# Believing or apostasy parents & covenant sign



## Mayflower (May 26, 2007)

The paedobaptist baptized the children of believing parents, because they said that in the OT it was also done with the circumcision.

But is it correct to say "only" believing parents, because in the OT we see that the childeren of apostasy parenst were also circumcised ?

So if you made the link of circumcision and baptism, why not also baptizing parents who are in apostasy as it was in the OT ? Or are you diong this ?


----------



## Tirian (May 27, 2007)

Ralph,

Israel is the "type" in the OT of which the antetype in the NT is the church, made up of all those who profess Christ (whether they truly walk with him or not). The command to the 'church' in the old testament (national Israel) was to apply the covenant sign and seal to their children as the promise was to them and their children. The instruction was to all those born into (or married into, or grafted into) the national of Israel, the church. 

Covenant breakers in the OT may still have applied the sign of the covenant, but to them it meant nothing.

The command exists today to the church as it did in the OT. The church is now universal though (not limited to one nation as it was in the OT) yet the mode has now changed - baptism replaces circumcision. 

The sign is to be applied to all those who believe, and children of believers. Someone professing faith in Christ is eligible to be baptised (if they have not been already) and may bring their children to be baptised based upon the same promised, reaffirmed in the new covenant. 

Unbelievers or covenant breakers in the NT church cannot bring their children to be baptised as they have no grounds for doing so. They must first repent and be brought into the church before they can claim this covenant promise.


Matt


----------



## AV1611 (May 27, 2007)

Matthew Glover said:


> Israel is the "type" in the OT of which the antetype in the NT is the church, made up of all those who profess Christ (whether they truly walk with him or not).



I am not convinced of that Matt  

I private correspondence with Rev. Stewart he pointed out to me that 



> Although some Reformed people would say that Israel was a type of the church, I think it best to avoid this. This, of course, brings up the definition of a type and in what way Scripture determines what is a type or not. Israel is the church in the OT. Since it is the church (in the OT), I can't see it as a type of the church in the NT.
> 
> That Israel is the church is proven, as you know by Acts 7:38 and Galatians 6:16. Also Christ is the true Israel (Isa. 49:3) and saints (both in OT and NT) are Israel b/c they are "in" Him. He is THE prince with God (the idea of Israel) and we are princes of God in Him (whether in OT or NT).


----------



## Tirian (May 27, 2007)

Richard,

Forgive my ignorance, but which Rev. Stewart are you referring to?

Matt


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

Mayflower said:


> The paedobaptist baptized the children of believing parents, because they said that in the OT it was also done with the circumcision.
> 
> But is it correct to say "only" believing parents, because in the OT we see that the childeren of apostasy parenst were also circumcised ?
> 
> So if you made the link of circumcision and baptism, why not also baptizing parents who are in apostasy as it was in the OT ? Or are you diong this ?



Would you like to present the example of the apostasized parents in the Scriptures that presented their child for circumcision?

I don't agree at all that "...in the OT we see that the children of apostasized parents were also circumcised...."

Where? Verse please.


----------



## AV1611 (May 27, 2007)

Matthew Glover said:


> Richard,
> 
> Forgive my ignorance, but which Rev. Stewart are you referring to?
> 
> Matt



Rev Angus Stewart (Covenant Protestant Reformed Church)


----------



## Mayflower (May 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Would you like to present the example of the apostasized parents in the Scriptures that presented their child for circumcision?
> 
> I don't agree at all that "...in the OT we see that the children of apostasized parents were also circumcised...."
> 
> Where? Verse please.



And the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Did not I deliver you from the Egyptians, and from the Amorites, from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines?The Zidonians also, and the Amalekites, and the Maonites, did oppress you; and ye cried to me, and I delivered you out of their hand.
Yet ye have forsaken me, and served other gods: wherefore I will deliver you no more.Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation.
*Judges 10:11-14*


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Ok, my daughter was baptized and as such, at least as a child, she was considered "holy", correct? This is what the paedo argument would say scripture teaches? What does that mean exactly? Say she remains in unbelief as she is in now and dies in that state. Would she have been better off dying as an infant when she was considered "holy"? If her being baptized did not mean that she was "saved" as she clearly is not, then what did it mean exactly?


----------



## Tirian (May 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Rev Angus Stewart (Covenant Protestant Reformed Church)




Richard, the typology component of my original reply is not material to the point being made on the basis of that which you have granted, which is that Israel is the church in the OT. There is continuity in the way God deals with His church not withstanding that the church was limited to one nation previously and is now universal in the new covenenant in Christ.

Matt


----------



## Tirian (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Ok, my daughter was baptized and as such, at least as a child, she was considered "holy", correct? This is what the paedo argument would say scripture teaches? What does that mean exactly? Say she remains in unbelief as she is in now and dies in that state. Would she have been better off dying as an infant when she was considered "holy"? If her being baptized did not mean that she was "saved" as she clearly is not, then what did it mean exactly?



Adam,

I have relatives a similar situation as you with two of their daughters and understand that they agonise over the situation from time to time, as you may do.

It meant to your daughter that she was being included in the visible church by way of the promise to her believing parents. That on the basis that it was presumed she would be elect that you raised her to call God her Heavenly Father, that she was subject to the means of grace (reading & preaching of the Word) regularly. In her case, she is now an adult (from what I understand) and you still wait for the time when God will call her into a walk by faith with Christ. May God do so quickly.

Matt


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

Ok, I can see that, I just don't see it *clearly* in scripture. Maybe that's *my* problem though. It sounds very much like "dedications" of babies many non-reformed churches have. It's about what you "mean" to do, and or what you "hope" for your child.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

Mayflower said:


> And the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Did not I deliver you from the Egyptians, and from the Amorites, from the children of Ammon, and from the Philistines?The Zidonians also, and the Amalekites, and the Maonites, did oppress you; and ye cried to me, and I delivered you out of their hand.
> Yet ye have forsaken me, and served other gods: wherefore I will deliver you no more.Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation.
> *Judges 10:11-14*



This answer fails to provide the answer I was asking for. You stated that the Old Covenant permitted apostates to present their children for circumcision. The above quotation has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you to provide. Where is circumcision mentioned? Where is the Lord sanctioning the circumcision of the children of apostates in this passage.

I need you to provide an _exegetical_ example of your assertion. You made an assertion but have not backed it up with any Scripture.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

I'm not saying that it was permitted, but where does scripture say it is forbidden? Wouldn't a passage such as this refute this claim?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> Ok, my daughter was baptized and as such, at least as a child, she was considered "holy", correct? This is what the paedo argument would say scripture teaches? What does that mean exactly? Say she remains in unbelief as she is in now and dies in that state. Would she have been better off dying as an infant when she was considered "holy"? If her being baptized did not mean that she was "saved" as she clearly is not, then what did it mean exactly?



I don't answer theoretical questions about things God keeps hidden but I will Confess what I believe.

I wonder if you've actually studied the WCF and the Heidelberg on the significance of Baptism.

1. She was joined to the visible Church.
2. She was promised forgiveness of sins and union with Christ on condition of faith in Christ.

If a person does not believe then it does not make the promise void.

It is better, therefore, not to worry about consequences as much as to enjoin the baptized to believe in the Gospel and inherit what they were promised in their baptism.

Things might have been helped, as well, if the Elders of a Church had called her to repentance when she was of age to reject the faith. At that point, rebellion needs to be answered with Church discipline. Apostasy is easier than it should be.

It really is not that complicated.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> I'm not saying that it was permitted, but where does scripture say it is forbidden? Wouldn't a passage such as this refute this claim?


What? Why does the Scripture have to answer every speculative question that man dreams up? I made no claim. I asked Mayflower to provide Scriptural support for his assertion that the OT sanctions the circumcision of the children of apostates. Where?


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

So those not baptized are not promised these things? I'm certain that's not true, but one could infer that. One becomes "part of the church" through belief, correct? Paedobaptism has *always* seemed very, very complicated to me. I see it as "word calisthenics". 

Stretch, stretch, reach, reach, pull, pull, push, push...hold it....hold it.....there! Nice fit! Mean while I am standing there in immense pain hoping my spiritual muscles don't rip and tear as I struggle to keep the position.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> What? Why does the Scripture have to answer every speculative question that man dreams up? I made no claim. I asked Mayflower to provide Scriptural support for his assertion that the OT sanctions the circumcision of the children of apostates. Where?



I was just asking if this were the case as I wasn't certain. If not, I am not implying that means anything.


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

> I wonder if you've actually studied the WCF and the Heidelberg on the significance of Baptism.



You see, these are the kind of statements I continually see from Paedo's. Surely you must be "unlearned" if you don't see what is plainly there. Surely you are in sin and in need of repentance or you would grasp the simple truth, thank God I am not a (ignorant) baptist, etc. etc.

I am not angered by those comments but I am certainly not endeared toward the position of those who speak them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> So those not baptized are not promised these things? I'm certain that's not true, but one could infer that. One becomes "part of the church" through belief, correct? Paedobaptism has *always* seemed very, very complicated to me. I see it as "word calisthenics".


Baptism is an Ecclesiastical and a Spiritual sacrament. God is the one that applies the benefits but that does not alter the fact that the Church contains ministers that have the authority to _ministerially_ bind and loose. That is, they have the authority to join members to the visible fellowship of the Church and to remove them. Thus, what a minister does is not magic or "word calistenics."

1. God has given the Church the authority to join people to the visible Church.
2. The minister has the authority to _declare_ God's promise to the baptized party. It does not _confer_ the benefits but those present can hear God's promise being uttered by one of His appointed ministers and "take that promise to the bank" as it were.
3. God is the one who applies the benefits spiritually.

You cannot take all three sentences and mashe them all together into one thing. The minister is not saving the child (or any baptized party). God does not merely unite men to Christ but declares things to His Church with His ministers.



> Stretch, stretch, reach, reach, pull, pull, push, push...hold it....hold it.....there! Nice fit! Mean while I am standing there in immense pain hoping my spiritual muscles don't rip and tear as I struggle to keep the position.


I don't see any strain going on Adam. Maybe you can point out the stretching and tearing above. Unless the Holy Spirit comes down and fills a man so that He can declare "this child is united to Christ" then we only have visible declarations and promises. We don't see the spiritual union in any orthodox confession (not even Baptist confessions).

People who get uncomfortable that more must be going on start forcing baptism to convey power within itself. They begin insisting that the Priest conveys grace or that actual union with Christ is granted.

I'm telling you that it's as simple as:

1. Ministerially joined to the visible Church.
2. Ministerally promised salvation and union with Christ on condition of faith.
3. God is the one who confers the benefits to His elect.

We do the first two on the basis of things revealed.
God does the third on the basis of His Sovereign and hidden will.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> You see, these are the kind of statements I continually see from Paedo's. Surely you must be "unlearned" if you don't see what is plainly there. Surely you are in sin and in need of repentance or you would grasp the simple truth, thank God I am not a (ignorant) baptist, etc. etc.
> 
> I am not angered by those comments but I am certainly not endeared toward the position of those who speak them.


It wasn't an insult Adam. Why, unless it stings human pride to admit ignorance, would you find that offensive?

I've said many ignorant things here and elsewhere. People ask me: Have you read this? I state that I have not and sometimes retract.

I'm asking you because your questions and answers indicate you actually have not. Usually people who have read something and understand it will object according to what is believed. Why would you ask the question above if you understood our Confession on this point?


----------



## ReformedWretch (May 27, 2007)

I suppose I'm not seeing the difference between understand and agree. I understand the points being made, but I can't agree for reasons I'm not sure I can fully explain. If that makes me ignorant, then I suppose I am.



> 1. God has given the Church the authority to join people to the visible Church.
> 2. The minister has the authority to declare God's promise to the baptized party. It does not confer the benefits but those present can hear God's promise being uttered by one of His appointed ministers and "take that promise to the bank" as it were.
> 3. God is the one who applies the benefits spiritually.



1) Does belief allow this, baptism? Both? If not just belief why is that not a problem? If both, why not just belief?

2) Does God's word not already declare God's promises? Do we need a minister to make it "official"? I see that you've said it allows others to hear it and "take it to the bank", that's cute but not an absolute must, right?

3) As is always the case, he doesn't need anything to happen outside of faith (that He gives anyway) correct?



> People who get uncomfortable that more must be going on start forcing baptism to convey power within itself. They begin insisting that the Priest conveys grace or that actual union with Christ is granted.



This is where that stretching comes in for me as I see paedobaptism naturally leading to this kind of thinking. But maybe that's just my ignorance again.


----------



## MW (May 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Where? Verse please.



Samuel Rutherford draws attention to Joshua 5, where the children of the rebellious wilderness generation are circumcised. (Peaceable and Temperate Plea, 165-167.) He shows that John the Baptist baptised Jerusalem and Judea and the regions round about, whom Jesus later called a generation of vipers. (Ibid., 167.) He maintains that so far as the covenant of grace is concerned, the son does not bear the iniquity of the father (Ezek. 18:4), and therefore the iniquity of the father does not remove the children's right to baptism. (Ibid., 169.) He refers to Ezek. 16:20 to demonstrate that the children who were offered to Moloch were still regarded as God's children. (Ibid., 171.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

houseparent said:


> I suppose I'm not seeing the difference between understand and agree. I understand the points being made, but I can't agree for reasons I'm not sure I can fully explain. If that makes me ignorant, then I suppose I am.


I'm not saying you have to agree but when you ask questions about paedobaptism that have clear answers in the Confession then I am led to the conclusion you have either read them cursorily or not at all. Just a couple of weeks ago, Rev. Winzer pointed out something about the Sacraments I had not noticed before.



> 1) Does belief allow this, baptism? Both? If not just belief why is that not a problem? If both, why not just belief?
> 
> 2) Does God's word not already declare God's promises? Do we need a minister to make it "official"? I see that you've said it allows others to hear it and "take it to the bank", that's cute but not an absolute must, right?
> 
> 3) As is always the case, he doesn't need anything to happen outside of faith (that He gives anyway) correct?


We're talking about a person being baptized here. Water needs to be poured on someone's head. We're also talking about membership here. Someone has to declare to others: this person is/isn't a member of our Church. Ministers are given authority for this work. The hidden things are always hidden from the visible Church.




> This is where that stretching comes in for me as I see paedobaptism naturally leading to this kind of thinking. But maybe that's just my ignorance again.


You cannot lump all people that baptize infants into one lump. This is a Confessional board. I might as well ask you why you baptize the dead knowing that Mormons do it and concluding, therefore, that all credo-baptists do the same.

Paedobaptism does not _naturally_ lead to any such error.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Samuel Rutherford draws attention to Joshua 5, where the children of the rebellious wilderness generation are circumcised. (Peaceable and Temperate Plea, 165-167.) He shows that John the Baptist baptised Jerusalem and Judea and the regions round about, whom Jesus later called a generation of vipers. (Ibid., 167.) He maintains that so far as the covenant of grace is concerned, the son does not bear the iniquity of the father (Ezek. 18:4), and therefore the iniquity of the father does not remove the children's right to baptism. (Ibid., 169.) He refers to Ezek. 16:20 to demonstrate that the children who were offered to Moloch were still regarded as God's children. (Ibid., 171.)



Do you think that is the same thing, however? Joshua's generation is a good example becaus the Apostate people didn't typically bring their children in for circumcision. The shame of that generation was, in large part, that all of their children were not circumcised. Everybody had to be circumcised as adults in that case so the example of unbelieving parents presenting their children for circumcision to the Synagogue is not, per se, established by the example of Joshua and the generation in the wilderness. On the contrary, it did not occur _because_ they were apostate. It took a special act of Providence, outside of the normal commanded order, to bring the children born in the wilderness back into Covenantal compliance on this point.

Thoughts? Gotta run....


----------

