# The Olive Tree and Baptists



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 17, 2017)

So how do baptists understand Romans 11? What are the gentiles being cut off from? How can this be anything but the visible\invisible church distinction? Breaking covenant that is.

If it means salvation, we know salvation can't be lost.


----------



## brandonadams (Dec 17, 2017)

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/the-olive-tree/


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 4, 2018)

Brandon,

I do have a special interest in this passage because two months ago I read it and saw continuity between the two covenants and the membership, and terms of how one gets in and gets broken off.

Your post concludes by stating that no one in the NC can be broken off, so the scenario is hypothetical, and yet it should still cause fear and humility. Don’t you think the conclusion of your post pretty much blunts the force of the warning? The example of the Jews being cause for fear and humility for something that will not and cannot happen?

Also, the impression I took is that God was cleaning house of all unbelief in the breaking off of the Jewish branches because the NC was introduced. Would t it be a simpler explanation to say that God at last brought the final curse He promised in the Pentateuch?


----------



## brandonadams (Jan 4, 2018)

Hi Harley,

Thank you for the questions. I will send you a PM


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 4, 2018)

brandonadams said:


> Hi Harley,
> 
> Thank you for the questions. I will send you a PM


Does it have to be private, lol? I'm interested in knowing as well.


----------



## brandonadams (Jan 4, 2018)

Sorry Ryan, I prefer not to discuss 1689 Federalism in this forum. Feel free to leave a comment on the blog post and we can discuss there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jan 5, 2018)

brandonadams said:


> Sorry Ryan, I prefer not to discuss 1689 Federalism in this forum.


And yet, by linking your blog, you are able to indirectly "discuss" (read: promote) your views without entertaining debate here. Seems a bit improper. Better to either engage on this forum (as you did in the past) or simply abstain altogether if you can't be bothered to do so, I would think.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So how do baptists understand Romans 11? What are the gentiles being cut off from? How can this be anything but the visible\invisible church distinction? Breaking covenant that is.
> 
> If it means salvation, we know salvation can't be lost.


I would understand Chapter 11 as Paul stating to us that the elect Israelite under the OC were part of what we would now term spiritual Israel, and those among them who were not of faith were cut off as not being really saved, and that under the NC now, we gentiles are through and by faith in same Messiah now seen as being included in the Spiritual Israel of God.
Only only those of faith in Yeshua are to be seen as being part of that group, as to God there is but one group within the Church and NC, saved, but to us there will be both wheat and tares.


----------



## Jonathan95 (Jan 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I would understand Chapter 11 as Paul stating to us that the elect Israelite under the OC were part of what we would now term spiritual Israel, and those among them who were not of faith were cut off as not being really saved, and that under the NC now, we gentiles are through and by faith in same Messiah now seen as being included in the Spiritual Israel of God.
> Only only those of faith in Yeshua are to be seen as being part of that group, as to God there is but one group within the Church and NC, saved, but to us there will be both wheat and tares.




I agree. Verse 17 mentions the natural branches (Unbelieving Jews) being broken off and the wild olive shoots (Gentiles like me) being grafted in.

Verse 22 says that if God didn't spare the Jews, what would make me think that he wouldn't cut me out just as He did to them? I must continue in his kindness otherwise I'll be cut off. 

These verses are telling me the same thing as 2 Cor 13:5:

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test?"

and a gentile like myself being "cut off" would simply prove this verse:

1 John 2:19

"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 5, 2018)

Jonathan95 said:


> I must continue in his kindness otherwise I'll be cut off.


Here is where I'm hung up. If in the new covenant, none can be cut off, why would God even use such language? It just sounds like we can still break covenant with God. Hebrews even talks about spurning the blood of the covenant which sanctified us. How could a tare be sanctified by God unless there are some real relational factors involved?

I see what you're saying and it's laid out clearly, I guess I just don't perceive the Bible that way.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald (Jan 5, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So how do baptists understand Romans 11? What are the gentiles being cut off from? How can this be anything but the visible\invisible church distinction? Breaking covenant that is.
> 
> If it means salvation, we know salvation can't be lost.


Ryan, when Paul wrote, "Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off." (Romans 11:22), he was warning of the consequences of unbelief. In the following verse, speaking of the Jews, Paul writes, "And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again" (v. 23). Romans 11 is really about faith, not national origin. As Paul wrote in Romans 9:4 about Israel, "to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the _temple_ service and the promises". Israel had a rich heritage and tradition. They were the people of the covenant. The nation lost its standing because of unbelief, but we know from scripture that God's true people are one of faith; members of a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6).

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jonathan95 (Jan 6, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Here is where I'm hung up. If in the new covenant, none can be cut off, why would God even use such language? It just sounds like we can still break covenant with God.



I understand your frustration in dealing with different verses that seem to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. This is a webpage that deals with those verses in Hebrews.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 6, 2018)

Herald said:


> Romans 11 is really about faith, not national origin.


I think I see what you're saying. But if this is about faith, how would you as a baptist say this is referring to people being cut off from salvation? I would think you as a Baptist would be the first to say that the NC is perfect and that one with faith cannot be cut off. Am I misunderstanding?


----------



## Jonathan95 (Jan 6, 2018)

It's like God telling you to watch your step or else you're out. God says that to each of us. Now, if we're elect, then we won't actually lose our salvation BUT, we'll be sure to do what we can to prove to ourselves and others that we are true Christians and that we are a part of the church universal. This is a threat to Apostates who will inevitably fall away from the faith. They WILL be cut off from the church in the end.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 6, 2018)

It looks to me like the understanding of Romans 11 is going to be framed in light of what you believe about the covenants. If the NC continues from the AC, then unbelievers may be external members who are cut off. But if you believe the NC is not a continuation, then the branches which are cut off are ones that did not belong there.

What is the tree, and what is the sap? It’s apparent that both the OT and NT church had it. Is the sap for those living at the time of Moses the same as we have now, and is the tree the same, or did they alter?

As for the Israelites being broken off because of unbelief, the Baptistic view of some seems to be that because of the coming of the NC that Israel was broken off for unbelief. However, hadn’t God already cut off branches multiple times in Israel’s history, particularly with Hebrews saying those in the desert under Moses did not enter because of unbelief? How is that different? And what of the many threats of being cut off, and executions of those such as Achan, the exiles, the enemy invasions, all of which God uses to chastise and even cut out the unfaithful? Isn’t the breaking in Romans 11 more of the same?

On the Paedo side, Brandon’s article argues that the branches broken off were natural branches, and he has some quotes from Calvin and others. The identity of the church and the identity of the nation of Israel seem to run quite close together. Thoughts?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 6, 2018)

Romans 11 is warning the Gentiles at large not to boast themselves against the Jews (and we see this all the time in history!), because the Gentiles' hope of salvation is rooted in the olive tree of Jewry. Salvation came to the Gentiles through the Jewish Messiah, and the People of God before Messiah were largely Jews. Now, God used the means of Jewish unbelief to persecute the early NT church, and scatter them among the Gentiles with the message of salvation. But the Gentiles are not to say: "We're better than them there Jews, because they killed Jesus! Now we're the top of the heap!" Again, have we not seen that played out in history?
So I see the olive tree as not speaking of individuals, but as groups _writ large. _Don't boast of America having great religious light as opposed to those unbelieving Israelites: God shed great light on America, but can withdraw the light and shine it effectually where He will.
So the whole thing, in my understanding, is warning against slamming the Jewish nation, since it was only through them that we have the hope of salvation.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 6, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I think I see what you're saying. But if this is about faith, how would you as a baptist say this is referring to people being cut off from salvation? I would think you as a Baptist would be the first to say that the NC is perfect and that one with faith cannot be cut off. Am I misunderstanding?


Think of this in the same way God warns us in Hebrews 6 to be found among the saved, and not to be shown in the end as being false professing Christians only in Hebrews Chapter 6.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 10, 2018)

I will go ahead and throw out an answer to my own question. As I said, I have a special interest in the meaning of this passage because it is the one that got me to rethink my views on baptism and the covenants.

The tree in the whole is the Abrahamic Covenant. The branches represent visible membership, and the sap is the promises in the AC.

God came to Abraham and promised to be God to Him and his descendants (physical and spiritual). “To be God to you and your offspring after you.” In that is contained all the blessings of salvation—justification, sanctification, mortification, cleansing and forgiveness, and fellowship with God (all of which are represented by circumcision). Said another way, “This is eternal life, that they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” God made a first move and bound the people to Himself, and promised to them in a special, personal way the benefits of salvation by faith, and He started by making Himself their God and claiming them as His people. How God was God to Abraham, He would also be to Abraham’s children. If these are not what God was offering, God has offered a substandard form of relationship to Abraham and his children which would not delight a spiritually-minded man. And we know Abraham’s eyes were not on the physical land, but the heavenly city. That’s why I have such trouble now with the idea that the primary purpose was land and a physical people, and that circumcision is just a national mark, and the Jews were mainly there to bear the Messiah. That doesn’t live up to what God says, “to be God to you and your offspring after you.” But the blessings of the AC are the fatness of the root.

The NT church is not feeding off of any different promises. What was promised to Abraham in that covenant is promised to us; and the church today is not a different entity, but the same one. And God deals with all members the same way; if they were within the visible church in the OT but prove to be fruitless they will be broken off. The same thing is happening in the OT, and on the same grounds.

As I think through this, the most natural explanation seems to be that the membership constitution of the administration has not changed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 10, 2018)

Harley said:


> I will go ahead and throw out an answer to my own question. As I said, I have a special interest in the meaning of this passage because it is the one that got me to rethink my views on baptism and the covenants.
> 
> The tree in the whole is the Abrahamic Covenant. The branches represent visible membership, and the sap is the promises in the AC.
> 
> ...


My understanding of the OC was that there were some who were able to partake of those promised physical blessings due to obeying God, but did not mean automatically that they were saved, but only redeemed are included under the NC itself.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 10, 2018)

Harley said:


> I will go ahead and throw out an answer to my own question. As I said, I have a special interest in the meaning of this passage because it is the one that got me to rethink my views on baptism and the covenants.
> 
> The tree in the whole is the Abrahamic Covenant. The branches represent visible membership, and the sap is the promises in the AC.
> 
> ...


But the primary purpose was not land and a physical people! God had his saints among the OT throng--even a pretty large remnant in Elijah's time. But the land, the sacrifices, the types and shadows were speaking of a better time, when the Mediator of a new covenant would fulfill all those types, and then reign spiritually in the hearts of His true people, the redeemed of the Lord. Not redeemed from physical slavery in Egypt, but truly redeemed from the Egypt of their sins. In that day the covenant would be an unbreakable covenant, because there would be no unbelievers in the covenant--all who were actual members of this New Covenant would be regenerate. Why do you long to return to the types and shadows of the old covenant, wherein membership did not vouchsafe eternal life? Where the sign of the covenant applied so often meant nothing, salvifically speaking? Where you could be circumcised in the flesh but not in the heart?
The Mediator has instituted a New Covenant, Harley: one in which membership DOES guarantee eternal life. One in which membership is by the will and good pleasure of God. As it says: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 11, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> But the primary purpose was not land and a physical people! God had his saints among the OT throng--even a pretty large remnant in Elijah's time. But the land, the sacrifices, the types and shadows were speaking of a better time, when the Mediator of a new covenant would fulfill all those types, and then reign spiritually in the hearts of His true people, the redeemed of the Lord. Not redeemed from physical slavery in Egypt, but truly redeemed from the Egypt of their sins. In that day the covenant would be an unbreakable covenant, because there would be no unbelievers in the covenant--all who were actual members of this New Covenant would be regenerate. Why do you long to return to the types and shadows of the old covenant, wherein membership did not vouchsafe eternal life? Where the sign of the covenant applied so often meant nothing, salvifically speaking? Where you could be circumcised in the flesh but not in the heart?
> The Mediator has instituted a New Covenant, Harley: one in which membership DOES guarantee eternal life. One in which membership is by the will and good pleasure of God. As it says: "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."



I had thought all these things myself, but then I realized the abrogation of the OC in Hebrews 8 is not the abrogation of the AC. God tells us which covenant is the one in which it was types and shadows, and that was the one which was formed when God brought Israel out of Egypt, the Mosaic Covenant (MC = OC there)—not the one formed 430 years prior with Abraham. You see in Hebrews that the OC and its types are gone, but Abraham’s covenant and promises are more relevant than ever.

But the comment on circumcision is where there is a great diversion. As I examine circumcision I see that it meant to Abraham imputed righteousness (which Paul says), forgiveness of sins, a new life, and fellowship with God. Thus I conclude that it is not empty of salvific meaning—quite the opposite. Every Jew after Abraham ought to have viewed that cut in the flesh as a seal of the promise--that like Abraham, they too could be righteous by faith. So, circumcision preached the Gospel of free grace and it’s benevits. It wasn’t a salvation that would eventually be available, but one they could have here and now like Abraham did.

Brother, do you believe God had a way of winnowing out the unfaithful in the OC times? If so, was it really acceptable to God for there to be unbelievers in the covenant community?

I’ll say more if I have time. God bless brother.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 11, 2018)

Here, though, is where circumcision differs from baptism: it was a physical thing that visibly (well, withing the limits of modesty), distinguished those descended from Abraham from the heathen nations. They were uncircumcised--pretty easy to verify. God began with Abraham to paint a picture of a people apart, separated unto himself, that couldn't easily mingle with the heathen. But the picture was not the real thing, though some of those who were involved in that picture (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.) were truly partakers. "Circumcised in the heart."
In the NC, God's people is truly a people apart--not apart by living behind closed borders, but apart in the way they live and behave even though living among the heathen like wheat among tares. The AC is still, I believe, in force--but in a better way; a more real way; the way that the administration of circumcision was only an earnest of. So we who are Christ's are circumcised in the heart, but that is not a work of man but of God. And baptism is a visible testimony that that real circumcision--the one that really matters--has been performed by a sovereign work of grace.
But let me ask this: it keeps being stated that baptism testifies that saving grace is available to the person baptized if he will receive it. But don't we agree that saving grace is available to all who believe in Christ, whether previously baptized of not?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 12, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Here, though, is where circumcision differs from baptism: it was a physical thing that visibly (well, withing the limits of modesty), distinguished those descended from Abraham from the heathen nations. They were uncircumcised--pretty easy to verify. God began with Abraham to paint a picture of a people apart, separated unto himself, that couldn't easily mingle with the heathen. But the picture was not the real thing, though some of those who were involved in that picture (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.) were truly partakers. "Circumcised in the heart."
> In the NC, God's people is truly a people apart--not apart by living behind closed borders, but apart in the way they live and behave even though living among the heathen like wheat among tares. The AC is still, I believe, in force--but in a better way; a more real way; the way that the administration of circumcision was only an earnest of. So we who are Christ's are circumcised in the heart, but that is not a work of man but of God. And baptism is a visible testimony that that real circumcision--the one that really matters--has been performed by a sovereign work of grace.
> But let me ask this: it keeps being stated that baptism testifies that saving grace is available to the person baptized if he will receive it. But don't we agree that saving grace is available to all who believe in Christ, whether previously baptized of not?


I thought that the saving grace of the NC has already been applied towards the person who undergoes the rite now then?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 12, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I thought that the saving grace of the NC has already been applied towards the person who undergoes the rite now then?


Please rephrase--I don't understand what you said or asked. Or whether it was which.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 13, 2018)

Harley said:


> I will go ahead and throw out an answer to my own question. As I said, I have a special interest in the meaning of this passage because it is the one that got me to rethink my views on baptism and the covenants.
> 
> The tree in the whole is the Abrahamic Covenant. The branches represent visible membership, and the sap is the promises in the AC.
> 
> ...


Allow me to have one more crack at this, since in pondering it I recalled something that hasn't been mentioned. Because of the figurative language the Bible uses, we can't take every reference to children to mean "The immediate physical descendants of every individual". When God speaks to the nation of Israel about them, their children, and their children's children, He doesn't always mean the physical offspring of the individual readers. He means the heirs of Israel as a whole: the heirs of His people. So Isaiah 60:4, speaking of the Gentiles receiving the Gospel, says, "...thy sons shall come from far..." It's figurative language using the picture of a family to express a spiritual reality. Nations are often referred to in this way in the OT prophets "Virgin daughter of Babylon" "Shout, oh Daughter of Jerusalem" &ct. 
This is the same way in which I am now a descendant of Abraham without having proceeded from his loins. An attempt to make a strict literal interpretation of figurative language always leads to confusion at best, and at it's worst has given the world the pernicious error of Dispensationalism.
Now, I'm not accusing anyone here of being dispensational, but only pointing out where getting too literal will lead.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 13, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Allow me to have one more crack at this, since in pondering it I recalled something that hasn't been mentioned. Because of the figurative language the Bible uses, we can't take every reference to children to mean "The immediate physical descendants of every individual". When God speaks to the nation of Israel about them, their children, and their children's children, He doesn't always mean the physical offspring of the individual readers. He means the heirs of Israel as a whole: the heirs of His people. So Isaiah 60:4, speaking of the Gentiles receiving the Gospel, says, "...thy sons shall come from far..." It's figurative language using the picture of a family to express a spiritual reality. Nations are often referred to in this way in the OT prophets "Virgin daughter of Babylon" "Shout, oh Daughter of Jerusalem" &ct.
> This is the same way in which I am now a descendant of Abraham without having proceeded from his loins. An attempt to make a strict literal interpretation of figurative language always leads to confusion at best, and at it's worst has given the world the pernicious error of Dispensationalism.
> Now, I'm not accusing anyone here of being dispensational, but only pointing out where getting too literal will lead.



I do have thoughts on this, but would you be willing to move this over to the “Finer Thoughts on the New Covenant” thread since we are already discussing this issue there?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Please rephrase--I don't understand what you said or asked. Or whether it was which.


I was just saying that there is no saving grace being imparted in the water baptism itself, so those who would be taking that rite would be the ones now actually under the NC. the saved in Christ. One must be saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit before taking the water baptism.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Allow me to have one more crack at this, since in pondering it I recalled something that hasn't been mentioned. Because of the figurative language the Bible uses, we can't take every reference to children to mean "The immediate physical descendants of every individual". When God speaks to the nation of Israel about them, their children, and their children's children, He doesn't always mean the physical offspring of the individual readers. He means the heirs of Israel as a whole: the heirs of His people. So Isaiah 60:4, speaking of the Gentiles receiving the Gospel, says, "...thy sons shall come from far..." It's figurative language using the picture of a family to express a spiritual reality. Nations are often referred to in this way in the OT prophets "Virgin daughter of Babylon" "Shout, oh Daughter of Jerusalem" &ct.
> This is the same way in which I am now a descendant of Abraham without having proceeded from his loins. An attempt to make a strict literal interpretation of figurative language always leads to confusion at best, and at it's worst has given the world the pernicious error of Dispensationalism.
> Now, I'm not accusing anyone here of being dispensational, but only pointing out where getting too literal will lead.


The offspring of Abraham would be those who shared in believing in the God of Israel, while not needing to be an actual Israelite.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 13, 2018)

Harley said:


> I do have thoughts on this, but would you be willing to move this over to the “Finer Thoughts on the New Covenant” thread since we are already discussing this issue there?


Perfectly willing, if only I knew how. Perhaps a mod can do it for us.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The offspring of Abraham would be those who shared in believing in the God of Israel, while not needing to be an actual Israelite.


Exactly. Or you could say: those believing in the Christ of the God of Abraham are the true Israel.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 13, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Perfectly willing, if only I knew how. Perhaps a mod can do it for us.



I’ll probably just quote it when I get time to reply.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 14, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Here, though, is where circumcision differs from baptism: it was a physical thing that visibly (well, withing the limits of modesty), distinguished those descended from Abraham from the heathen nations. They were uncircumcised--pretty easy to verify. God began with Abraham to paint a picture of a people apart, separated unto himself, that couldn't easily mingle with the heathen. But the picture was not the real thing, though some of those who were involved in that picture (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.) were truly partakers. "Circumcised in the heart."
> In the NC, God's people is truly a people apart--not apart by living behind closed borders, but apart in the way they live and behave even though living among the heathen like wheat among tares. The AC is still, I believe, in force--but in a better way; a more real way; the way that the administration of circumcision was only an earnest of. So we who are Christ's are circumcised in the heart, but that is not a work of man but of God. And baptism is a visible testimony that that real circumcision--the one that really matters--has been performed by a sovereign work of grace.
> But let me ask this: it keeps being stated that baptism testifies that saving grace is available to the person baptized if he will receive it. But don't we agree that saving grace is available to all who believe in Christ, whether previously baptized of not?



The Jews weren't the only ones who circumcised. Maybe there was some surprise that they circumcised infants, but it wasn't unique to them. Some African tribes circumcise as a rite of passage, and it was practiced in the European world during Jewish times.

But there's not much here you say against circumcision that you wouldn't also have to say against baptism.

Was circumcision physical? So is baptism. 
Did circumcision mark out a holy people? So does baptism.
Did it separate them from heathen? See above, but so does baptism.
Was circumcision a work of man? So is baptism.
Was circumcision not the reality? Neither is baptism.
Did all who were circumcised have the reality? Neither do all those baptized.
Is baptism a sign of what has been done to the person baptized? So was circumcision to Abraham, and any Gentile wanting to join himself to the community (Psalm 50:16-23).

Neither did the Israelites live behind close borders. Foreigners were free to eat the Passover to the Lord so long as they were willing to be circumcised and be faithful to God. God said plainly that there would be one law for both natural Israelites and foreigners, and the foreigners were not to think they were lesser members because they were not Jews (Exod 12:48-49, Isaiah 56:3-5). Few came in, but they were welcome when they did.

As to the Abrahamic Covenant, I agree with you that it is in force in a much greater way, which is everything I'm saying in the "Finer Points of the New Covenant" thread. I guess we disagree on how.

You mentioned that God's true people would be marked as separate not by living behind closed borders, but by real holy living. So, my question from my post: Do you believe God had a way of winnowing out the unfaithful in the OC times? If so, was it really acceptable to God for there to be unbelievers in the covenant community?

And the answer to that has much to do with why I view the olive tree as the visible church.

And to answer your question, yes.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 15, 2018)

Harley said:


> The Jews weren't the only ones who circumcised. Maybe there was some surprise that they circumcised infants, but it wasn't unique to them. Some African tribes circumcise as a rite of passage, and it was practiced in the European world during Jewish times.
> 
> But there's not much here you say against circumcision that you wouldn't also have to say against baptism.
> 
> ...


These objections show that you are now grasping at straws.
So what if circumcision was practiced elsewhere? The Jews called their enemies "the uncircumcised." It was clearly given to distinguish. Baptism was also practiced elsewhere in the NT ("why then do they baptize for the dead?"), but that does not negate it as a sign.
And yes, baptism is physical, but it's physical consequences are not permanent: water dries, but foreskins don't grow back. One of the failings of the Presbyterian system is that they equate too closely the two signs, when there are numerous differences between the two. Circumcision didn't signify being "buried with Christ, and raised to walk in newness of life"; it was not applied to females; it was a sign of the old administration, a mere type of the better sign to come, the sign of the New Covenant, founded on better promises, which promised better things!
I fail to see how neither circumcision nor baptism being the reality negates that one is different from the other. And baptism is NOT to be applied (say we Baptists) to those who do not have the reality.
Moving on, I never said the Isrealites lived behind closed borders; I said that their dietary and purity laws prevented their mingling with the heathen. Even today a Kosher Jew cannot attend a regular cocktail party--they are visibly separate and different. That was the point of OT Israel--a physical picture of a people palpably different and separate, signifying a NT people that while living physically mingled among the nations, are visibly different in their habits and behavior.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking with the question of whether God had a way of winnowing out the unfaithful. Are you asking whether I believe that God knows the hearts of men? Obviously God knew the regenerate--it was He who had elected them in eternity past! And of course it was within God's sovereignty that not every member of the OT covenant community was regenerate. Surely you don't think that God intended that every Isrealite born should come to faith, and that His intentions failed millions of times? That's pretty ludicrous.
I don't know why people stumble at the thought that God's covenant people in the past were typifying the present covenant people, and that the imperfect type has given way to the better thing, and that all will be perfected a the last day, when all of God's elect--not everyone who was circumcised or baptized, but everyone whom God regenerated, and only those--will be with Him in glory, and follow the Lamb whithersoever He goes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 15, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> all who were actual members of this New Covenant would be regenerate. Why do you long to return to the types and shadows of the old covenant, wherein membership did not vouchsafe eternal life?



How do you understand passages like Hewbrews 10:
“26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, *who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified*, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance _belongeth_ unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 _It is_ a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Also, Can you explain the type and anti-type of covenantal status? You called covenantal status a “type and shadow”.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 15, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> These objections show that you are now grasping at straws.
> So what if circumcision was practiced elsewhere? The Jews called their enemies "the uncircumcised." It was clearly given to distinguish. Baptism was also practiced elsewhere in the NT ("why then do they baptize for the dead?"), but that does not negate it as a sign.
> And yes, baptism is physical, but it's physical consequences are not permanent: water dries, but foreskins don't grow back. One of the failings of the Presbyterian system is that they equate too closely the two signs, when there are numerous differences between the two. Circumcision didn't signify being "buried with Christ, and raised to walk in newness of life"; it was not applied to females; it was a sign of the old administration, a mere type of the better sign to come, the sign of the New Covenant, founded on better promises, which promised better things!
> I fail to see how neither circumcision nor baptism being the reality negates that one is different from the other. And baptism is NOT to be applied (say we Baptists) to those who do not have the reality.
> ...



Brother, didn't you argue the weakness of circumcision from the bases that I listed? At the very least, it was a physical sign pointing to a spiritual reality, but just being a picture? In all the things you mentioned, you must then cripple the force of baptism, if not negate it as necessary. Why not just say, "I don't need baptism because the spiritual realities are far greater than the symbol that represents them, baptism doesn't effect anything by itself, and the only testimony the world needs that I have been been washed, united to Christ, died to sin, and made live to righteousness are my faith, love and good works"? 

You did talk about Israel living behind closed borders but said nothing about dietary laws, so the only connection I could make was the relative exclusion of Gentiles. That's how it sounded anyway, but ok. And you don't want to argue from modern Jewish practice. They don't even practice their Passover according to the Torah (eg. they don't go to Jerusalem, they allow uncircumcised Gentiles to observe or partake without asking personal questions, etc.).

My question is basically, was God okay with spiritual uncircumcision in the covenant community, and did He do anything about it when it occurred? Did God punish only for external acts, or did he punish for internal acts as well?

Or, here's a roundabout way to get to the answer (forgive my anachronistic terminology): were Gentile males coming in required to have a credible profession of faith before being given entrance into the covenant community?

Again, bringing this back around, this has to do with my view on the olive tree.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 16, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> How do you understand passages like Hewbrews 10:
> “26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, *who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified*, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance _belongeth_ unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 _It is_ a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
> 
> Also, Can you explain the type and anti-type of covenantal status? You called covenantal status a “type and shadow”.


Hi Andrew,
I see it as rejecting Jesus as Messiah even though knowing that He is the only way to God. Whatever it means to have been sanctified in this context, doesn't mean he was saved and then becomes un-saved.
The Reformation Heritage Bible comments here: "From the context we can learn that the author means 'the sin of apostacy'. Having made some profession upon instruction...Those who apostatize from the blood of Christ have left themselves with no further remedy for sins."
This then has nothing to do with infant baptism, since the baptized child has not yet been instructed or is capable of making a profession. Everyone, paedo-baptized or not, who makes a profession (obviously a spurious one), who knows that Jesus in the only way to God, and who scorns to follow Him, is under this indictment.

As to your second question: Being physically born into the Old Covenant was a picture of being spiritually born into the new. How can we understand the meaning of 'new birth' if we haven't seen a ton of natural birth? Jesus' words to Nicodemus were telling him that though he had been physically born, he was still not yet alive unto God--he needed a New Birth. And since this New Covenant in called the "Kingdom of God" by it's mediator, who says you must be born again to see it, the sign of the New Covenant is to be applied only to those born--born again--into it.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 16, 2018)

Harley said:


> Brother, didn't you argue the weakness of circumcision from the bases that I listed? At the very least, it was a physical sign pointing to a spiritual reality, but just being a picture? In all the things you mentioned, you must then cripple the force of baptism, if not negate it as necessary. Why not just say, "I don't need baptism because the spiritual realities are far greater than the symbol that represents them, baptism doesn't effect anything by itself, and the only testimony the world needs that I have been been washed, united to Christ, died to sin, and made live to righteousness are my faith, love and good works"?
> 
> You did talk about Israel living behind closed borders but said nothing about dietary laws, so the only connection I could make was the relative exclusion of Gentiles. That's how it sounded anyway, but ok. And you don't want to argue from modern Jewish practice. They don't even practice their Passover according to the Torah (eg. they don't go to Jerusalem, they allow uncircumcised Gentiles to observe or partake without asking personal questions, etc.).
> 
> ...


I must ask then: what force to you think Baptism has? Does it add any salvation to the regenerate person who approaches the waters of baptism? Does it make the child baptized closer to being saved? I hope you don't believe that sort of rubbish. Friend, it is nothing but a sign--it cannot confer saving grace, since it is something man does, and only God can save.
You ask, why not say, "I don't need baptism because the spiritual realities are greater than the symbol?" Because Our Lord in His wisdom was pleased to give us visible, tangible sacraments, knowing our frame, remembering that we are dust. Beyond that I cannot go in searching out the mind of God. But I can obey what he commands.

But it seems now to me that you are arguing not as someone who is on the fence, deciding whether credo or paedo, but as a hardened paedobaptist. I'm afraid I can't really make things clearer: I've explained the Baptist position to the best of my ability, and I apologize if that ability is small, and if my examples muddy the waters rather than clear them. In my head and conscience all these things make sense, but something must be being lost in the writing. I urge you again, talk to Pastor Nichols, think these things out carefully, and whatever conclusion you come to, be fully persuaded in your own mind.
Blessings in Christ Jesus,


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 16, 2018)

You’ve discerned rightly that my position is now the paedobaptist position, convinced from Scripture.

Blessings to you too brother. May God bring us both to a brighter and clearer knowledge of His Word and will, to one day fully agree on baptism, and most of all grow in the experiential knowledge of Jesus Christ, the life of the olive tree.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 16, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Whatever it means to have been sanctified in this context, doesn't mean he was saved and then becomes un-saved.



No one has suggested such. Where did this come from? We are reformed.



Ben Zartman said:


> And since this New Covenant in called the "Kingdom of God" by it's mediator, who says you must be born again to see it, the sign of the New Covenant is to be applied only to those born--born again--into it.



This is an assumption without actually dealing with the issue at hand.

Your claim was that all those who are in the NC are regenerate. I quoted it in my last post. However, you argued a point that no one brought up: “doesn't mean he was saved and then becomes un-saved”. This is your struggle in trying to understand the passage, not mine. 

You’ve only told me what it doesn’t mean. So, what does Hebrews 10 mean when it says they were sanctified by the blood of the covenant?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 16, 2018)

Harley said:


> Or, here's a roundabout way to get to the answer (forgive my anachronistic terminology): were Gentile males coming in required to have a credible profession of faith before being given entrance into the covenant community?



Jake, I know this isn't for me, but thought I'd chime in. We would say yes, but I would love to hear the Scriptures you would cite for this. Personally, I would go to Romans 4:11 and the nature of circumcision; and just as Abraham believed and was then circumcised, so is the pattern for the OT sign for adults (adult-circumcision for Abe; infant-circumcision for his sons). I would also go to Exodus 12, which you mentioned earlier in this post, which I see as a really important Scripture, verses 43-49, that speak of Gentiles celebrating the Passover. Before they can enjoy this spiritual meal, they must be circumcised. I suppose someone could argue that they didn't need to have faith before they were circumcised, but if you go to a Scripture like Ezekiel 44:7,9, you see the Lord condemning foreigner Gentiles who were uncircumcised in flesh AND uncircumcised in heart. So they go together. But again, I would love to hear what Scriptures you were thinking of.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 16, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Jake, I know this isn't for me, but thought I'd chime in. We would say yes, but I would love to hear the Scriptures you would cite for this. Personally, I would go to Romans 4:11 and the nature of circumcision; and just as Abraham believed and was then circumcised, so is the pattern for the OT sign for adults (adult-circumcision for Abe; infant-circumcision for his sons). I would also go to Exodus 12, which you mentioned earlier in this post, which I see as a really important Scripture, verses 43-49, that speak of Gentiles celebrating the Passover. Before they can enjoy this spiritual meal, they must be circumcised. I suppose someone could argue that they didn't need to have faith before they were circumcised, but if you go to a Scripture like Ezekiel 44:7,9, you see the Lord condemning foreigner Gentiles who were uncircumcised in flesh AND uncircumcised in heart. So they go together. But again, I would love to hear what Scriptures you were thinking of.



I never thought of using Abraham, but yes he would be the pattern, wouldn't he?

I had an interest in this question because Jeffrey Johnson in "The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism" asserted something to the effect that only circumcision was required to come into the covenant community and not faith, and many lived and died in the covenant community their whole lives as unbelievers.

I'll go a little bit beyond just a credible profession, but also that God demanded faith and internal obedience as well, whether they came in to the covenant community by birth or from the outside. The logic is that if God demands it from those on the inside, and disciplines/punishes them according to their disobedience, it is demanded of those coming in from the outside. And, the requisites are not different from what is demanded of a member in the New Covenant community. I think that view is consistent that God was routinely weeding out the Old Testament covenant community through death, plagues, invasions, exiles, cutting off peoples, etc.

Exodus 12 says that they keep it "to the Lord," which implies partaking with understanding and self-appropriation.

Deuteronomy 30:6 - "Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart and be no longer stiff-necked." 

Psalm 50:16 - "What right have you to recite my statutes or take my covenant on your lips? For you hate my discipline, and you cast my words behind you."

Psalm 95:10-11 - For forty years I loathed that generation and said, 'They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways.' Therefore I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'"

The author of Hebrews then warns his audience, after quoting this text from Psalm 95, to beware of having an evil, unbelieving heart (Hebrews 3:12). Makes even more sense after reading the whole psalm.

Jeremiah 4:4 - "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts, o men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire."

Hebrews 3:19 - "So we see they were unable to enter because of unbelief."

This is all that I can do right now, but I've become convinced that it was not acceptable to God to only have external obedience, but He also demanded internal obedience, and rewarded/disciplined accordingly. So, if it wasn't acceptable inside the covenant, it was not acceptable for those coming in. So, credible profession necessary to enter Israel.

More later, maybe.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 16, 2018)

Harley said:


> I never thought of using Abraham, but yes he would be the pattern, wouldn't he?
> 
> I had an interest in this question because Jeffrey Johnson in "The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism" asserted something to the effect that only circumcision was required to come into the covenant community and not faith, and many lived and died in the covenant community their whole lives as unbelievers.
> 
> ...


The New Covenant though has its supreme sign of one being actually included in it of being marked and indwelt by the promised Holy Spirit Himself, who only comes to those who have received Jesus as Lord through faith in Him.
This ties into the truth that not all in Israel were and are of Abraham, but only those who now have faith in the promised Messiah.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The New Covenant though has its supreme sign of one being actually included in it of being marked and indwelt by the promised Holy Spirit Himself, who only comes to those who have received Jesus as Lord through faith in Him.



I’m not sure I understand this. Are you saying the sign is the Holy Spirit? Or that baptism is efficacious when it’s administered?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 16, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I’m not sure I understand this. Are you saying the sign is the Holy Spirit? Or that baptism is efficacious when it’s administered?


The mark of one being now included under the NC would be to have the Holy Spirit now indwelling them, and the outward visible sign to others would be the water baptism taken once now saved.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The mark of one being now included under the NC would be to have the Holy Spirit now indwelling them, and the outward visible sign to others would be the water baptism taken once now saved.



Beside this being an assumption: are you saying the Holy Spirit did not regenerate OT saints?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 16, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Beside this being an assumption: are you saying the Holy Spirit did not regenerate OT saints?


No, rather that under the OC, there were both the saved and lost included, as many of the promises were of the physical nature, and so one could be blessed by God by being under the national Covenant with Israel, but not a sure sign that one was a saved Israelite.
I do see the Holy Spirit now working in a more full and completed fashion with us under the NC, as have read various summaries of this question, and that seems to be some reformed/Calvinists who did not see Him indwelling at all OT saints, others just indwelling those such as Kings/prophets/priests, and those seeing Him saving and indwelling them, but not yet in same way as He does now with us.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 16, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> No one has suggested such. Where did this come from? We are reformed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Andrew,

I'm afraid I'm at a loss to explain Hebrews 10 to you in the manner you wish. I know what it does not mean, given the rest of the witness of Scripture. The commentators I've consulted take it to mean that a professing believer, who has joined the church, attended to the ministry of the word, received the sacraments, and knows that Jesus is the only way to God, who then rejects the Christ, cannot look for salvation anywhere else, since he knows where it is to be found.
But we do know that the blood of the covenant, the sign of which he wrongly partook of, was of no effect to him, being unmixed with faith.
But indulge me for a moment, and tell me what you take the passage in question to mean.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 17, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> The commentators I've consulted take it to mean that a professing believer, who has joined the church, attended to the ministry of the word, received the sacraments, and knows that Jesus is the only way to God, who then rejects the Christ, cannot look for salvation anywhere else, since he knows where it is to be found.



I don’t disagree with this.



Ben Zartman said:


> But indulge me for a moment, and tell me what you take the passage in question to mean.



As you have even given, they have received baptism. “Sanctified” there in the passage points to this fact: they have been given a sign and seal of the covenant, I.e. baptism. This makes them apart of the covenant and covenant community. We distinguish between the external/internal membership of the covenant. 

It is also of note to point out that verse 30 states the Lord will judge HIS people: “For we know him that hath said, Vengeance _belongeth_ unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.” How can this judgment, in light of apostasizing, happen to God’s people, if they aren’t in some sense apart of the covenant?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 17, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> No, rather that under the OC, there were both the saved and lost included, as many of the promises were of the physical nature, and so one could be blessed by God by being under the national Covenant with Israel, but not a sure sign that one was a saved Israelite.
> I do see the Holy Spirit now working in a more full and completed fashion with us under the NC, as have read various summaries of this question, and that seems to be some reformed/Calvinists who did not see Him indwelling at all OT saints, others just indwelling those such as Kings/prophets/priests, and those seeing Him saving and indwelling them, but not yet in same way as He does now with us.



It seems you are equating membership in the covenant with regeneration.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 17, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> It seems you are equating membership in the covenant with regeneration.


you are indeed understanding my position on this issue correctly Brother.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 17, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I don’t disagree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As for the Lord judging His people, well, if we are to be judged, how badly will it go for an impostor posing as a sheep when he is not? That is what I take that to mean--there is no safety in hiding within the visible church if you will not repent and believe.
But thanks for the discussion, and I apologize if I haven't all the answers at my fingertips--some matters are too weighty for me.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 17, 2018)

Harley said:


> I'll go a little bit beyond just a credible profession, but also that God demanded faith and internal obedience as well, whether they came in to the covenant community by birth or from the outside. The logic is that if God demands it from those on the inside, and disciplines/punishes them according to their disobedience, it is demanded of those coming in from the outside.



Your point is also explicitly affirmed by Scripture in that text in Exodus, in 12:49, where, in the context of circumcision, the Lord states that the same law for the native also applies to the foreigner who joins themselves to the people of God. So if God was not just commanding the sign but the reality it represented (IE, the texts you mentioned above) for ethnic Israel, it was the same for Gentiles.

Another noteworthy thing from Exodus 12--the foreigners who came near to celebrate the Passover, were not only to circumcise themselves, but they were to circumcise "all their males"; so not only was circumcision not an ethnic sign (since Gentiles were to be circumcised also); but those Gentiles were in turn to follow the same pattern: adult circumcision for them; infant circumcision for their children.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 18, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Your point is also explicitly affirmed by Scripture in that text in Exodus, in 12:49, where, in the context of circumcision, the Lord states that the same law for the native also applies to the foreigner who joins themselves to the people of God. So if God was not just commanding the sign but the reality it represented (IE, the texts you mentioned above) for ethnic Israel, it was the same for Gentiles.
> 
> Another noteworthy thing from Exodus 12--the foreigners who came near to celebrate the Passover, were not only to circumcise themselves, but they were to circumcise "all their males"; so not only was circumcision not an ethnic sign (since Gentiles were to be circumcised also); but those Gentiles were in turn to follow the same pattern: adult circumcision for them; infant circumcision for their children.



Then the conclusion is that when the apostles and preachers in the NT demand faith and repentance of those they preach to prior to baptism, they are not requiring anything different from what God requires in the OT prior to circumcision, so to point out the prerequisite of faith and repentance prior to baptism doesn’t prove anything.

So, it is not an argument to refuse baptism to the children of those who make a credible profession.

Going back to the olive tree, it’s one less reason to say the treatment of the branches in the NC differs from the OT, or that the membership structure has radically changed. God may still rightly count professing hypocrites as branches on the tree as He did before Christ, and later on cut them off if they prove to be fruitless. The whole history of Israel proves that God accepted Jews and Gentiles upon their profession, but would discipline and punish and even cut off when they proved barren despite all His efforts with them.

Similarly, in John 15 Christ counts branches that don’t bear fruit as being in Him (though He is not in them) yet cuts them off because they don’t bear fruit, which implies that even though Christ knows their hearts He bears with them for some time like He did with Judas. It’s also like the barren tree. The Lord tolerates the barrenness for some time, but eventually decided He will waste no more time on the barren tree—but even then, concedes to give that barren tree more time. Just like He did time after time in Israel.

So in that fashion, He deals with the natural and wild branches of the olive tree.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 18, 2018)

Harley said:


> Similarly, in John 15 Christ counts branches that don’t bear fruit as being in Him (though He is not in them) yet cuts them off because they don’t bear fruit, which implies that even though Christ knows their hearts He bears with them for some time like He did with Judas. It’s also like the barren tree. The Lord tolerates the barrenness for some time, but eventually decided He will waste no more time on the barren tree—but even then, concedes to give that barren tree more time. Just like He did time after time in Israel.



We are doing a Bible study through 1 John, and yesterday we studied the passage that contains 1 John 2:19: "they went out from us", etc. I was thinking of John 15:2. 1 John tells us that they left the church; John 15 tells us why they left the church. On the one hand, they went out of their own accord, but ultimately, the reason they left is: "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away..."

I believe we have a striking example of this in OT in Genesis 36. Here Esau takes his entire household and moves away from the land of Canaan. The rest of the chapter is a detailed list of his offspring. Esau's decision had massive implications for his seed. They would now be raised outside of the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

Harley said:


> Then the conclusion is that when the apostles and preachers in the NT demand faith and repentance of those they preach to prior to baptism, they are not requiring anything different from what God requires in the OT prior to circumcision, so to point out the prerequisite of faith and repentance prior to baptism doesn’t prove anything.
> 
> So, it is not an argument to refuse baptism to the children of those who make a credible profession.
> 
> ...


Do not refuse water baptism to children who have made a profession of faith in Christ, but not towards infants who cannot do that requirement.


----------

