# God's Vengeance on Covenant Breakers - Calvin's View



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 10, 2006)

*God\'s Vengeance on Covenant Breakers - Calvin\'s View*

What do you think of this quote from Calvin on those rejecting the Covenant sign?

"Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children -- consider it as their duty to offer them to the church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy!... _Children derive some benefit from their baptism_.... Being ingrafted into the body of the Church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members.... *God will take vengeance on everyone who despises to impress the symbol of the Covenant on his child* (Genesis 17:14) -- such contempt being a rejection and as it were abjuration of the offered grace!" Calvin's Comm. on Gen. 17:1-23 and _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ IV:18:9 cf. too IV:16:3.

What would this vengenace be? (Gen. 17:14)

Genesis 17:14 "And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

"Those who are opposing Infant Baptism, are *waging war on God*.... Those men are cruelly rejecting *from* the Church those whom the promise of God adopts *into* the Church.... Those whom God honours with the name of sons -- they deprive of the external symbol" of Infant Baptism!" Calvin's Comm. on Acts 11:17.

[Edited on 9-11-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Sep 10, 2006)

Is there any difference in opposing it and not finding reasons enough to accept it as a biblical mandate?

I don't have an official position, I am just asking.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 10, 2006)

M. Henry writes:



> Here is, I. The continuance of the covenant, intimated in three things:"”1. It is established; not to be altered nor revoked. It is fixed, it is ratified, it is made as firm as the divine power and truth can make it. 2. It is entailed; it is a covenant, not with Abraham only (then it would die with him), but with his seed after him, not only his seed after the flesh, but his spiritual seed. 3. It is everlasting in the evangelical sense and meaning of it. The covenant of grace is everlasting. It is from everlasting in the counsels of it, and to everlasting in the consequences of it; and the external administration of it is transmitted with the seal of it to the seed of believers, and the internal administration of it by the Spirit of Christ's seed in every age.
> 
> II. The contents of the covenant: it is a covenant of promises, exceedingly great and precious promises. Here are two which indeed are all-sufficient:"”1. That God would be their God, v. 7, 8. All the privileges of the covenant, all its joys and all its hopes, are summed up in this. A man needs desire no more than this to make him happy. What God is himself, that he will be to his people: his wisdom theirs, to guide and counsel them; his power theirs, to protect and support them; his goodness theirs, to supply and comfort them. What faithful worshippers can expect from the God they serve believers shall find in God as theirs. This is enough, yet not all. 2. That Canaan should be their everlasting possession, v. 8. God had before promised this land to Abraham and his seed, ch. xv. 18. But here, where it is promised for an everlasting possession, surely it must be looked upon as a type of heaven's happiness, that everlasting rest which remains for the people of God, Heb. iv. 9. This is that better country to which Abraham had an eye, and the grant of which was that which answered to the vast extent and compass of that promise, that God would be to them a God; so that, if God had not prepared and designed this, he would have been ashamed to be called their God, Heb. xi. 16. As the land of Canaan was secured to the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, so heaven is secured to all his spiritual seed, by a covenant, and for a possession, truly everlasting. The offer of this eternal life is made in the word, and confirmed by the sacraments, to all that are under the external administration of the covenant; and the earnest of it is given to all believers, Eph. i. 14. Canaan is here said to be the land wherein Abraham was a stranger; and the heavenly Canaan is a land to which we are strangers, for it does not yet appear what we shall be.
> 
> III. The token of the covenant, and that is circumcision, for the sake of which the covenant is itself called the covenant of circumcision, Acts vii. 8. It is here said to be the covenant which Abraham and his seed must keep, as a copy or counterpart, v. 9, 10. It is called a sign and seal (Rom. iv. 11), for it was, 1. A confirmation to Abraham and his seed of those promises which were God's part of the covenant, assuring them that they should be fulfilled, that in due time Canaan would be theirs: and the continuance of this ordinance, after Canaan was theirs, intimates that these promises looked further to another Canaan, which they must still be in expectation of. See Heb. iv. 8. 2. An obligation upon Abraham and his seed to that duty which was their part of the covenant; not only to the duty of accepting the covenant and consenting to it, and putting away the corruption of the flesh (which were more immediately and primarily signified by circumcision), but, in general, to the observance of all God's commands, as they should at any time hereafter be intimated and made known to them; for circumcision made men debtors to do the whole law, Gal. v. 3. Those who will have God to be to them a God must consent and resolve to be to him a people. Now, (1.) Circumcision was a bloody ordinance; for all things by the law were purged with blood, Heb. ix. 22. See Exod. xxiv. 8. But, the blood of Christ being shed, all bloody ordinances are now abolished; circumcision therefore gives way to baptism. (2.) It was peculiar to the males, though the women were also included in the covenant, for the man is the head of the woman. In our kingdom, the oath of allegiance is required only from men. Some think that the blood of the males only was shed in circumcision because respect was had in it to Jesus Christ and his blood. (3.) It was the flesh of the foreskin that was to be cut off, because it is by ordinary generation that sin is propagated, and with an eye to the promised seed, who was to come from the loins of Abraham. Christ having not yet offered himself to us, God would have man to enter into covenant by the offering of some part of his own body, and no part could be better spared. It is a secret part of the body; for the true circumcision is that of the heart: this honour God put upon an uncomely part, 1 Cor. xii. 23, 24. (4.) The ordinance was to be administered to children when they were eight days old, and not sooner, that they might gather some strength, to be able to undergo the pain of it, and that at least one sabbath might pass over them. (5.) The children of the strangers, of whom the master of the family was the true domestic owner, were to 113 be circumcised (v. 12, 13), which looked favourably upon the Gentiles, who should in due time be brought into the family of Abraham, by faith. See Gal. iii. 14. (6.) The religious observance of this institution was required under a very severe penalty, v. 14. The contempt of circumcision was a contempt of the covenant; if the parents did not circumcise their children, it was at their peril, as in the case of Moses, Exod. iv. 24, 25. With respect to those that were not circumcised in their infancy, if, when they grew up, they did not themselves come under this ordinance, God would surely reckon with them. If they cut not off the flesh of their foreskin, God would cut them off from their people. It is a dangerous thing to make light of divine institutions, and to live in the neglect of them.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Sep 10, 2006)

See this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20426

Perhaps a moderator should lock this thread to avoid redundancy.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 10, 2006)

Maybe I should reiterate - 

*What do you think Calvin meant by what Calvin said?*

Just a notation - this quote refernces the section on the Lord's Supper in the Institutes (4.18.9) and his section on "PAEDOBAPTISM, ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF Christ, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN" (4.16.3), as well as his notes on Genesis 17.

Calvin, as the Reformed know, is dealing not with issues surrounding soteriology, but ecclesiology. 

Just curious to know about any who want to "interpret Calvin" on this as I ran across it.


----------



## Peter (Sep 10, 2006)

How do you interpret Gen 17:14? What does it mean to be "cut off from the people"? What is the status of credo-baptist children? knowing, as we do, that this is about ecclesiology not soteriology is it possible credo-b children are excommunicate from the visible church yet possibly really and truly united to Christ?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 10, 2006)

Do you think Calvin meant they were not united, or "seemingly" not united?


----------



## Peter (Sep 10, 2006)

So according to Calvin this vengence is the appearance of estrangement from Christ

nonbaptised christians are deprived some sense or knowledge of their sonship that is sealed by the Spirit in baptism ? Is that all?


----------



## Philip A (Sep 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> What would this vengenace be? (Gen. 17:14)





> _Originally posted by Peter_
> What does it mean to be "cut off from the people"?





George Gillespie discusses the meaning of what was meant in the OT by a person being "cut off" in _Aaron's Rod Blossoming_. The chapter summary reads as follows:



> That the commination of cutting off a man from his people, or from the congregation of Israel, is neither meant of eternal death, nor of dying without children, nor of capital punishment from the hand of the magistrate, nor yet of cutting off by the immediate hand of God for some secret sin. Reasons brought against all these. *That excommunication was meant by that cutting off*, proved by six reasons.



Furthermore, if Calvin says that a person ought to be excommunicated for refusing to baptize their infant child, how is this different than any Baptist church that bars a paedobaptist from both membership in the church and participation in the Lord's Table, because he was not, in their eyes, "biblically baptized"? The fundamentalist Baptist church treats those who were baptized as infants as if they were in outer darkness. So in both cases, you have a church that is simply carrying out the implications of its own ecclesiological convictions.


----------



## bob (Sep 11, 2006)

It seems fairly obvious to me that when Calvin argues that water baptism is the mechanism for entrance into the covenant community and cites Genesis 17 as defining the effect of refusing to administer the sign to children, he is arguing that they (credobaptists) are cut off from the covenant community and are thus incapable of receiving the blessings and privileges of that covenant, both in this life and the life to come.

Where can we find biblical evidence of a class of people who war against God and are cut off from the covenant community and yet be considered as part of God's elect? It would seem that for those Presbyterians that agree with Calvin in this, to be logically and faithfully consistent to the Scriptures, they should not regard credobaptists as brothers, but rather as among those to be delivered unto Satan and considered as reprobates if they never repent.

I disagree with this, of course, but what can you expect? I am a credobaptist! Our church holds to the view that the circumcision that was done with hands has been replaced with the cricumcision of the heart. Thus we admit those who profess faith in Christ as potential members of our church. We would strike a difference between the man who just refuses to be baptized and the man who believes that he has been rightfully baptized according to his paedobaptist theology. Thus we would consider admitting to membership a paedobaptist. This is not a popular view among Baptists. We were convinced to change our practice after reading John Bunyan's article "On Water Baptism being no bar to communion with the saints."

I once attended a Baptist church that would not allow a paedobaptist to join formally, although they would allow them to attend services. I believe such a view does not have the force of Genesis 17. I have never personally observed a credobaptist position that stated that they believed paedobaptists were cut off from the covenant community. By stating this, I am defining just my experience. Perhaps somewhere such views have been held. I am just not aware of them.


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> knowing, as we do, that this is about ecclesiology not soteriology is it possible credo-b children are excommunicate from the visible church yet possibly really and truly united to Christ?



I think that this is _possible_:



> II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]
> 
> 2. I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12
> 3. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16; see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24
> ...



but what happens ordinarily may be a better question. Or better yet, how are we to *view* those who have been excommunicated? We must keep in mind the BIG (in a sense) distinction between how God intended his church to judge the sheep from the wolves, and how he judges who are his elect.

[Edited on 9-11-2006 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 11, 2006)

I believe that is the dichotomy Calvin is creating, and Gillespie is hitting on the mark, as well with the WCF where "ordinarily" there is no hope of salvation outside the church.

Jeff's question/statement is what I think is most important in the discussion of Calvin's quote - how does one *in* the church view one who has been excommunicated from the church?

Biblically speaking, one would have to say that they are treated like heathen:

Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

1 Corinthians 5:4-5 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved...

1 Corinthians 5:11, "...not even to eat with such a person."

etc.


----------



## MW (Sep 11, 2006)

I think it needs to be established what excommunication is. There is a tendency to take it in one sense only, but there are various senses in which it is to be understood. Suspension from the Lord's supper is a form of excommunication. Technically, excommunication in the sense of regarding a person as a heathen or publican is the lesser excommunication, not a cutting off from church membership. Such an one is still to be warned as a brother, even though he is withdrawn from, and that only after a process. The greater excommunication is a complete cutting off from a church state. This is very rare, and only for the most serious offences.

Certainly an individual believer has no authority to treat a church member as a heathen until the church itself (by which I understand the government of the church) has declared the person no longer a member of that communion. But even then, they are still to be regarded as members of the visible church; and they cannot be cut off from the visible church except by action of a greater presbytery.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bob_
> It would seem that for those Presbyterians that agree with Calvin in this, to be logically and faithfully consistent to the Scriptures, they should not regard credobaptists as brothers, but rather as among those to be delivered unto Satan and considered as reprobates if they never repent.



Would anyone care to respond to this part of Bob's post?


----------



## Arch2k (Sep 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> But even then, they are still to be regarded as members of the visible church; and they cannot be cut off from the visible church except by action of a greater presbytery.



I would be interested to learn more about this. Any suggested reading?


----------



## MW (Sep 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



Any of the traditional works treating of Presbyterial discipline should deal with it. Gillespie's Aaron's Rod and Durham's Concerning Scandal have alredy been mentioned. The concept is treated in most Scottish Practice and Procedures. I don't have experience in American Presbyterian polity so I cannot say if it will be found in their books of order. Chris Coldwell might be able to shed light here.

Above all, I prefer Rutherford's Peaceable and Temperate Plea; it exposes the other view, that excommunication is a cutting off from visible church membership, as an essentially Independent idea. Regrettably, because we come at the subject from the context of our denominational distinctives, we all tend to think in terms of Independency. The older works provide a refreshing biblical perspective here.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 11, 2006)

Here is a brief, more modern treatment on the distinction between the lesser and greater excommunication from an OPC minister.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 12, 2006)

Andrew,

This is helpful, so I'm posting it in full.




The Most Extreme Form of Church Discipline
Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 3, no. 1 (January 1994)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


February 5, 1993

I am most appreciative of Geoffrey Smith´s excellent article "œDiscipline Is Not a Dirty Word" in Vol. 2, No. 1 of Ordained Servant. I do, however, raise a question regarding a statement he makes on page 23. "œConsider the most extreme form of discipline: denying the Lord´s Supper (i.e. excommunication) to an impenitent church member."

My question: Is the denial of the Lord´s Supper the most extreme form of discipline the church administers? While it is true that non-participation in the sacrament of the Lord´s Supper is a "œnon-communing" activity and to be barred from such activity by a judicial action of the local session is indeed grave, I think we need to be careful not to equate this censure as being the most extreme form of discipline.

In this area of church censures I have found Robert Shaw´s An Exposition on the Confession of Faith (Christian Focus Publications, 1980) on the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XXX, "œOf Church Censures," sections II, III, and IV to be most helpful. Section IV of the Confession states, "œFor the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord´s Supper for a season, and by excommunication from the church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person."

The Confession differentiates between suspension and excommunication. Shaw´s commentary on this section is beneficial.

The censures of the Church are spiritual in their nature and effects. They are appointed by Christ for the benefit of offenders, and have a tendency, as means, to promote their recovery, and not their destruction. As offenses differ in degrees of guilt and circumstances of aggravation, the Church is to proceed according to the nature and degree of the offense committed. In some cases a simple admonition will suffice (Tit. 3:10). A greater degree of guilt will call for a rebuke, solemnly administered in the name of Jesus Christ (Tit. 1:13; 1 Tim. 5:20). Scandals of greater magnitude will require the suspension of the offender from the sacrament of the Lord´s supper for a season (2 Thess. 3:14). This is called the lesser excommunication; and the highest censure which the Church has the power to inflict is called the greater excommunication (Matt. 18:17). We have an example in the case of the incestuous man, who was delivered "œunto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 5:5). It does not, according to the Popish notion, consist in literally delivering up the offender to the devil, but in casting him out of the Church into the world, which is described in Scripture as Satan´s kingdom.

Shaw speaks of a lesser and greater excommunication, the "œlesser" being the suspension from or denial of the Lord´s supper and the "œgreater" being the removal from membership in the visible church.

The "œgreater" excommunication is the removal of one from the care and discipline of the Church of Jesus Christ. The New Testament describes this action of the termination of one´s membership in the visible church as "œremoval from the midst" (I Corinthians 5:2), "œclean out the old leaven" (I Corinthians 5:7), "œdeliver such a one to Satan" (I Timothy 1:20), and "œtreat him as a heathen and a tax gatherer" (Matthew 18:17). This excommunication is the removal from the midst of the covenant community. It is to be "œput out of the fellowship." One is no longer considered a member of the visible church of Jesus Christ.

Therefore, in conclusion, I think it will serve us well if we keep these distinctions in mind when we speak of church censures and recognize that this "œgreater" excommunication is the most extreme form of discipline.

_________________________________________

With this in mind, what do you think Calvin meant with his position? Do you think he believed that those waging war against God by open rebellion in denying His command were "cut off" (i.e. excommunicated from the visible church), or was it less? 

Personally, I think Calvin meant the greater, not the lesser.

Thoughts?


----------



## MW (Sep 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Personally, I think Calvin meant the greater, not the lesser.



These kinds of one for one applications are not possible. Calvin wasn't privy to later Scottish Presbyterian discipline. He struggled throughout his ministry with civil authority for the full exercise of church discipline, and greater excommunication generally included civil punishments.

Concerning the posted letter, it makes the common mistake of listing all biblical acts of discipline under one heading -- in this case, the greater excommunication.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 12, 2006)

Matthew,

So what do you believe Calvin meant by what he said? Do you think it was lesser or greater?

Or even on that note, what would Genesis 17 mean - lesser or greater when it comes to being "cut off?"

Thoughts?

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Philip A (Sep 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by bob_
> ...



Sure; the short answer is NO! 

First of all, if we could get all of our credobaptist _brethren_ into a well ordered Reformed church, where they could be well taught, and have their objections laid to rest, I honestly don't think they would be credobaptists anymore, and thus the only people left would be full-blown Anabaptists, for whom their objection against infant baptism would be the least of the causes for excommunication, given their heterodoxy in terms of the Trinity, Christology, soteriology, etc.

Secondly, such an assumption seems to imply that church discipline means simply a thuggish purge of everyone who doesn't agree _this instant_; but that's not at all the Presbyterian view of church discipline. Look at WCF XXX:IV, referenced earlier:




> For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the Church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.



The American church is like the poor man's field: all overgrown with thorns, covered with nettles, and its stone wall broken down. This means that most of our credo brethren, being outside of the sphere of well-ordered Reformed churches, aren't even within reach of the confession's step number 1, i.e. admonition. _I have no basis to consider a brother as a reprobate unless he has gone through all three phases of discipline laid out in the confession._

And by the way, no matter what volume of words is posted on internet forums, this comes nowhere close to wise and intelligent pastoral oversight and admonition!

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by Philip A]


----------



## Jie-Huli (Sep 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> So what do you believe Calvin meant by what he said? Do you think it was lesser or greater?
> 
> Or even on that note, what would Genesis 17 mean - lesser or greater when it comes to being "cut off?"
> ...



Calvin's Institutes: Book IV, Chapter 16:9: "_In fine, we ought to stand greatly in awe of the denunciations that God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child, (Gen. 17: 14,) such contempt being a rejection, and, as it were, abjuration of the offered grace_."

Since Calvin cites primarily Gen. 17.14 in regards to these "denunciations that God will take vengeance", his direct commentary on this verse would seem the most helpful aid in determining what he thought this "vengeance" means:




> . . . Whoever, having neglected baptism, feigns himself to be contented with the bare promise, tramples, as much as in him lies, upon the blood of Christ, or at least does not suffer it to flow for the washing of his own children. Therefore, just punishment follows the contempt of the sign, in the privation of grace; because, by an impious severance of the sign and the word, or rather by a laceration of them, the covenant of God is violated. To consign to destruction those infants, whom a sudden death has not allowed to be presented for baptism, before any neglect of parents could intervene, is a cruelty originating in superstition. But that the promise belongs to such children, is not in the least doubtful. For what can be more absurd than that the symbol, which is added for the sake of confirming the promise, should really enervate its force? Wherefore, the common opinion, by which baptism is supposed to be necessary to salvation, ought to be so moderated, that it should not bind the grace of Gods or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols, and bring against God a charge of falsehood.
> 
> _He hath broken my covenant_. For the covenant of God is ratified, when by faith we embrace what he promises. Should any one object, that infants were guiltless of this fault, because they hitherto were destitute of reason: I answer, we ought not to press this divine declaration too closely, as if God held the infants as chargeable with a fault of their own: but we must observe the antithesis, that as God adopts the infant son in the person of his father, so when the father repudiates such a benefit, the infant is said to cut himself off from the Church. *For the meaning of the expression is this, 'He shall be blotted out from the people whom God had chosen to himself'. The explanation of some, that they who remained in uncircumcision would not be Jews, and would have no place in the census of that people, is too frigid. We must go farther, and say, that God, indeed, will not acknowledge those as among his people, who will not bear the mark and token of adoption.*



The final sentence here would seem at the least to be referring to the "greater" exommunication of being cut off from the visible church.

Who exactly this last sentence would have direct application to in terms of baptism is another question. A credo-baptist parent, for example, would presumably have been baptised himself, and could not strictly be said to be one who "will not bear the mark and token of adoption." And so it is still a question what Calvin saw in this verse as the "vengeance" that would be taken specifically on the _parents_ who refused to baptise their infants.

If Calvin's meaning in his last sentence is simply that the un-baptised children (their parents having repudiated any covenant benefits for them) are to be regarded as outside the visible church, it strikes me that this is already quite close to the position that most credo-baptists take with regard to their children . . . that they are not actual members of the visible church until they come to faith and are baptised.

What I am having difficulty seeing in Genesis 14.17 is proof for the proposition that practising credo-baptist PARENTS are to be cut off from the visible church (even assuming for the sake of discussion that paeodobaptism is correct).

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by Jie-Huli]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 12, 2006)

Its interesting, to note, that the concept of biblical excommunication or cutting off int his regard, is not only for the child, but especially for the parent. The child takes the brunt of the parent's "waging war" against God.

Some like passages:

Exodus 12:15 Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be *cut off* from Israel.

Exodus 31:14 'You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be *cut off* from among his people.

Leviticus 7:21 Moreover the person who touches any unclean thing, such as human uncleanness, an unclean animal, or any abominable unclean thing, and who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the LORD, that person shall be *cut off* from his people.' "

Leviticus 22:3 while he has uncleanness upon him, that person shall be *cut off* from My presence: I am the LORD.

Numbers 9:13 But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and ceases to keep the Passover, that same person shall be *cut off* from among his people, because he did not bring the offering of the LORD at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin.

Numbers 15:31 Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely *cut off*; his guilt shall be upon him.' "

Judges 21:6 And the children of Israel grieved for Benjamin their brother, and said, "One tribe is *cut off* from Israel today.

Psalm 37:9 For evildoers shall be *cut off*; But those who wait on the LORD, They shall inherit the earth.

Psalm 37:22 For those blessed by Him shall inherit the earth, But those cursed by Him shall be *cut off*.

Psalm 109:13 Let his posterity be *cut off*, And in the generation following let their name be blotted out.

Proverbs 2:22 But the wicked will be *cut off* from the earth, And the unfaithful will be uprooted from it.

Isaiah 29:20 The scornful one is consumed, And all who watch for iniquity are *cut off*--

Obadiah 1:10 For violence against your brother Jacob, Shame shall cover you, And you shall be *cut off* forever.

Romans 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be *cut off*.




> This means that most of our credo brethren, being outside of the sphere of well-ordered Reformed churches, aren't even within reach of the confession's step number 1, i.e. admonition.



This is a very good point.

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]


----------



## Ivan (Sep 12, 2006)

> First of all, if we could get all of our credobaptist _brethren_ into a well ordered Reformed church, where they could be well taught, and have their objections laid to rest, I honestly don't think they would be credobaptists anymore, and thus the only people left would be full-blown Anabaptists, for whom their objection against infant baptism would be the least of the causes for excommunication, given their heterodoxy in terms of the Trinity, Christology, soteriology, etc.



Okay, Phil, I'm ready. Where do I go? Who pays the bills? Where do I move and who do I live with?  I can't say that I'll ever become something other than a Baptist, but I'm willing to learn all I can about a group of Christians that I think are great!



> Secondly, such an assumption seems to imply that church discipline means simply a thuggish purge of everyone who doesn't agree _this instant_; but that's not at all the Presbyterian view of church discipline.



That gives me something to think about.



> The American church is like the poor man's field: all overgrown with thorns, covered with nettles, and its stone wall broken down. This means that most of our credo brethren, being outside of the sphere of well-ordered Reformed churches, aren't even within reach of the confession's step number 1, i.e. admonition. _I have no basis to consider a brother as a reprobate unless he has gone through all three phases of discipline laid out in the confession._



And more to think about.

Thanks, Phil!


----------



## MW (Sep 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> So what do you believe Calvin meant by what he said? Do you think it was lesser or greater?
> 
> Or even on that note, what would Genesis 17 mean - lesser or greater when it comes to being "cut off?"



Concerning Gen. 17, Calvin might have meant nothing more than that God would cut them off, i.e., providentially. He might have meant that the church is to enact disciplinary measures against such. Given what we know about Calvin and the Genevan situation I don't doubt that failure to baptise infants was disciplined; but the severity of the discipline was itself conditional, not on the actions of the offenders, but on the nature in which they offended.

For Calvin, church discipline must be carried on with a mild spirit because it is reformatory as well as punitive. He would not look at it in terms of offence = punishment, according to a legal code. You begin with admonition, and then proceed to censure. Then, and only then, do other more extreme forms become an option. For Calvin, excommunication is for those who stubbornly persist in their censured actions.

Three things need to be kept in mind with regard to the particular circumstances that then existed.

1. Socially, the situation was very different to today. The idea of "Christendom" was still firmly engrained in people's minds, which meant that there were non-negotiable beliefs that only a rebel would question. The family was a unit which stood and fell together; and infants died at an enormous rate, thus beckoning the pressing question of their destiny in the kingdom of God.

2. Legally, anti-paedo-baptists probably would have been threatened with a watery grave in those days. Their forthrightness to advocate their views today is only owing to the freedom of speech which modern democracy provides them. Had they been remonstrated with, in the light of such extreme civil measures, I don't think many of them would have made a great issue of it.

3. Ecclesiastically, the reformed pastors all associated anti-paedo-baptism with the radical views of the Anabaptists. Hence the practice was always seen in terms of a heretical theological system. Moreover, anti-paedo-baptists would not have had the option to go to a "reformed baptist" church which confirmed (or hardened) them in their principles. The reformed churches were all paedobaptistic, so there would have been orthodox teachers constantly casting doubt in anti-paedobaptist minds as to their scriptural warrant for such a position.

This distinct set of circumstances means that we cannot apply one for one the disciplinary actions of our forebears.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 13, 2006)

Do you think Calvin was wrong in his view for his day?

Or, do you think that Calvin allowed the social concerns of the day to affect his interpretation of the text, or was it vice versa?


----------



## MW (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Do you think Calvin was wrong in his view for his day?
> 
> Or, do you think that Calvin allowed the social concerns of the day to affect his interpretation of the text, or was it vice versa?



I don't think Calvin was wrong. As a principle Presbyterian churches still recognise baptism as the sacrament of initiation into the visible church, and no unbaptised person is able to partake of the Lord's supper. Practically, the way Calvin applied his views to anti-paedobaptists was somewhat conditioned by the situation he faced. I don't think a faithful Presbyterian, if faced with the same situation, would act any differently today.

[Edited on 9-13-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## Herald (Sep 13, 2006)

Okay, here is my beef. I am a credobaptist. My daughter was baptized at age 11, upon a credible profession of faith and the approval of the elders. So now what? Is that "sin" forgiven? She can't become an infant again. 'Course this would only have relevance if I was Presbyterian. 



> Originally posted by bob
> It would seem that for those Presbyterians that agree with Calvin in this, to be logically and faithfully consistent to the Scriptures, they should not regard credobaptists as brothers, but rather as among those to be delivered unto Satan and considered as reprobates if they never repent.



I don't think Bob's point was commented on adequately by my paedo brothers. It is a lightening rod point, but it deserves a frank reply. What Bob is hinting at is that credo's should not be considered believers. Does anyone agree with that assessment? Disagree? I would like to know.


----------



## non dignus (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Do you think Calvin was wrong in his view for his day?
> 
> Or, do you think that Calvin allowed the social concerns of the day to affect his interpretation of the text, or was it vice versa?



No, I don't think Calvin was wrong in his view. I don't read him as interpreting scripture by events in his life. If that were the case, his books would not have the longevity they have.

The 16th and 17th centuries were man's finest hour.

What makes me tremble is that *we know that the Lord is a God of precision.* A casual reading of the book of Numbers tells us that He has little tolerance for creative worship styles. Add to the fact that we are no longer under a school master; we are full grown theologically and these are the last days. 

So I plead with my Baptist brothers and all my brethren: Make your calling and election sure.


----------



## Herald (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> ...



David - I plead with you to say what you _seem_ to be hinting at. Do you believe credo baptists are not saved...that they are not believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and part of the body of Christ? I want to hear people say "yes" or "no." I'm not much for fence sitting.


----------



## non dignus (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by non dignus_
> ...



Hi Bill,

In my heart, I believe credo-baptists are saved. However, I also believe that the heart is wicked above all things. I'm not being flippant here, I hope the baptist error is not catastrophic. _" ....if the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear? "_

I am saddened that there is a separation so great between us that we are forced to be in different communions.


----------



## Herald (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...



David - so you hope, but you don't know. 

I have to tell you, I am bothered by this whole line of reasoning. I believe there is such a thing as carrying a theological system too far. We say that individuals are saved by "grace (alone) through faith (alone)." If anyone places their faith in Christ (alone), repents of their sins and follows Him, we would say that they are part of the church. We would emphatically deny any assertion of baptismal regeneration. We would all be orthodox in our soteriology. But then comes the great bane, eccelesiology. 

Because Christians are "children of Abraham", CT's believe that baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign. Under the old covenant, males who were uncircumsized were to be cut off from the people. Calvin is suggesting (and some of you are argeeing) that failure to be baptized as an infant should result in the same cutting off. Maybe we need to define terms. What _exactly_ is the cutting off? Is it church discipline? Excommunication? A realization that the individual(s) is not saved and not part of the body of Christ? We better define these terms and define them well. If it is being suggested that the individual(s) is not part of the body of Christ, then I suggest that CT theology has created a dichotomy between soteriology and eccelesiology. How else could I not come to that conclusion when we will stand together and shout "amen!" on Calvinism, but be willing to label our "brother" anathema on the issue of baptism? 

Matt, you have not introduced a minor debate.


----------



## non dignus (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by non dignus_
> ...



Great bane? 

Aye, faith and _practice_. We know who the faithful are by the signs of faith, namely word and sacrament. Without the church and accompanying signs would there not be great confusion as to who has the approval of God? Who really believes?


> Because Christians are "children of Abraham", CT's believe that baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign. Under the old covenant, males who were uncircumsized were to be cut off from the people. Calvin is suggesting (and some of you are argeeing) that failure to be baptized as an infant should result in the same cutting off. Maybe we need to define terms. What _exactly_ is the cutting off? Is it church discipline? Excommunication? A realization that the individual(s) is not saved and not part of the body of Christ? We better define these terms and define them well.



To the term, "cut off", perhaps scripture is a bit vague on purpose. We agree we don't want to be cut off. That is enough.


> If it is being suggested that the individual(s) is not part of the body of Christ, then I suggest that CT theology has created a dichotomy between soteriology and eccelesiology. How else could I not come to that conclusion when we will stand together and shout "amen!" on Calvinism, but be willing to label our "brother" anathema on the issue of baptism?



I think you make a good point here. Baptist theology seems to have a glitch that divorces ecclesiology from soteriology. Perhaps what Calvin was driving at is this: to swear off baptism is to swear off the church.


----------



## Herald (Sep 13, 2006)

David...



> I think you make a good point here. Baptist theology seems to have a glitch that divorces ecclesiology from soteriology.



We're going to go round and round on this one. One of the problems I am having with CT is the "glitch" that adds to ecclesiology that which is not in soteriology. Result? A logical inconsistency. 

btw...the phrase "great bane" was used more to underscore the conflict in the discussion, not that ecclesiology is a dreaded word or subject.



> Aye, faith and practice. We know who the faithful are by the signs of faith, namely word and sacrament. Without the church and accompanying signs would there not be great confusion as to who has the approval of God? Who really believes?



David, I am in whole agreement with you on "faith and practice." Jesus did say:

*Matthew 7:21 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.*

Both sides of the debate would be pointing their howitzers at each other while making similar statements. 

I am sure this is where Matt wants to bring this discussion. Was Calvin correct? Was he over-zealous? Is a credobaptist still in their sins? Based on what Matt posted, Calvin's phraseology sure seems to indicate that is the case. But does a quote from Calvin make it so? I am not prepared to label my paedo brothers as unsaved. To think they _would_ label me as unsaved is not just offensive, it is cause for me to break any fellowship I may have with them. 

David, as an aisde, my attachments to dispensationalism are unrecognizable to me. There may be some dispensational practices that I hold to (out of ignorance), but I have formally forsaken the system itself. I don't want to oversimplify my statement, nor do I wish to trivialize any differences that remain, but the only major "beef" I have with CT is paedobaptism. That is just to give you an insight as to where I am theologically.

Blessings.

Bill

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 13, 2006)

> Was Calvin correct? Was he over-zealous? Is a credobaptist still in their sins? Based on what Matt posted, Calvin's phraseology sure seems to indicate that is the case. But does a quote from Calvin make it so?



Definitely not, Calvin saying something does not make it so.

Next question would be how the entire historical church, say from 70 AD to 1650AD, thought about excommunication, and its implicaitons?

In other words, if Christ gives pastors and teachers to the church to teach us, then what is the concensus on thier teaching? We obviously never do exegesis and theology in a vacuum. Are there others that have this same line of reasoning? Calvin, for example, was a great mimicker, especially of explaining, for example, Augustine.

I'll do some digging.


----------



## MW (Sep 14, 2006)

Augustine is a good one to mention, since he would associate severe discipline with Donatism. Many in his time postponed baptism because of the view of its efficacy to wash away sin.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by non dignus_
> ...



Bill,
Matt Mc. earlier in this thread posted some treatments of what it meant to be 'cut off'; have you looked at them? As well, in a earlier thread that was started on the subject, I posted some information on what it meant to be without the sign:

That can be found here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20426

In regrads to the sign now being baptism, Nigel Lee helps with dispelling any doubt how this naturally occured. That can be found here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20678


----------



## non dignus (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> Next question would be how the entire historical church, say from 70 AD to 1650AD, thought about excommunication, and its implications?



"_Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven._"

Perdition.


----------



## Herald (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> ...



Scott - I perused the first link and found a few posts that _seemed_ to touch on being cut off. To be honest, the thread is huge and I don't have the time to look at each post. What I was able to glean (from your responses) was that you view credo parents as covenant breakers. My main contention with this thread is trying to get someone from your side to come clean on what this really means. I just want to know, do you believe credo parents are saved? Are part of the body of Christ? Terms such as, covenant breakers and cut off aren't telling me much until the terms are defined. Am I asking too much? Is it wrong to ask the simple question? I am not trying to be divisive. I just want to know.

Your second point (about baptism replacing circumcision) is not a bone of contention with me. I understand your view on that issue. I'm not there, but I understand it.

Just looking for some plain answers.....

Bill


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 14, 2006)

OK, Here's my 2 cents worth (from a Reformed Baptist view) on signs of the covenant.

Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, given to all of Abraham's children (both believers - Isaac, and unbelievers - Ishmael). I have read Matt's book on CT and repented of my not thinking in those terms before.

Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, which replaces the sign of circumcision. Some of my Baptist friends might disagree with me, but this is how I see the teaching of the NT.

Circumcision was given to every physical child of Abraham as a sign that they were in the covenant. The question for Baptists has always been, "To whom do we give the sign of Baptism?" If Baptism replaces the sign of circumcision for the spiritual children of Abraham, how do you become a spiritual child of Abraham? Is it being born physically to a believer? Or is it by faith?

Romans 4:9-16 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. 13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 <b>Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all </b>

Notice that Paul in discussing justification by faith deals with the sign of circumcision. He also tells us who the true children of Abraham are (who should therefore be receiving the sign of baptism). The seed, those who receive the promise (the covenant) are those who are of the faith of Abraham. Not those who are born to elect parents.

Now, I can see why disagreements over this issue would cause people to break fellowship (denominationalize). I do not see how disagreement over this issue would cause one to suggest that the other is unsaved. It appears that Calvin was saying this. If this is so, then I disagree with him.

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by Calvibaptist]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug,
Paul is speaking of the invisible church, Gods elect. The above in no way abbrogates the command to place the sign on our children. How in the world did you get that from the above? In the same way Abrahams righteousness was accounted to him prior to his circumcision, it is as well accounted to our elect children prior to their baptism; if indeed they are elect. We place the sign in faith; assuming. In the same way, the baptist _assumes_ as he applies the sacrament to ALL the candidates of baptism; This is a fact that cannot be avoided. Plenty of credo baptists have walked away from the faith whom have had the sign placed upon them. Was this a mistake on the credo's behalf? Greg, you say above that the recipients of baptism should only be those that are elect. This is shooting the credo in the big toe; who can know this??? 

Bill,
Hermenuetics and continuity are key in understanding the Presbyterian perspectivce. The reason I suggested you read Lee's paper is because in the paper, you will see how baptism was actually a Jewish concept and the transition not so odd. As well, after acknowledging this in light of Lee's paper, one can easily see the family unit and continuity continuing in that regard. 

Well, where does this lead? If the continuity is there and the family unit is as well enforced and supported, not to mention Gods immutability, i.e God is a covenantal God and a God of families, Gen 17 would have to be tragic for those whom disregard it; the outcome is clear in the text; one is cut off, unclean, cast away.

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Herald (Sep 14, 2006)

Scott Bushey wrote:



> Well, where does this lead? If the continuity is there and the family unit is as well enforced and supported, not to mention Gods immutability, i.e God is a covenantal God and a God of families, Gen 17 would have to be tragic for those whom disregard it; the outcome is clear in the text; one is cut off, unclean, cast away.



Scott, I follow your logic. I suppose this is as plain an answer to my question as I am going to get. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if one rejects the covenant sign of paedobaptism, then that person has no part with Christ. They are not justified. They are not saved. Unless I am misreading what you have written, this is your position.

What does that lead me to conclude? A few things:

1. I am considered to be an unbeliever because of my credobaptist stand.

2. All credobaptists are considered to be unbelievers.

3. A person can only be a believer if they believe/practice paedobaptism.

Needless to say, this grieves me. I thought I was accepted on the PB as a fellow brother in Christ. I am not going to over react. I know that not everyone on the PB believes that credos are not brothers in Christ. But the fact that some do distresses me. 

Scott, if I am misrepresenting your view, I apologize. It is not my intent to twist words. I have been asking for a plain statement on the issue. One has not been forthcoming. Your response was the plainest I have seen. Let me know if my assessment of what you are saying is correct (or not). If it is, I have another question. Should not the PB require all members to be paedo? If credos are not part of the body of Christ, why should they be allowed to join the PB?

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 14, 2006)

Bill,
Gods elect will persevere! Surely some of Gods elect are in the credo baptist camp; I was. I don't believe ALL credobaptists are falling under this judgment. However, credobaptists whom have children must be; would you disagree with the text? Tjhats what it conveys, does it not? Moses failed to circumcise his child and his wife ended up having to do it; she ended up calling him 'husband of blood'. 

Answers to your statements:


1. I am considered to be an unbeliever because of my credobaptist stand.

~Not necessarily; The WCF calls this error as a 'great sin'. Nowhere else in the confession is this type of language used. I cannot know your position in Christ; only God knows. The passage in Genesis is concerning, none the less.

2. All credobaptists are considered to be unbelievers.

~See above

3. A person can only be a believer if they believe/practice paedobaptism.

~Gods elect will persevere and Christ will lose none.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Sep 14, 2006)

As I posted before (later withdrawn, as it was not directly on point at the time), the direct application of Genesis 17.14 to credo-baptists is not an appropriate one.

Genesis 17.14 deals with individuals who simply refused to take the sign of the covenant, circumcision, showing thereby that they despised both the institution and the covenant it signified. There was certainly no question of these people merely "delaying" the sign of circumcision due to their interpretation of the command.

Credo-baptists, on the other hand, certainly do not despise the sign of the covenant. Surely this is key. Not only have credo-baptist parents taken the sign of the covenant themselves, they greatly long to see their children take the sign (and embrace the substance) of the covenant as well. The question is primarily one of timing, credo-baptists believing that the sign should not be administered until their children personally profess faith in Christ. But they can in no wise be likened to the people who flat refused the covenant of circumcision in the Old Testament era.

Now for paeodobaptists to say that credo-baptists are in error in their understanding of baptism, yea, even in sin, I can understand well. But to go further and make a direct application of Genesis 17.14 as to credo-baptists being "cut off" is a tremendous mistake.

Blessings,

Jie-huli


----------



## Ivan (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 3. A person can only be a believer if they believe/practice paedobaptism.
> 
> ~Gods elect will persevere and Christ will lose none.



Which means that we credos, who are of the elect, will eventually become Paedo.


----------



## Herald (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Ivan...yeah...I kinda took it that way.


----------



## Herald (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jie-Huli_
> As I posted before (later withdrawn, as it was not directly on point at the time), the direct application of Genesis 17.14 to credo-baptists is not an appropriate one.
> 
> Genesis 17.14 deals with individuals who simply refused to take the sign of the covenant, circumcision, showing thereby that they despised both the institution and the covenant it signified. There was certainly no question of these people merely "delaying" the sign of circumcision due to their interpretation of the command.
> ...



Jie, what a comfort it was to read your post. I actually never viewed it that way (because I haven't considered my credo position to be in error). Upon review, Genesis 17:14 certainly does seem to deal with those who despise circumcision.

Thank you for the insight.

Bill


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 15, 2006)

Jie,
God does not tell Abraham to place the sign upon his children and maidservants when the mood _hits_ him. The sign is to be placed expediantly. Does the passage not say infants? The response, on our part, to the command is obedience; Is it obedience if someone places the sign when they are good and ready? Why was Zipporah so upset with Moses when he tarried??? Why did God seek to kill Moses??? Was Nahab and Abihu wrong when they offered up strange fire to God in worship? As well, the sign is placed in faith, by the parent on the child. Not the other way around. So, as you say, _timing_ is key! And as far as the credo baptist _dispising_ the sign; they do despise the sign. Thats why this large gulf exists! Thats the point; They have reinterpreted the protocol and made the sign something it is not. They have redefined it to fit their own situations and credo discipline; They _hate_ the idea of placing a sign upon any infant. This is a break in the second commandment; it is a golden calf and an invention of their own minds. 

The command was to separate Gods people from the Gentile; Gentiles were considered unclean. The man who rejected placing the sign was cut off and seen as unclean. What the baptist is doing is essentially dipping themselves in mud, them and thier seed, and making themselves unclean ln Gods sight. Would a future bapstim satisfy? Yes and no. 

For the time, lets just look at the passage: Are the people whom refuse to obey Gods command 'cut off' or not? Does God not say that those whom refuse to place the sign upon their infants, children and maidservants, _breaking_ His covenant?

3772 tr;K' karath {kaw-rath'} 
Meaning: 1) to cut, cut off, cut down, cut off a body part, cut out, eliminate, kill, cut a covenant 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to cut off 1a1a) to cut off a body part, behead 1a2) to cut down 1a3) to hew 1a4) to cut or make a covenant 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be cut off 1b2) to be cut down 1b3) to be chewed 1b4) to be cut off, fail 1c) (Pual) 1c1) to be cut off 1c2) to be cut down 1d) (Hiphil) 1d1) to cut off 1d2) to cut off, destroy 1d3) to cut down, destroy 1d4) to take away 1d5) to permit to perish 1e) (Hophal) cut off 
Origin: a primitive root; TWOT - 1048; v

The above is used 284 times in the bible. A word study clarifies any misconception.


Food for thought.

I am closing this thread.



[Edited on 9-15-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------

