to have started with something less controversial, but I've been looking at Acts just recently and am eager to share my understanding. I have now donned my theological flak-jacket and my tin hat, and am ready to reply. It will take me some time, however, to answer everybody's comments.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Martin,
> To begin with, welcome!
> 
> Consider those of the past who hold to covenant theology and their level of intellect. If it is as simple as you imply, how do you reconcile thier deduction? Obviously they did not just have a bad theological day.



I don't think I said it was simple! However, the Bible was written for the common man, not for theologians. Obviously, I don't know any of you, but, Scott, your avatar shows a baby, so I'm guessing that you're saying that you're a babe in Christ at present (forgive me if I'm wrong!). Be encouraged! You're clearly in a good place to learn here. Is that your daughter in the picture? What a lovely child!

Paul, in 1Cor 1:12ff, warns us against hero-worship, even of such a one as himself. The argument you are presenting is a favourite of the Church of Rome, who are always going on about the church fathers. As Protestants, we must take our stand on _Sola Scriptura_. 'To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them ' (Isaiah 8:20 ).



> Hermeneutics! Question: Would the Jewish hearers think that their children were excluded?



I presume that you think that they would immediately have thought, 'Ah! The replacement for circumcision!' With respect, this is very bad interpretation. You are bringing your pre-suppositions to the text to make it say what you want it to say. What did Peter's hearers know of baptism on the day of Pentecost? Only what they knew of John's and our Lord's baptisms. Both of these were based upon repentance (Luke 3:7-8 ) and faith (John 4:1 ). What Peter is saying in Acts 2 is in complete accord with that. Why would they be equating baptism with circumcision? Peter said, 'Repent and be baptized!' They repented and were baptized.



> Is the tithe in the NT excluded, since following your premise, there is no mention of the tithe either; or woman taking the supper for that matter.



I'm happy to discuss either of these subjects with you, but perhaps it is better not to divert this most interesting thread. Perhaps we should open some more!

Please don't be discouraged, dear brother! Get into the word 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jun 26, 2005)

Not sure why we are really concerned about whether or not our children are under the covenant? Can someone explain this to me?


----------



## Steve Owen (Jun 26, 2005)

Hello Joseph,
You wrote:-




> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> ...



With much respect, this is altogether back-to-front. Consider:-

1. Those who gladly received his word were baptized. Therefore, if words have any meaning,
2. Those who did not receive his word gladly were not baptized.
3. Infant children are not able to understand such things (cf. Ezra 8:2 ), let alone receive them, therefore
4. Infant children were not baptized.

Now if you can find me another text which says that infants were in fact baptized, we may have to look at this text again. But in the absence of such a text, I think my sequence holds good.



> However, it IS clear that children were included in the covenant promises in this text. In Acts 2, Peter relies heavily on prophecy in Joel 2, which has a covenantal focus. And Peter *explicitly* tells his listeners that the promises are not only for them, but for their *children* too.



OK, what are the promises that Peter spoke of? That if they repented and were baptized, their sins would be forgiven and they would receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38 ). This promise was,

1. To them,
2. To their children. If their children (descendants) were to repent and be baptized, their sins also would be forgiven and they too would receive the Holy Spirit.
3. 'To all who are afar off.' This could mean those far off in time or far off in distance, but in the light of Eph 2:13, it surely means the Gentiles. The same promise holds good for them also.



> We need to pay attention to what IS specifically said in this text, rather than trying to import pet theologies in places where the text is silent.





Grace & Peace,

Martin


Mr Webmaster,
You clearly said something very humorous, but I'm afraid I could make neither head nor tail of it. Should I buy a map of New York or somewhere to help me understand it?

You will have to make it a little more simple for me, I'm afraid! 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> First of all, thanks for your welcome, everybody
> 
> Gosh! I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here! Perhaps it would have been better to have started with something less controversial, but I've been looking at Acts just recently and am eager to share my understanding. I have now donned my theological flak-jacket and my tin hat, and am ready to reply. It will take me some time, however, to answer everybody's comments.
> ...



Your condescension is astounding.............You have a u2u.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 26, 2005)

Michael,
Are women allowed to take the Lord's Supper?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Michael,
> Are women allowed to take the Lord's Supper?



I already went there Jacob; he refused to interact with that idea.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Welcome to the board, Martin. Your conclusion in #2 based on #1 represents a logical fallacy called "the inverse error." In logic, the statement "if a, then b" has an _inverse_, which is "if not a, then not b." The truth of a statement, however, does not necessarily imply the truth of its inverse, and the assumption that it does in any particular case is what the "inverse error" is. Here's an example: If someone is a U. S. Senator, that person is part of the U. S. Government. The inverse of that statement would be, "If someone is not a U. S. Senator, that person is not part of the U. S. Government," which obviously not does necessarily follow. Likewise, if someone is an officer in the PCA, then that person is a male, but the inverse of that would be, "if someone is not an officer in the PCA, then that person is not a male," which is of course false.

The same principle applies for the statement, "if people gladly received his word, they were baptized," of which the inverse is, "if people did not gladly receive his word, they were not baptized," which does not necessarily follow. (Now, we know from elsewhere in Scripture that those who _explicitly_ rejected the word were not baptized - but one cannot conclude either from that fact or from the above passage that infants were not baptized, since infants do not _explicitly_ accept _or_ reject it.) Thus, even if you are correct about infants not being able to spiritually receive such things, that would not imply they were not baptized.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 3. Infant children are not able to understand such things (cf. Ezra 8:2 ), let alone receive them, therefore
> 4. Infant children were not baptized.



Did you mean to cite a different passage? If not, how does Ezra 8:2 show that in any way? Also, what do you think about Psalm 22:9: "Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts."


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Did you mean to cite a different passage? If not, how does Ezra 8:2 show that in any way?



I was wondering the same thing.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 26, 2005)

> What did Peter's hearers know of baptism on the day of Pentecost? Only what they knew of John's and our Lord's baptisms. Both of these were based upon repentance (Luke 3:7-8 ) and faith (John 4:1 ).



By logical deduction, I'm assuming that you are asserting that:

Baptism = associated with "repentance" and "faith"
Circumcision = not associated with "repentance" and "faith"

Please correct me if I'm wrong and ignore this post. However, if that is the case (as I don't see why you would be bringing this concept up in the first place otherwise), then it needs to be refuted.

Scripture makes it clear that circumcision is a sign of the covenant, pointing to repentance and faith, along with regeneration.



> "œBut if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies"”if then their *uncircumcised heart* is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. (Leviticus 20:40-42)
> 
> *Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart*, and be no longer stubborn. (Deuteronomy 10:16)
> 
> ...



I think Scripture is very clear on this issue.


----------



## kceaster (Jun 27, 2005)

Martin said:



> I don't think I said it was simple! However, the Bible was written for the common man, not for theologians.



This is loaded with false assumption. Common man when enlightened by the Holy Spirit of God through the Word of God are automatically theologians.

My 11 year old son is a theologian.

If you're not a theologian, what are you doing here?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Martin said:
> 
> 
> ...



Well said Kevin! (surprised?!?!?!)

On the other side of the coin, we all know what he's saying here. And he does have a point.


----------



## kceaster (Jun 27, 2005)

*Joe...*

Thanks for agreeing.

But if his point is to say that our "heroes" are skewing our views, I think he is putting forth a position that flies in the face of most of us here.

My sons are theologians. They are disciples. And they also trust their teachers are not leading them astray.

Much of what goes on in the world of theology are those who will not listen to anyone but themselves. Unfortunately for them, the Holy Spirit uses means such as "heroes," to try to show them the truth. But in their blindness, as all of us are blind from birth, they ignore the truth right in front of them and then wag their heads at those who see things differently, all the while calling them hero worshipers.

How do I know? I used to wag my head.

We need to realize that we are not the final authority on what the Bible says, therefore, many of us have stepped back to a position long held and time-tested. It's not comfortable out there on the skinny branches. But for some, the practical thing to do would be to listen and learn, instead of presume to teach. I'll admit that I am bad about this as well, so I'm not pointing any fingers. We should all be slow to speak at times.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 27, 2005)

Thanks Kevin,

You have a good point, of course. The challenge is discernment. Every great theologian is wrong somewhere. Most are wrong in several places. 

Also, I think Martin's point was that the Bible wasn't written for the educated, it was written to educate. There are some things that are deep and hard to understand, granted, but much that is proposed as deep and difficult is so because it's the empty philosophy of men. We've all been lead astray more than once.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jun 27, 2005)

First of all, I meant Nehemiah 8:2, not Ezra 8:2 in my last post. Sorry!

Me died Blue wrote:-



> Welcome to the board, Martin. Your conclusion in #2 based on #1 represents a logical fallacy called "the inverse error." In logic, the statement "if a, then b" has an inverse, which is "if not a, then not b." The truth of a statement, however, does not necessarily imply the truth of its inverse, and the assumption that it does in any particular case is what the "inverse error" is.



As I wrote to you privately, I don't think you have this quite right. There is certainly such a thing as the "inverse error." All cows eat grass, but not all grass-eaters are cows. However, the statement, "All cows eat grass" gives us definite information, both positive and negative. If I see an animal eating meat, then using this information, I know that it is unlikely to be a cow, unless I am given further information that cows sometimes eat meat as well as grass.

Thus, when I read that, 'Those who gladly received [Peter's] word were baptized, I am given some information: some people were baptized. This info is then qualified; I am told who were baptized: it was those who gladly received the word. When you tell me that there might have been a bunch of people who didn't receive the word and yet were baptized, you are denying the qualification, so I say, "Prove it!" 

As for my reference to 'theologians', picked up by Kevin, I had in mind 1Cor 1:19, 26-27. The Bible was written to and for simple, uneducated people. It was William Tyndale's dream that ploughboys (albeit with the aid of the Holy Spirit) should have a better understanding of the Bible than clerics. 

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 6-27-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## kceaster (Jun 28, 2005)

*Martin....*

Again, I beg to differ.

If you look at the educational structure of the OT as God designed it, their primary education began and ended with God. We can see very clearly what happened when this broke down because of sin, but then we read how some generations would pick it back up and do well again.

And our Lord establishes discipleship based upon that foundation of teaching and learning. We can see this in a comparison among the disciples of John and Jesus, and the talmidim of the Pharisees. They are compared in a not a few places as being the same type of person. But instead of having some elite group of privileged persons in the talmidim, Jesus commands His disciples to make talmidim of everyone, thus reclaiming the Deuteronomic educational system.

The whole idea around discipleship is for God's people to be educated. Granted, there are teachers and students, so a disparity exists between these two. But Paul certainly believed that those he wrote to should be progressing in the education of the Lord.

So when statements are made that the Bible was written for uneducated folk, that statement should be thrown out altogether. There aren't supposed to be any uneducated folk in the covenant community.

Just from the bare fact that the children of Israel were to be teaching and learning from sun up to sun down, we should get the hint that God expects us to take our education about Him and His Word very seriously. There are field experts to be sure. But there is not one class of people to whom it is given to be uneducated about God.

Hence, every man, woman, and child should be taught to learn the fear of the Lord so that their days may be long upon the earth.

This is Discipleship 101.

But the reason many believe that there is such a disparity, and that the Bible was not written with certain difficulties that may only be overcome with diligence and studies, is that, by and large, we are lazy. If we were doing our jobs in the education of disciples, there wouldn't be so much of a disparity. Some want to blame the laity for this, but in truth, all are to blame. If we wonder why God's people are ignorant, we need to realize that we all contribute to the problem.

We must therefore plead with God to grant us more grace in order to educate disciples. His work within us is foundational, but we mustn't wait for some holy unction in order to get off our seats and learn.

Discipleship is not by osmosis nor a wave of the wand. Discipline is hard and there is no easy road.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Steve Owen (Jun 28, 2005)

Kevin,
I think you misunderstand me. I would hardly spend my time teaching the Bible if I didn't think people needed to learn 

All I have said is that the Bible is not a book that can only be understood by Scholars. To be sure we need to study it diligently (2Tim 2:15 etc ); the Holy Spirit is not given as a short-cut to avoid hard work.

But all the book-learning in the world will not, on its own, reveal the word of God to us (John 3:10 ). It is written of the Apostles that, 'When [the Jewish leaders] saw ........that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marvelled. Then they realized that they had been with Jesus' (Acts 4:13 ).

Have you read 'The Training of the Twelve' by A.B.Bruce? May I recommend it to you? It is a unique insight to how our Lord trained the Apostles. It was a set book when I studied many years ago. It is quite safe to read; Bruce was a Presbyterian 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen (Jun 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> When we stray from that line of thought at the outset (i.e. considering our overall hermeneutic) then we will walk down Darby Lane, take a right onto Schaffer blvd, to wind up at Walvoord Manor. Our shortcut, there, would bypass The Early Church Tavern (a very nice spot with some great brew) Reformation Street (lots of great stores there), and a world reknown social club that plays really cool music known as the Westminster Brass.



Reading through this thread again, I finally twigged what you mean here- you are suggesting that I am a closet Dispensationalist  Very droll! I'm afraid that old age has dulled my mind more than a little and rapier-sharp wit tends to go over my head.

It is also amusing because just about the only Reformed churches in England (I exclude Scotland) are Baptist. The Presbyterian Church went liberal years ago. Even most of the surviving Reformed Congregationalists are baptistic, as are many Anglicans (though they are required by law to baptize babies on demand!).

Where I live is the middle of Plymouth Brethren country. Dispensationalism is rife. Many people left the Exclusive Brethren in the 60s and 70s because of their gross abuses and moved to Evangelical churches, but taking, unfortunately, their Darbyism with them. A part of my teaching ministry is gently to wean these dear brothers away from Dispensationalism and to introduce them to Covenant Theology.

BTW, I would guess from your post that you live not too far from Auburn Avenue, which is only a short drive from Vatican City 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> Reading through this thread again, I finally twigged what you mean here- you are suggesting that I am a closet Dispensationalist  Very droll! I'm afraid that old age has dulled my mind more than a little and rapier-sharp wit tends to go over my head.



In Matt's mind everyone who is not a paedobaptist must be a dispensationalist. Even if one believes in Covenant theology minus the teaching that unregenerate people are included in the New Covenant, he is still a Dispensational. I am not sure what Matt means by dispensationalist but it must not mean the same thing that most people understand it to mean.

Wilcume to the board
R. Martin Snyder 


[Edited on 6-30-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Steve Owen (Jun 30, 2005)

Hello Paul,
You quoted from B.B.Warfield:-



> So long as it remains true that Paul represents the Church of the Living God to be one, founded on one covenant (which the law could not set aside) from Abraham to to-day, so long it remains true that the promise is to us and our children........



It is here, I think that you have touched upon a major difference between the two camps. If one regards the Covenant as starting with Abraham, and continuing from him, then you can impose Abraham upon Christ. But if you take the view, as I do, that the Everlasting Covenant starts in eternity and is realized in Christ's new covenant (cf. Heb 12:2a, 13:20 ), then everything falls into place much more easily. The covenants with Adam (Gen 3:15, 21 ), Noah, Abraham and David are the 'Covenants of Promise' (Eph 2:12 ), pointing the OT Saints to Christ, but being only the shadows of which Christ is the reality Col 2:17 ). We therefore do not impose the shadow upon the substance.

God's moral law is of course, eternal ( Psalm 119:89 etc), but the Mosaic law, which we tend to call the 'Old Covenant', but which the Bible calls the 'First Covenant' (Heb 8:7, 13 ), existed to lead the Israelites to Christ, and with the coming of Christ, is made obsolete (2Cor 3:7ff; Gal 3: 17, 19-25 ; Heb 8 ).

Finally what about '....to us and our children'? Well, who are our children? 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham' (Gal 3:7. cf. also v 26, Rom 9:8 ). As it is written:-

'Sing, O barren, you who have not borne! Break forth into singing, and cry aloud, you who have not laboured with child! "For more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married woman," says the LORD (Isaiah 54:1. cf. also Mark 10:29-30; Gal 4:19; 1Tim 1:2 ).

'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit' (John 3:6 ). What hope then for our children according to the flesh? Every hope! They have the tremendous privilege of being born into a Christian family. We can teach them, catechise them, exhort them and place them in front of the word of God, but the most important thing we can do for them is that which we do upon our knees, crying out to God, "We gave them life in the flesh; You, Lord must give them life in the Spirit!" And we may pray this prayer with hope and expectation. 'The fervent prayer of a righteous man [that is, one whom God has justified] avails much' (James 5:16 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Hi Martin:
> 
> I know I touched on a main difference. The principle of covenant theology vs. a dispensational approach (even if it is Dispensational on just this point). A perfect example is when you write:
> ...


----------



## Steve Owen (Jun 30, 2005)

Hello Paul,




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Hi Martin:
> 
> I know I touched on a main difference. The principle of covenant theology vs. a dispensational approach (even if it is Dispensational on just this point).



I wouldn't call your approach dispensational, just an inadequate approach to the covenants.



> A perfect example is when you write:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 And your point is?

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 6-30-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 30, 2005)

Uhhh, I think you completely missed Paul's point or are being purposefully obstinate.

The *true* children of the promise have always been those who are of faith. However, the promise has always been to believers (those children of the promise) and their offspring, as Peter confirmed for us at Pentecost. The children of believers are holy, set apart, and sanctified by Christ's blood (Heb 10) for God. If they reject their upbringing, they are covenant breakers.

Secondly, Paul is saying your approach is dispensational, because you are saying that there were 1) the covenants of promise pointing to Christ to come and then 2) the New Covenant. The Bible teaches that there is ... the New Covenant, i.e. the covenants of promise consummated.

The Apostle Paul agrees, when he tells us that we (Gentiles) are brought into the covenants of promise and commonwealth of Israel through Christ ... the Church is not a separate body with a separate covenant and promises and separate terms for covenantal membership. The law changed, of course, because the priesthood changed (Heb 7), but the promise did not. Abraham was saved by a blueprint of the gospel, we are saved by the completed house that blueprint laid out.



> 11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "œthe uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands"” 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.



This theme is repeated throughout the New Testament. Only by imposing faulty presuppositions to the NT (such as the idea that we are saved by a different promise than Abraham, or that the Church is a different body than Israel, etc.) do we come to Baptistic conclusions. Scripture makes it clear there is one salvation by one promise, one baptism, one faith, one body of Christ for all times. Israel is Israel, but not all Israel is Israel, and this is true from Adam to the end of time. We are grafted into the tree of Israel, not a new tree (Rom 11).


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 3, 2005)

Hello Gabriel,
You wrote:-



> Only by imposing faulty presuppositions to the NT (such as the idea that we are saved by a different promise than Abraham, or that the Church is a different body than Israel, etc.) do we come to Baptistic conclusions.



Obviously we are not saved by a different promise than Abraham (though we have received the promise to which Abraham only looked forward to- Heb 11:39-40 ), but the Church is not to be equated with Israel after the flesh, nor is circumcision to be equated with baptism (cf. pretty much the whole of Galatians).



> Scripture makes it clear there is one salvation by one promise, one baptism, one faith, one body of Christ for all times.







> Israel is Israel, but not all Israel is Israel, and this is true from Adam to the end of time. We are grafted into the tree of Israel, not a new tree (Rom 11).



Is that the same Israel, *'Who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men......but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost'* (1Thes 2:15-16)? I don't think so! We are grafted into the true Israel, and *'He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God'* (Rom 2:28-29 ).

Pretty much all through the Bible, Israel is pictured as the harlot or the unfaithful wife. The Church is the bride of Christ. Go figure!

Grace & Peace,

Martin

BTW, I am attending the _Summer School of Theology _ at the Metropolitan Tabernacle most of the coming week, so I shall not be posting until I return.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 3, 2005)

> Basically, the credocircumcisionist could have told Moses, "but your Children are those by faith." And this relates to giving our children the covenant sign how, exactly?



Where exactly do you find 'credocircumcisionists' in the OT? Nowhere? I thought not. And where exactly do you find paedobaptism in the NT? Nowhere? I thought not. This is because circumcision and baptism are simply not the same thing, nor do they signify the same thing.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 3, 2005)

> Obviously we are not saved by a different promise than Abraham (though we have received the promise to which Abraham only looked forward to- Heb 11:39-40 )



How is this any different practically? 




> but the Church is not to be equated with Israel after the flesh, nor is circumcision to be equated with baptism (cf. pretty much the whole of Galatians).



This is true; however, the church has disciples whom are regenerate and unregenerate. Judas, demas, and Ananias and Saphira are fine examples.




> Is that the same Israel, *'Who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men......but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost'* (1Thes 2:15-16)? I don't think so!



Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- 
Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 




> We are grafted into the true Israel, and *'He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God'* (Rom 2:28-29 ).




Is this not retroactive back to the garden? 



> where exactly do you find paedobaptism in the NT?



Wgere do we find the NT tithe? The trinity? Woman taking the Lords supper? You don't; however, it is hermeneutically sound derived from the whole of Gods scriptures.



[Edited on 7-3-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Obviously we are not saved by a different promise than Abraham (though we have received the promise to which Abraham only looked forward to- Heb 11:39-40 ), but the Church is not to be equated with Israel after the flesh, nor is circumcision to be equated with baptism (cf. pretty much the whole of Galatians).



Abraham didn't receive the promise? What? Galatians in no way speaks against the sign of the covenant. It speaks against justification through the law, works, and false religious piety. Col 2:11-12 says clearly that circumcision and baptism both point to the same sign, regeneratioin.




> Is that the same Israel, *'Who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men......but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost'* (1Thes 2:15-16)? I don't think so! We are grafted into the true Israel, and *'He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God'* (Rom 2:28-29 ).
> 
> Pretty much all through the Bible, Israel is pictured as the harlot or the unfaithful wife. The Church is the bride of Christ. Go figure!



Yep, the same Israel. We are grafted into the tree, and, just like Israel before, can be removed from that tree if we don't stand by faith (Rom 11)... but we are still _on the tree_. Those who don't abide in Christ are removed from the vine and burned (John 15)... but we are still _on the vine_. We must not do as Israel did, and apostasize from the gospel through lawlessness and idolatry (1 Cor 10). We must "take heed lest we fall," _as they did_. You just said circumcision was worthless, but now you're saying it is a matter of the heart. Which is it? A worthless part of the law that is abolished or a sign of regeneration in those who have faith? The Church is the bride of Christ, and that includes God's people of all ages. We have been brought near to the "commonwealth of Israel" and their "covenants of promise" by Christ's blood (Eph 2:11-22), not made into a new body. Christ has made both groups one. We also don't make a distinction between the elect and those who profess a false faith, God does.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 4, 2005)

Paul,



> So, I don't technically need any link between circumcision and baptism. I just need to show that children are in the NC



That's a great point. That's what began me going down the path of paedo. As a scientist its not labels or terms per se that are of the highest importance but the principle or concept. It is why I become so frustrated with the disp. literalistic mind set and didn't stay in it very long. It is the principles and understandings not do I find term X in the OT or NT. I don't find "Dinosaur" in the Bible, does that mean that the Bible is wrong? No the term came later out of latin derivitives into the English language in the 1900's. But big leviathan type lizards did/do exist.

L

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 5, 2005)




----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

One of my favorites is Jeremiah 32:39 . . . because it's in such close proximity to the New Covenant prophecies of Jeremiah 31.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 6, 2005)

Paul,



> Correct. One thing to do, that is helpful, is to see the bible's theology of children. I always suggest to people looking into this matter, as one possible avenue of help, is to print out every singe reference to "children" or "offspring" or "descendent." Then read those many pages in a row and see if you don't see the inclusion of our children in the New Covenant.



You know after having it so pointed out it is painfully obvious. We always enter this debate by looking up the terms "baptism", but the terms stated above show the real principle at work!

As they say here in the south, "If it had been a snake it would have already bit me."

Larry


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 12, 2005)

Hello Paul,

You wrote:-



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> I was using an expression to make a point. Too bad you couldn't deal with the point but instead made a critique which misrepresented the context of what I was saying.



The point I was making is that there is no such thing as a _credocircumcisionist_. If I were an OC Israelite, I would have circumcised my son, no problem. But I'm not, and nor are you. We are in the New Covenant, which according to Heb 8:9 is "Not according to the [first] Covenant." Therefore there should be no such thing as a Paedobaptist, because it confuses the two covenants.

You continued:-



> Furthermore, even if they were totally different in every respect, what does that matter?



Well, I think you need to think about this a little more. It might be interesting to look at what the Bible says about physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart, and then at physical baptism and baptism in the Spirit. I'd be interested to know what you find.



> My point is that baptism is, among other things, the sign of membership in the New Covenant. If children are in said covenant then they should receive the sign. So, I don't technically need any link between circumcision and baptism. I just need to show that children are in the NC. Now, some *similarities* are helpful between the two because then, when the baptist tries to say that baptism signifies, say, X, and so based on that I can't give baptism to infants because infants don't (or should be presumed not to) have X, I just point out that circumcision also signified X and so if we exclude the one then how is it not arbitrary to not exclude the other. The credocircumcisionist would have to argue against Abraham.



Paul, there are no credocircumcisionists  Never have been; never will be. Straw man!



> The only thing you could say is that it was specifically *commanded* that Abraham (and Moses, et al.) give the sign to children but in the NT that command is not in there. So, as I said in my first response to you, I assume, as a basic presupposition, that God does not have to repeat his commands for them to be considered binding. I have no right to annul His previous commands unless *HE* specifically does so.







> Based on that principle I don't need *any* verses which say I should baptise infants.



No, Paul. based on that principle, you don't need any verses that say you should *circumcise* (male) infants (But cf. Gal 5:3 etc). However, you *do* need one saying that you should baptize infants, and you haven't got one, not even in the OT 



> So, as I said, the main difference is a Dispensational hermeneutic (even if on only this topic!) rather than a CT one.



No, Paul. The main difference is between a dopey hermeneutic (yours) and a completed CT one (mine).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> there are no credocircumcisionists  Never have been; never will be.



Thus, there should not be any credobaptists. There never should have been. 



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First of all, infants WERE baptized in the OT (cf. 1 Corinthians 10).

Second, and more importantly, you are guilty of trying to hard to focus on the connection between circumcision itself and baptism itself. Rather, you should de-narrow your binoculars so that you can see the big picture. Forget about what the physical signs are for a moment. Instead, ask yourself this question:

Are children still included in the covenant?

And the answer to that question is an easy "YES". 


The next question is this:

Should all covenant members be given the covenant sign?

And the answer to that question is an easy "YES".


It is PRECISELY the same logic we use to admit women to the Lord's Supper, even though women were NEVER explicitly admitted to it anywhere in Scripture!


So Paul is correct. We do not need to show a single verse where infants are baptized. We know for certain that infants are included in the covenant with their parents, and that is the only info we need.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > So, as I said, the main difference is a Dispensational hermeneutic (even if on only this topic!) rather than a CT one.
> ...



Sorry, Martin. You are the one with a "dopey hermeneutic".  (That's a really nice theological term, isn't it? Well, if you can use it, then I can use it.)

Please take off your covenantal blinders  and start reading the Bible  for what it is: ONE book . . . not 2. ONE covenant of grace, not 2. Children always have been, and always will be, included in the covenant along with their parents. Scripture is plain about that in both the OT and the NT.

May dispensationalism forever .

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> So as it stands, I don't need to respond, unless you think we are in the dispensation of concluding things based upon poor reasoning?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 12, 2005)




----------



## turmeric (Jul 12, 2005)

Who is Martin?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Who is Martin?



Martin Marprelate.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 14, 2005)

Hello Paul, [/quote]
Let's try again. You wrote:-


> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Anyway, my point is the same as Calvin's: what can the anti-paedobaptist bring against us that could not have been brought against Abraham. So, you're focusing on a minor. Credocircumcisionist is not germain to what I have said, it was rhetorical. But instead of picking on that name, deal with the underlying theme.



Paul, Abraham received a command from God to circumcise all his male offspring and household, even Ishmael, whom he knew beyond all doubt was *not* in the covenant (Gen 17:18-21, 26-27 ). We have received no such command. We are commanded to baptize disciples. I really can't follow your argument here.

You continued:-



> You *tried* to make an argument:
> 
> 
> [1] We are in the New Covenant,
> ...



Well, the construct of my argument above is yours, not mine, but it will serve. The point is clear enough. If we are told by the Holy Spirit that the New Covenant will be 'Not according to' the First Covenant, then it is not for us to second-guess Him by imposing Moses upon Christ, which is to impose the shadow upon the substance (Col 2:17 ).

You continued:-



> You wrote: _"Well, I think you need to think about this a little more. It might be interesting to look at what the Bible says about physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart, and then at physical baptism and baptism in the Spirit. I'd be interested to know what you find."_
> 
> So you're telling me what I need to think about more. Then you tell me what would be interesting for me to see. This just seems highly general. Maybe you're just throwing out something that has the look of an interesting point, but without anything to go on, how should I respond? That is to say, what the heck are you getting at here?



The point I'm making is that the First (Mosaic) Covenant is totally different from the New Covenant. The First was written on tablets of stone and was 'a ministry of death' because it gave no power to keep it; the NC is writtem on 'tablets of flesh, that is, on the heart' (1Cor 3 ). And so it is written of circumcision:-

*'"Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "that I will punish all who are circumcised with those who are uncircumcised- Egypt, Judah, Edom, the people of Ammon, Moab........ For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart'* (Jer 9:25-26 ). Physical circumcision did not lead to heart circumcision. But of the New Covenant it is written:-

*'For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit'* (1Cor 12:13 ). Paul is speaking of Sprit baptism here, not water baptism. All the Corinthians, says the Holy Spirit, possess the reality- they are in the body of Christ. It is those who are the proper subjects of water baptism. In other words, in the OC, fleshly circumcision (the sign) came first and rarely led to heart circumcision (the reality). In the NC, Spirit baptism (conversion- the reality) comes first and water baptism (the outward sign) comes afterwards.

That mistakes are often made and unconverted people baptized, even in NT times is quite true, but that in no way negates the command of Christ. *'Let God be true and every man a liar!'* As far as in us lies, we need to seek a pure church. Israel was the harlot; the Church is the chaste bride.

You continued:-


> I previously wrote: "My point is that baptism is, among other things, the sign of membership in the New Covenant. If children are in said covenant then they should receive the sign. So, I don't technically need any link between circumcision and baptism. I just need to show that children are in the NC.



Well, do so, brother. But you'll have to do better than you've done so far.



> Now, some *similarities* are helpful between the two because then, when the baptist tries to say that baptism signifies, say, X, and so based on that I can't give baptism to infants because infants don't (or should be presumed not to) have X, I just point out that circumcision also signified X and so if we exclude the one then how is it not arbitrary to not exclude the other. The credocircumcisionist would have to argue against Abraham. "



I *think* I've covered this above, but if you want to take this further, then you'll have to tell me what X is. And straw man arguments are not valid ones.


You continued in response to me:-



> You wrote: _"No, Paul. based on that principle, you don't need any verses that say you should circumcise (male) infants (But cf. Gal 5:3 etc). However, you do need one saying that you should baptize infants, and you haven't got one, not even in the OT "  _
> 
> My reply: Where did you show I don't need any verses which say to circumcise infants? I previously said that, as a basic and general rule, I assume that if God commands something I consider it binding until he revokes it. But, using logic, if the Bible said that all male covenant members should be circumcised, then I can conclude that male infants, in the covenant, should be circumcised.



So far, so good. Why then, are you not still circumcising your male children?



> Also, I've explained why I don't need a verse which says I need to baptize infants, you didn't respond but again used the "emoticon refutation." But, if you're serious, that is, about me needing a *specific* verse for me to do something, then where is you specific verse which says: "Give the Lord's supper to women?" Now, I know it is easily *inferred,* but there is no "verse" which *specifically* says to do this. I think you know we can infer things, using that little thing called a mind that God gave us, to conclude doctrinal positions.



I showed that the inference concerning women and the Lord's Supper was both good and necessary. If there were a text that spoke of only men partaking, then it would be a different matter. You need to prove to me that the alleged inference of paedo-baptism is both good and necessary in the teeth of numerous texts which either command, relate or assume the baptism of adults. 


Now I'd like to deal with Jer 32:37-41 which someone brought up earlier (cf. also Deut 30:6 etc.).

*Behold, I will gather them up out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, in My wrath and in great indignation; and I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety. And they shall be My people and I shall be their God; and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may always fear Me, for their own good and FOR THE GOOD OF THEIR CHILDREN AFTER THEM. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I WILL PUT THE FEAR OF ME IN THEIR HEARTS SO THAT THEY WILL NOT TURN AWAY FROM ME.'*

Now if this is supposed to be saying that God will always convert the children of believers, then God is the most monstrous liar and Eli, Samuel, David, Soloman, Hezekiah, Josiah and many others will rise up on the Last Day to tell Him so, not to mention men like Francis Turretine and J.C.Ryle whose children were baptized as infants, received high position in the Church because of their fathers' piety, yet apostacized (most dreadfully in the case of Turretine).

But of course that is not what this text means. It is a promise of the New and Everlasting Covenant (cf. Heb 13:20 ). Every heart in this covenant is changed and will not break the covenant. They will not turn away. The New and Everlasting Covenant cannot be broken because God promises to give a heart to keep it. Jeremiah does not say that every physical seed of the heart-changed will be heart-changed (Gal 3:7 again!), but only that it will be for *'the good of their children after them.'* Obviously it is 'good' for children to be raised in a Christian home where they can hear the word of God and where their parents are in constant prayer for them, but I do not think that is Jeremiah's meaning; the children are the spiritual children, not the physical (Isaiah 54:1-3. cf. Mark 10:29-31 ). 

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 14, 2005)

If I am not mistaken, Matt addresses this issue here:



> A very well-done and thought provoking article on the structure and purpose of covenant signs. This is the first part of two articles found in the WTJ in 1965. They are reformatted, and updated for the web. Part 2 can be found here.



http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/KlineMeredithOathOrdealPart1.htm


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 15, 2005)

Hello Scott,
I have skimmed through the link which you gave in your post. It is far too long for me to try to critique here. It does seem to me, on first reading, that it should return to the well-deserved obscurity from which the Webmaster plucked it.

However, was there a part of the article that you thought was especially pertinent to the thread? If so, please point it out and I will try to reply to it.

In Christ,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 15, 2005)

Hello Paul,

Where I wrote:-


> Paul, Abraham received a command from God to circumcise all his male offspring and household, even Ishmael, whom he knew beyond all doubt was not in the covenant (Gen 17:18-21, 26-27 ).


 
You replied:-


> Yes, God commanded Abraham to do that. He didn't know "beyond all doubt" that Ishmael was not "in the covenant.



Yes he did, if he believed God. Go and read Gen 17:17-27 again.



> Actually, taking your view, Abraham would have "known without a doubt" that only Isaac was in the covenant since God says he'll establish it with Isaac. Obviously, since other people were in the covenant, the phrase, "I will establish my covenant with Isaac" does not mean that other people are excluded. Furthermore, you prove too much since the NC was established with Christ then *you* must not be in it! So, again, I remember telling you something about your reasoning process.



Oh dear! Gen 17:19. 'Then God said, "No, Sarah your wife shal bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant AND WITH HIS DESCENDANTS AFTER HIM.' 
'nuff said, I think.

You continued:-



> You're still not making any valid inference for me, Martin. How does "not according to the First Covenant" mean that I am "therefore, not to baptize my children?"



Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought your rationale for baptizing your infants came from the circumcision of male infants in the OC. Now since we are told that the New Covenant will be 'not according to the Old', it would appear that you should be looking to what the New Covenant says instead of imposing the Old upon it.

You continued:-



> Does that phrase, to you, mean that *all* things are not according to the "First Covenant?" So, are we not to "Love the Lord with all our heart, soul, and mind?" Are we not to "repent?" What? Do you think that some things stayed the same? If so, then you've got squat here since you haven't proven, at all, that infant baptism is not allowed. Martin, all you do is assert. Quit imposing your assertions on Christ and His little ones.



I think you're being just a little bit silly here, Paul. Did not the Lord Jesus Christ have something to say about loving the Lord, and about repentance? What He didn't do was say 'squat' about baptizing babies. He took them in His arms and blessed them, but He baptized only 'disciples' (John 4:1 ).

You then asked:-



> There was not one un-elect in the entire Church of Corinth?



Nope! If they were false believers, they weren't in the church. Read 1Cor 1:2. Of false believers it is written, 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us' (1John 2:19 ).

You then gave a great pile of OT verses. They are either prophecies of the New Covenant (like Deut 30:6 ) or they are conditional, like Luke 1:50- 'And His mercy is on those who fear HIm from generation to generation.' God's mercy is indeed from generation to generation, but only towards those who fear Him, so it is only those who should be the subjects of baptism. 

You went on (concerning inference):-


> Good, so I don't need a specific command. I now expect you to drop that line of attack.



I have agreed several times that good and necessary inference may be used; but not in the teeth of repeated NT commands and examples of only repentant and believing adults being baptized.

You then wrote:-


> Actually, there are plenty of general rules. God *promises* that if children obey their parents then they will live long in the land. However, there have been children who are brats, but they live long. And, there have been obedient children who die early. So, generally, if you obey your mom and dad, you're not gonna drink "Raid."



So God's a liar then? Do you not understand the fifth commandment? If it depended upon me to keep it I should be dead already. I did not honour my parents as I should have; did you? Perfectly? All the time? However, praise the Lord, by my union with Christ, I have kept the commandment perfectly (Luke 2:51 ). And the land that the Lord has given me is a much better one than the land of Canaan. It is there, by God's grace, that I expect to live long.

Reference Heb 10, the Hebrew Christians were being tempted to return to Judaism. Therefore the writer warns them of the judgements that prevailed under the Old Covenant. However, there is no danger of anyone in the New Covenant coming under such judgment because,



> '"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD; I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them." Then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more"'


(Heb 10:6-7 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-15-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 7-16-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 15, 2005)

> Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought your rationale for baptizing your infants came from the circumcision of male infants in the OC. Now since we are told that the New Covenant will be 'not according to the Old', it would appear that you should be looking to what the New Covenant says instead of imposing the Old upon it.



Martin,
That all depends upon when the new covenant began; from a dispensational view point, it began at the last supper, from the covenantal, in Genesis.

The 'obscure' paper I suggested seemed applicable as somewhere in this thread, the transition came into question; I believe Matt's paper clearly defined the idea. 

Not to sidetrack the thread as I believe Paul is doing a fine job, but may I ask you, whom the warning passages in the book of Hebrews is to?


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 15, 2005)

Hi Scott,



> Martin,
> That all depends upon when the new covenant began; from a dispensational view point, it began at the last supper, from the covenantal, in Genesis.


The New Covenant is in fact the Everlasting Covenant and therefore begins in eternity (2Thes 2:13-14; Titus 1:2 etc). It is foreshadowed in the Covenants of Promise and fully revealed in the Gospel (Col 1:26 etc).

Hebrews 10 is written to Hebrew Christians (probably in Jerusalem) who were being tempted to return to Judaism. If they were to return thither, they would prove themselves no Christians at all and therefore subject to judgment (Rom 8:1 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 15, 2005)

> The New Covenant is in fact the Everlasting Covenant and therefore begins in eternity (2Thes 2:13-14; Titus 1:2 etc). It is foreshadowed in the Covenants of Promise and fully revealed in the Gospel (Col 1:26 etc).



.........and we were all elect before the foundation of the world; and Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. However, we were regenerated in time, as Christ was slain in time. Practically, when, in time, does the NC begin Martin?

The Col passage speaks in regards to the gentiles knowledge of the _mystery_. The OT Jew had this knowledge.

[Edited on 7-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 17, 2005)

Hello Paul,
We seem to be getting a little acrimonious, so I'll deal with just two of the points you raise:-

1. Abraham knew explicitly that Ishmael was not in the covenant, yet he still circumcised him. As it is written in Gen 17:18-19, 26:-


> And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said, "No! Sarah, your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him and with his descendants [or 'Seed'] after him"........ That very same day Abraham was circumcised, and his son, Ishmael.


First Abraham is told that Ishmael is not in the covenant, then he circumcises him. Your covenant theology has got to take that into account.

Quite rightly, you pointed me to Gal 3:16. The covenant is not with Isaac's descendants indiscriminately (as Esau could tell us), but only to those who are in Christ as is shown by Gal 3:29.


> And if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise



2. Next, let's look at Heb 10:30. You wrote:-


> I gave a valid argument, Martin. The people who trample under foot the Son of God, will be judged. God tells us that they will be judged with fire. He calls them, "His people." All times God refers to someone as "His people" are times that He views them as being in covenant with Him. If you can't rebut my argument then I'll assume you have no rebuttal but are acting like a dogmatic Papist, sound familar?



Acts 17:28-31:-


> For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your poets have said, 'For we are all His offspring.' Therefore since we.......


that is, Paul, the Athenians and the rest of humanity


> .........are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.


What is the makeup of the 'world' that God is going to judge? Is it not composed of those whom Paul has just referred to as 'His offspring'? Is there anyone in the world who does not owe his existence to God and cannot therefore be described as 'His people'?

But of course, there is a special people of God for whom there may be chastisement, but no ultimate condemnation. The writer to the Hebrews was quoting from Deut 32:36 which reads:-


> For the LORD will judge His people and have compassion on His servants, when He sees that their power is gone.


Of God's New Covenant people it is written:-


> Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.


Jer 31:34; Heb 10:17.

If the recipients of the letter were to apostatize, they would be proving themselves to be false believers and not partakers of the New Covenant.

But just in case there should be any doubt that those in the NC will persevere to salvation, the writer finishes this section of the letter by saying (Heb 10:29 ):-


> But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul



Amen!

From Tuesday night, I shall be away for two weeks, so it is likely that any further correspondence will have to wait until then.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > The New Covenant is in fact the Everlasting Covenant and therefore begins in eternity (2Thes 2:13-14; Titus 1:2 etc). It is foreshadowed in the Covenants of Promise and fully revealed in the Gospel (Col 1:26 etc).
> ...



I see nothing in Col 1:26 that suggests that it only has reference to the Gentiles. Perhaps you might also consider 1Peter 1:10-12? The Israelites certainly received adumbrations of the NC, as I said before, but the full revelation awaited the coming Of Christ.

But if you're asking, were the OT saints saved by faith in the coming Seed or Messiah, as He was foreshadowed progressively in the Covenants of Promise, then the answer is Yes.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-17-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 17, 2005)

Martin,
I am specifically asking you when chronologically the new covenant began?


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 17, 2005)

And I have told you: in eternity past.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 17, 2005)

Thank you for the interaction Martin. May the Lord bless you.


----------



## Peters (Jul 18, 2005)

> Please take off your covenantal blinders and start reading the Bible for what it is: ONE book . . . not 2. ONE covenant of grace, not 2. Children always have been, and always will be, included in the covenant along with their parents. Scripture is plain about that in both the OT and the NT.



Do all the Paedobaptists who have posted on this thread believe, as Joseph does, that both regenerate and unregenerate people are in the Covenant of Grace?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 18, 2005)

Absolutely!

The Larger Catechism states:

Q162: What is a sacrament? 
A162: A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church,[1] to signify, seal, and exhibit [2] unto those that are within the covenant of grace,[3] the benefits of his mediation;[4] to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces;[5] to oblige them to obedience;[6] to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another;[7] and to distinguish them from those that are without.[8] 

1. Gen. 17:7, 10; Exod. ch. 12; Matt. 26:26-28; 28:19
2. Rom. 4:11; I Cor. 11:24-25
3. Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48
4. Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16
5. Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:27
6. Rom. 6:3-4; I Cor. 10:21
7. Eph. 4:2-5; I Cor. 12:13
8. Eph. 2:11-12; Gen. 34:14

The Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter 28 states: 

Chapter XXVIII.
Of Baptism.

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(a) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(b) but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,(c) of his ingrafting into Christ,(d) of regeneration,(e) of remission of sins,(f) and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.(g) Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.(h)

(a) Matt. 28:19.
(b) I Cor. 12:13.
(c) Rom. 4:11 with Col. 2:11, 12.
(d) Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5.
(e) Tit. 3:5.
(f) Mark 1:4.
(g) Rom. 6:3, 4.
(h) Matt. 28:19, 20.




[Edited on 7-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 18, 2005)

There have always been both unregenerate and regenerate members of the CoG (Israel).


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 18, 2005)

Amazing.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 18, 2005)

Amazing indeed!
Paul,
1. You say that in Gen 17, Abraham is not told that Ishmael is not in the covenant. Gen 17:18-19:-


> And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before you!"
> Then God said, "No."


I understand that you believe that 'No' actually means 'Yes'. Let's leave it there.

2. With reference to Heb 10, I have shown you the following.

(a) In vs 16-17, God declares that under the New Covenant, He will remember the sins of His covenant people no more.

(b) In v30, which you are relying upon, the quotation, from Deut 32:36, is actually one of mercy and restoration.

(c) There is no people in the world who are not God's people, since He made them.

(d) The context of Heb 10:30 is a warning against returning to Judaism. The warning is therefore to those who would place themselves under the Mosaic Covenant, not to those under the New Covenant.

(e) As if to confirm all these points, the writer observes in v39 that he and his readers, 'Are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.' But of course; they are in the New Covenant.

It is clear that I am  here, so I think we may as well draw this exchange to an end.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 18, 2005)

Hello Marcos,

You asked,



> _Originally posted by Peters_
> 
> 
> > Please take off your covenantal blinders and start reading the Bible for what it is: ONE book . . . not 2. ONE covenant of grace, not 2. Children always have been, and always will be, included in the covenant along with their parents. Scripture is plain about that in both the OT and the NT.
> ...



Well, they have to, in order to jusify the inclusion of infants in the New Covenant. But interestingly, Question 31 of the WCF Larger Catechism seems to refute this:-



> Q. _With whom was the covenant of grace made?_
> A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.



I think all 1689 Confession Baptists could say, 'Amen!' to that, but it seems to contradict what Gabriel wrote on this thread inasmuch as there seems to be no room for the non-elect. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the WCF, and I'd be glad to hear someone explain this to me. I posted this earlier, but no one seemed to want to comment on it.

BTW, nice to meet another FIEC man! 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Peters (Jul 18, 2005)

Martin,

Yes, nice to meet you, brother. Were you at the last FIEC conference in Wales?

Paul,

Do you believe that both unregenerate and regenerate people are in the Covenant of Grace? Do you believe that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are identical?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 18, 2005)

Actually all we have to believe by faith and trust is the Word of God and His promises on the issue rather than attempt to live by sight profanely playing God by seeking "who is regenerate and who is unregenerate". 

One group clearly puts greater emphasis on faith and trust in the promise of God's own Word proceeding from Him and the Good News of Christ, while the other living by sight and the testimony of sinful men "must first see" and hope it is not faked. This much is crystal clear.

Acts 2:39, "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 

The Word of God is quite glorious. Nothing is as clear and simple as this, and should silence all doubts except those who impress upon the text what their system requires of it.

Given a choice I will believe Christ over any denomination. 

I'm certain this would be brought up:

Acts 2:40 - 41, "And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation! So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls."

But this later verse depends upon one's view, individualism or covenantal? The credo rendering of "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" would finish up by saying, "...and those who only cognizantly understood these words came - thus the Europeans leaving all their children in Europe swore oaths of citizenship came to and became Americans."

It is odd that Christ put the direction and emphasis of adults becoming as little children, yet credo theology puts the direction and emphasis on children becoming as adults - who are much more deceptive and easily professing falsely and without little effort can fake external works and "good" deeds.

A covenant sets up a relationship. Even in the Covenant of Works the breakers of the covenant attempt to "leave" or break the covenant. But when they do, as a covenant of God's Who is all things, they receive the consequences of the breaking.

Q31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A31. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed. 

I'll let greater minds offer an answer but I'll give it a try:

WCF 31 seems to be speaking of both the Covenant of Redemption, made with Christ as the second Adam, without differentiation as to the Covenant of Grace. Because Christ didn't need grace (CoG) but rather He fulfilled what Adam failed in the Covenant of Works (AS the second Adam), thus it speaks more to the elect.

L


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

So, again, Martin: Do you believe the WCF contradicts itself and that they have no reason to practice paedobaptism becuase of that statement? Do you believe they intended that phrase to mean what you think it means?


----------



## Peters (Jul 19, 2005)

> Q31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> A31. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.
> 
> I'll let greater minds offer an answer but I'll give it a try:
> ...



Do the rest of you paedobaptists believe, as Larry does, that the Covenant of Redemption was made with Christ as the Second Adam?


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 19, 2005)

Well, Gabriel,
I'm interested to know what *you* think it means.
After all, it's your confession, not mine.

It doesn't actually seem to be terribly complicated 

Hi Marcos.
Yes, I was at Pwllelhi. Great ministry!
I didn't see you there! 

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 19, 2005)

Larry wrote:-


> Acts 2:39, "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
> 
> The Word of God is quite glorious. Nothing is as clear and simple as this, and should silence all doubts except those who impress upon the text what their system requires of it.



Amen! Glorious, clear and simple it certainly is. Tell me, Larry, what is the promise referred to? Verse 38 might help you.



> Given a choice I will believe Christ over any denomination.



Amen again! That's why I don't belong to a denomination, but to an independent evangelical church.

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

*From the Sum of Saving Knowledge in the Westminster Divines:*


> The Sum of Saving Knowledge is this:
> 
> The woeful condition which all men are in by nature, through breaking of the covenant of works.
> The remedy provided for the elect in Jesus Christ by the covenant of grace.
> ...



Reprobates can and do take part in the covenant of grace - the New Covenant - but not with any spiritual blessings. The Spirit of God is said to work in the reprobate in the same manner it works in the elect, but for different purposes - a purpose we can't and never will understand. "Many are called, but few are chosen."

This is the authorial intent behind the WCF LC Q#31. Enough misrepresentation, Martin. Thanks and good day.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 19, 2005)

Larger Catechism Q 31:-

Q31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A31. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed. 

Gabriel wrote:-


> Reprobates can and do take part in the covenant of grace - the New Covenant - but not with any spiritual blessings. The Spirit of God is said to work in the reprobate in the same manner it works in the elect, but for different purposes - a purpose we can't and never will understand. "Many are called, but few are chosen."
> 
> This is the authorial intent behind the WCF LC Q#31.



Gabriel, what you have written is in total contradiction to what the Catechism says, and with no explanation as to why this might be. This leads me to three conclusions:-

1. You actually haven't got a clue as to what Larger Catechism Q 31 means.

2. You are trying to cover this ignorance by cutting and pasting a pile of verbiage from the S.S.K. which nowhere mentions LC 31.

3. You have a nerve accusing me of not answering questions as you did on the exegetical forum, and an even bigger nerve accusing me of misrepresentation as you have here.

Thank YOU and good day.

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

. . .


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

The authors of the Westminster Catechism contradicted themselves, then, in your opinion?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

> I do not believe that the NC and the CoG are *identical.*



Is the NC an administration of the CoG in your view?


----------



## Robin (Jul 19, 2005)

Hey Gabe,

It might help if you lose the idea of the OC being abolished at 70 AD. It was not - but before, during Christ's works.

As impressive as a physical destruction of a building may be, what is it compared to the signs of Christ's crucifixion; resurrection; ascension and Pentecost?

Why were there signs of the end of the age in Matt. 27? The temple curtain torn; darkness, earthquake, rocks split; the dead raised? Get it?

Don't spend too much time on the _Gentry Roundabout_.

:bigsmile:

Robin

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 19, 2005)

Hi Paul,
I'm in the middle of packing for my holiday, so I can't reply line by line.

However, you are clinging to Heb 10:30 like a drowning man clinging to a piece of timber. But it won't take the weight you're putting on it. First of all, it can't be considered outside the context of the rest of the chapter, especially vs 17 and 39, which clearly speak of the security of those in the NC. Secondly, v30 is a warning to these Hebrews not to return to the OC. *That* is the reason for the OC quotation. 'There is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus', but if they were to go back to Judaism, they would prove that they were never in the New Covenant and be liable to the threatenings of the Old.

When I get back, if you want to discuss the whole chapter in context, I shall be delighted to do so with you.

Martin


----------



## Robin (Jul 19, 2005)

Ok...I'll dazzle you guys with another question....


As to circumcision, why cut THERE? (!)

Seriously, do you suppose it might enlighten us about what circumcision is all about and how it relates to baptism?

Why THERE?

(This question was posed by my teacher, Dr. Kim Riddlebarger.)

r.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 19, 2005)

> Hey Gabe,
> 
> It might help if you lose the idea of the OC being abolished at 70 AD. It was not - but before, during Christ's works.


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Ok...I'll dazzle you guys with another question....
> 
> 
> ...



*Excellent* question, Robin!

Might it have something to do with a coming Seed?

Martin


----------



## Peters (Jul 19, 2005)

Paul, thanks for answering my questions. Please permit me a few more. 



> I'm not alone in this mind you, but I hold that there are elect and non-elect in the *new covenant,* not the CoG.



Do you believe that the NC is a fuller, brighter administration of the COG than the Abrahamic Covenant was?



> I do not believe that the NC and the CoG are *identical.*



What is the sign for COG membership? How do you know if someone is in this Covenant?


----------



## Peters (Jul 19, 2005)

> 1. The New Covenant is more glorious, as Scripture teaches.
> 2. The only evidence we have that someone is elect is the fruit they produce, from our ectypal perspective



Paul, I worded the first question the way I did for a particular reason. I would like to know if you think the NC is a *fuller* administration of the COG than the Abrahamic Covenant. That is, does it reveal more clearly the COG than the Abrahamic Covenant did? Is this what makes it "œmore glorious"?


If this is so, then is it not still according to a covenant of lesser light that you apply the sign? If the temporal, historical covenants are shedding more clarity on the COG as redemptive history moves forward, why not only apply the sign to those who are in the COG (according to the evidence) since it is the reality of the COG that the NC is anticipating?


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 19, 2005)

Paul wrote:-


> Do what you wish, Martin. Calvin, henry, et al. interpret that verse in the way I do. So this is nothing new.



Calvin does not misuse this verse the way you do. Actually, some of his comments are more in my favour.


> God is said to rise to judge His people in the sense that He separates the godly from the hypocrits (Ps. 145:20 ). Similarly Ps. 125:3, where the prophet is speaking about the extermination of hypocrits SO THAT THEY DO NOT BOAST ANY MORE THAT THEY BELONG TO THE CHURCH.........



Splendid stuff! Perhaps if he'd lived a bit longer, Calvin might have become a Baptist 

Cheerio,

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 19, 2005)

If no one has any issues with this, I am closing this thread as it has proven to be _overdone_.

:fork removed:

[Edited on 7-19-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------

