Baptism seal of curse?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Roldan

Puritan Board Junior
To my Covenantal Bretheren,

I could be wrong but I never read this from any author yet but I could be wrong and not remember but I was researching the baptisms of the family of Noah and the baptism into Moses and found something stricking. I have observed this a couple of years ago but really payed no mind to it until now that is more relevant to me in these recent discussions.

What I noticed is that while Noah and his family were in the ark and being baptised(1 Peter 3:19-21) the children of disobedience were, through this same baptism, experiencing judgment and destruction.

Then in the account of Moses we read that ALL were baptized into Moses when crossing the sea. They "all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink(1 Cor. 10:1-5). What I observed was that these same people who drank from the Rock Christ, were scattered in the wilderness for their disobedience, not all but "most"(verse 5).

Also that same sea which was used to baptize was used for destruction of Pharoah's army. Hmmmm.

I see in these examples that not only is baptism used to signify cleansing but also sealed ones destruction.

Is this a correct correlation or is my observation just coincidental?

I know I didn't articulate this to the outmost perfection but I would like to know if this would be a correct observation and If you guys already new this, if you guys could help in articulating this further and better.

Thanx

In Christ


Roldan
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
"Is this a correct correlation or is my observation just coincidental?"

No, this is the nature of the sacrament. To one it will seal blessings, to another it will seal curses - and all the people said AMEN. If one is baptized and demosntrates by their life that they are no a "covenant keeper" then the curses of the covenant are sealed to that person. It will be worse in judgment for them than the pagan native in Africa int he bush.

Matthew 23:14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

Mark 12:40 "who devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation."(cf. Luke 20:47)
 

Tertullian

Puritan Board Freshman
Webmaster,

I was just wondering if you could clarify something for me or refer me to a sound source who gives an answer to this question.

I was just wondering why most Presbyterians who adopt the view that the condition of the Covenant of Grace is faith assume that you have to be a Covenant member to become a Covenant breaker? Fo would it be proper to say that the atheist who though presented with the gospel but still rejects the Gospel does not become a Covenant breaker or would it be proper to say that they become a Covenant breaker if the terms of faith truely is the condition of the Covenant?

For they have been offered the terms of the Covenant and they have a duty to accept the Covenant condition of faith or else judgment- so wouldn't they become a Covenant breaker and yet have never been a member?

All of this of course takes for granted that faith and repentence are conditions of the Covenant of Grace rather then blessings of it but ignoring that for now if we do assume that they are conditions rather then blessings would not it be a proper conclusions to see a person presented with the Gospel but failing to believe breaking the Covenant terms and thus becominga Covenant breaker?

Again, I was just wondering what the Presbyterian rational is not necessarily looking for a debate... thanks very much for you time spent in reading this.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 

Roldan

Puritan Board Junior
Tyler, that was an excellent question!:eureka:

Paul, likewise an excellent answer that reflects the greatness of Covenant Theology.:bouncy:

Webmaster, Thank you for that insightful answer, I have been researching this more and have found that your answer is the same that I found in all the Reformed Theologians I have read on this and also in my Reformation Study Bible.

Roldan
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
:ditto:


[quote:c2a784a6cd]
I was just wondering why most Presbyterians who adopt the view that the condition of the Covenant of Grace is faith assume that you have to be a Covenant member to become a Covenant breaker?[/quote:c2a784a6cd]

You must be in the covenant to break it. Otherwsie you could say that little "Muwamba", the 3 day old child in the African bush, is a covenant breaker of the Gospel.

[quote:c2a784a6cd] Fo would it be proper to say that the atheist who though presented with the gospel but still rejects the Gospel does not become a Covenant breaker or would it be proper to say that they become a Covenant breaker if the terms of faith truely is the condition of the Covenant?
[/quote:c2a784a6cd]

It would be to say that they reject salvation, but are a covenant breaker of the covenant of works, right along side of Adam. For a Gospel Hypocrite, one who "joins a church, is baptized, etc." but is not saved, he formally takes on the covenant sign of the power of Christ (Genesis 3:15) but then reject it - sealing to himself the curses of the covenant, rather than its blessings. Not only is he a covenant breaker in Adam, which is will damn him, but he is not an enlightened hypocrit who will recieve greater damnation as a result of his rejection of the Son of God.

All men are breakers of the former (Adamic) but not all are breakers of the latter (New).
 

Reena Wilms

Puritan Board Freshman
Can someone give me please verses in the New Testament were it is written that there are covenant breakers in the new covenant ?

Ralph
 

mjbee

Puritan Board Freshman
I have the same question as Reena.

I'm just skimming because of limited time, but if I have my babies baptized, and they grow up and persist in unbelief, will they receive a stricter judgment than those whose parents weren't believers and didn't have them baptized? If so, why would I want to have my babies baptized?
Bee
 

mjbee

Puritan Board Freshman
Paul, with all due respect, where am I commanded to have the babies in my family baptized? Under the old covenant, Jews were commanded to have the males circ'd on the 8th day. (I still don't understand why doctors circ boys when they're 2 days old. It's probably a bad idea.) But could you give me Scriptures that command me to have my babies baptized into the new covenant? I have nothing against paedo's. I'm just wondering why you are so dogmatic about it.
Bee
 

mjbee

Puritan Board Freshman
Webmaster, I am quite familiar with Hebrews 10, and with all of Hebrews. That book purged me of my Roman Catholic upbringing. Can you point me to anything in Hebrews 10 that has to do with baptism or mikvah? It seems to me that it is addressing false professors, not people who were baptized as infants and then failed to follow the faith of their fathers.
Bee
 

mjbee

Puritan Board Freshman
Paul, the Queen Bee of stupid questions now confers upon you the title of King of Red Herrings.:biggrin:
Bee

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by mjbee]
 

Roldan

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:dfab173bb4][i:dfab173bb4]Originally posted by mjbee[/i:dfab173bb4]
Paul, the Queen Bee of stupid questions now confers upon you the title of King of Red Herrings.:biggrin:
Bee

[Edited on 4-6-2004 by mjbee] [/quote:dfab173bb4]


uh oh!! Man she's a tough cookie!:dueling:
 

Tertullian

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:f7188fdbd3][i:f7188fdbd3]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:f7188fdbd3]
:ditto:


[quote:f7188fdbd3]
I was just wondering why most Presbyterians who adopt the view that the condition of the Covenant of Grace is faith assume that you have to be a Covenant member to become a Covenant breaker?[/quote:f7188fdbd3]

You must be in the covenant to break it. Otherwsie you could say that little "Muwamba", the 3 day old child in the African bush, is a covenant breaker of the Gospel.

[quote:f7188fdbd3] Fo would it be proper to say that the atheist who though presented with the gospel but still rejects the Gospel does not become a Covenant breaker or would it be proper to say that they become a Covenant breaker if the terms of faith truely is the condition of the Covenant?
[/quote:f7188fdbd3]

It would be to say that they reject salvation, but are a covenant breaker of the covenant of works, right along side of Adam. For a Gospel Hypocrite, one who "joins a church, is baptized, etc." but is not saved, he formally takes on the covenant sign of the power of Christ (Genesis 3:15) but then reject it - sealing to himself the curses of the covenant, rather than its blessings. Not only is he a covenant breaker in Adam, which is will damn him, but he is not an enlightened hypocrit who will recieve greater damnation as a result of his rejection of the Son of God.

All men are breakers of the former (Adamic) but not all are breakers of the latter (New). [/quote:f7188fdbd3]

[b:f7188fdbd3] Thanks webmaster for the reply... for this was exactly what I was hoping for your answer reflects I think some hard study of the Presbyterian doctrine on this issue :bisou:

On a side note I have noticed that Hebrews 10:31 has been recently used as a proof text to support the doctrine of "New Covenant Breakers" and I can understand how a person could come to that conclusion using those verses but I myself do not think that this is a great verse to use because of a response I say given by a some what unorthodoxed by very well studied Reformed Baptist a while ago in one of the past threads, he wrote: [/b:f7188fdbd3]

[quote:f7188fdbd3][i:f7188fdbd3]Originally posted by TheonomyNZ[/i:f7188fdbd3]
[quote:f7188fdbd3][i:f7188fdbd3]Originally posted by -- [/i:f7188fdbd3]
[quote:f7188fdbd3]
Show me anything in hebrews 10 that suggests any of "His people" will go to hell.

[/quote:f7188fdbd3][/quote:f7188fdbd3]OK, now did you notice the content of the question? Your repeated emphasis was that the term "His people" (or "my people") was applied to people who were lost. Your claim was very clear and specific. God calls people "His people" in hebrews 10, and and some of "His people," according to hebrews 10, are not elect. So I asked you to show where, in Hebrews 10, non elect people are called "His people." As I read your last post, I see that you backed away, you didn't do it. (If you think you did, read on!)

[quote:f7188fdbd3]26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins,
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, [b:f7188fdbd3]and a fierceness of fire which [/b:f7188fdbd3] shall devour the adversaries.
28 A man that hath set at nought Moses law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses:
29 [b:f7188fdbd3]of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged 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?[/b:f7188fdbd3]30 For we know him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense. And again,[b:f7188fdbd3] The Lord shall judge his people.[/b:f7188fdbd3]31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.[/quote:f7188fdbd3]OK, we're clear so far. People who have received a knowledge of the truth, and then rejected it, are in big trouble. Agreed fully. I'm still waiting to see where you see "His people" going to hell. You seem to think "the Lord will judge His people" refers to this. But if that is true, you have ignored the Old Testament passages where this quote comes from (and you think WE ignore the OT background!) In BOTH cases where the saying appears in the Old Testament, it refers not to punishment, but MERCY. let's look at them. the first example is in Deuteronomy 32. The LORD is saying that even though the people have rebelled in times past, and even though His anger was great against them, he will be kind to them. See verse 36:[quote:f7188fdbd3]The LORD will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free.[/quote:f7188fdbd3]"Judge" does not always have the meaning you seem to think it does. It means "do justice," and in Deuteronomy it is about God defending His people against enemies. HOW will God do justice and have compassion on his people? See what follows IN CONTEXT, in verse 40-42:[quote:f7188fdbd3]I lift my hand to heaven and declare:
As surely as I live forever, when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me.
I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders.[/quote:f7188fdbd3]the word trasnlated "judge" ([i:f7188fdbd3]din[/i:f7188fdbd3]) generally means "vindicate" or "plead the cause of someone." It does not generally mean condemn or punish, and it [i:f7188fdbd3]certainly[/i:f7188fdbd3] cannot mean that here. So in this quote from the Old Testament, does it refer to punishing "His people", or doing justice for "His people" by punishing those who are NOT His people? Look at the Old Testament context it comes from - you can see the answer right in front of you.

The phrase is used in one other place in the Old Testament, and it has the same meaning there - NOT a meaning of punishing people who are His people, but rather of doing justice and kindness to His people. Psalm 135:14[quote:f7188fdbd3]For the LORD will vindicate his people
and have compassion on his servants.[/quote:f7188fdbd3]While the NIV (rightly) gives "vindicate" as a translation, the Hebrew word is the same. God's act of "doing justice" for His people does not involve punishing [i:f7188fdbd3]them[/i:f7188fdbd3], but being merciful towards them.

So to warn the reprobate men among God's people in the New Testament by saying "the LORD will judge His people" - quoting the Old Testament, does not mean that some of His people will go to hell. You can only conclude that by refusing to take the Old Testament context of those words into account. It means that the godless in the visible church should fear greatly, since God is going to do justice for His people by taking care of those wicked men who are not his people and punishing THEM.

So while on a superficial reading your claims might look convicning to some people, they are not persuasive for anyone familar with the Old Testament.[quote:f7188fdbd3]Now, I would like to say that tertullian has said that these people are just professors, but they are ACTUAL people. Would Glenn agree? If not, explain.[/quote:f7188fdbd3]Of course they are actual people. What else would they be?[quote:f7188fdbd3] Is it hypothetical? If so, can you hypothetically be in the covenant and go to a hypothetical hell?[/quote:f7188fdbd3]Well wait just a second - you've begged the question. You job is to show that those people who have received a knowledge of the truth and rejected it ARE or WERE in covenant with God. You can't ever just assert it in this dialogue, since that's the very thing in dispute.[quote:f7188fdbd3]Furthermore, this is a quote out of Deutoronomy, which was spoken to OT Israel. OT Israel had non-elect in the covenant[/quote:f7188fdbd3]Yes, that's true. We've never disputed that. but it is bad logic to say:
1) This quote is in the Old Testament, and it was spoken to Israel
2) There were non elect people in God's covenant nation of Israel
3) Therefore there are non elect people in the New Covenant

It's bad logic because it doesn't take into account what the quote [i:f7188fdbd3]means[/i:f7188fdbd3]. Since in the Old Testament it isn't saying that the non elect of God's people will be punished (even though there were non elect people in israel), it does not work the way you would like it to.
[quote:f7188fdbd3]So, we can see that the baptist is on VERY shaky ground.on 1-30-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:f7188fdbd3]In light of the Old Testament evidence that you are now aware of, I would ask that you reconsider your argument, which is itself on terribly shaky ground.

In Christ

Glenn Peoples

(edited for typos)

[Edited on 1-30-2004 by TheonomyNZ] [/quote:f7188fdbd3]
 

luvroftheWord

Puritan Board Sophomore
Even if what Paul has said about Hebrews 10:31 happens to be false, Hebrews 10 as a whole chapter (and basically the entire book of Hebrews) is still, as Matt said, glaring.
 

Tertullian

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:d9d0f4bc08][i:d9d0f4bc08]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:d9d0f4bc08]
Even if what Paul has said about Hebrews 10:31 happens to be false, Hebrews 10 as a whole chapter (and basically the entire book of Hebrews) is still, as Matt said, glaring. [/quote:d9d0f4bc08]

I respect your position and know that you have sincerely studied the Scriptures and up to this point have come to the conclusion that the book of Hebrews teaches that a person can become a New Covenant breaker... But I must respectfully part hands and list our different conclusions from Hebrews 5% disagreement catagory that we spend 95% of the time talking about.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 

Optimus

Puritan Board Freshman
Melissa,

I've got to admit that i have not seen any reasons to call Paul "King of Red Herrings". In my eyes, he answered your initial question, first asked by Reena Wilms:

"Can someone give me please verses in the New Testament were it is written that there are covenant breakers in the new covenant?"

Paul answered by saying:

""""Several passages teach that there are people set apart in the new covenant (without the full blessings of salvation), who yet fall away. Thus there are unregenerate new covenant members. For example, Hebrews 10:29-30:
• Heb 10:29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Objection: Hebrews 10:29 is a disputed passage. It is an unsafe procedure to use a disputed text to establish a matter (like, there are unregenerate new covenant members).(47)
A simple, but probably unpersuasive response might be, "OK, I'll use Hebrews 6:4-8."
• Heb 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
An objection would likely follow: "But Hebrews 6:4-8 is a disputed passage and it is an unsafe procedure to use a disputed text to establish a matter (like, there are unregenerate new covenant members). So I could say, "OK, I'll use John 15:2-6."
• "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit. 3 "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
An objection would likely follow: "But John 15:2-6 is a disputed passage and it is an unsafe procedure to use a disputed text to establish a matter (like, there are unregenerate new covenant members). So I could say, "OK, I'll use Galatians 5:4."
• You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Of course, after a while, it becomes apparent that the objector has a position on the covenant, a priori, that no biblical text may revise. Hence it follows that such a position is not a fully biblical position since it does not take into consideration all that the Bible has to teach on the subject.
In effect the objector is requiring an unbearable burden of proof on the one who holds that there can be apostasy from the new covenant. The objector is really saying, "You have to prove apostasy from the new covenant without depending on a disputed passage, and by the way all the apostasy passages are disputed." So one is left with the insurmountable task of proving new covenant apostasy without being able to use any passage which speaks of apostasy.
More than that, the objector does not permit the use of the Old Testament texts which teach covenant apostasy because allegedly "that's the difference between the previous covenant and the new covenant." So one is not permitted to appeal to the Old Testament nor the New Testament apostasy passages in order to prove covenant apostasy.
Remember, the precise dispute on such apostasy passages is not the question of covenant membership anyway--the issue relevant to the present study--but rather, the question of perseverance of the saints and the Calvinistic/Arminian debate. It seems to me that accepting a view of the new covenant which permits unregenerate membership (whether from a baptistic or paedobaptistic perspective) actually alleviates a great deal of Calvinistic stress. One can then see the legal, external, and obligatory connection to the new covenant, yet not have to maintain that such apostates are converted and afterward lose their salvation.
Objection: Unregenerate people can be "in the covenant" because men put them "in the covenant" but God has not put them "in the covenant."
This is an equivocation regarding the phrase "in the covenant." If those words mean the very same thing, when men do it or when God does it, then the unregenerate person who is "in the covenant" is simply "in the covenant."
In the specific case regarding Hebrews 10:29, the terms are perfectly consistent with the concept of the visible church being covenantally set apart, i.e., "the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified" (Exo 24:8, Mat 26:28, Heb 9:19-20, 12:24). God sets His people apart with the sacramental blood (in the Old Testament) which prefigured the blood of the cross and which is sacramentally present in communion (Mat 26:26ff).
As has been demonstrated, God's covenants with men have visible signs and when one receives the duly administered entrance sign, such a person is counted as "in the covenant."
Thus men should regard those that receive the sign of the covenant as "in the covenant."
It is the conclusion of previous argumentation that God has put the children of believers in covenant union with him."""


Then, you came out from left field with this:

"Paul, with all due respect, where am I commanded to have the babies in my family baptized? Under the old covenant, Jews were commanded to have the males circ'd on the 8th day. (I still don't understand why doctors circ boys when they're 2 days old. It's probably a bad idea.) But could you give me Scriptures that command me to have my babies baptized into the new covenant? I have nothing against paedo's. I'm just wondering why you are so dogmatic about it.
Bee"

You do the math.

I dont want to cause a fight, or join one, I just wanted to point this out from a third person point of view. Hope this helps.

God Bless
 

Tertullian

Puritan Board Freshman
Paul,

I thank you for the time you spent in responding and giving a reason and not just making assertion...

I have read your quotes by Calvin and Henry and their quotes could be used by either side in a sense, but I just want to note that the two people you used to prove your case that these people were New Covenant breakers did not even use that phrase when they interpreted the passages for the same people you call "New Covenant breaker" is the same group that Calvin and Glenn called Hypocrites but regardless you and Glenn have already had this debate and you and Glenn just need to let the reader decide... Rholdan has apperantly found your response alright but I do not think that for someone not already convinced of the practice it is enough to persaude us to change our views but I am not really wanting to get into a debate... or open ones already finished. Glenn responded to your comments above and I encourage anyone to read both yours and his comments about these verses of Scripture and make their own judgements.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Tertullian]
 

Roldan

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:503831c626][i:503831c626]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:503831c626]
Rholdan has apperantly found your response alright but I do not think that for someone not already convinced of the practice it is enough to persaude us to change our views but I am not really wanting to get into a debate... or open ones already finished. Glenn responded to your comments above and I encourage anyone to read both yours and his comments about these verses of Scripture and make their own judgements.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 4-6-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:503831c626]

Agreed, and yes I have read both sides and found that Pau's response was devastating(my opinion).

I don't wan't to speak for Paul, but I don't think that he would try to persuade someone to change their position just on that argument alone, he was just responding to the rebuddles raised by Glenn and yourself.

And, I understand that if at any time a credo changes his/her position on this Hebrews text to now see that in fact their are NC breakers, is the day they must affirm infant baptism.

So we would not expect the credo to change just on this text for there are a host of others that credo disagree with paedo and MUST disagree because it is contra their baptistic upbringings and hermenueitcs.

I appreciate your concern and meek responses.

United in Christ!

Roldan without the h

:biggrin:
 

Roldan

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:8cdd10cbcf][i:8cdd10cbcf]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8cdd10cbcf]
Ricky,





I mus disagree with ONE thin you said above. That is, grantig my view on Heb. 10 is not logically equivolent to granting infant baptism. Indeed, I know some baptists who hold my view. But all that means to them is that there are non-elect covenant members. But they believe one can only be baptized as a professor.
Now, I do believe that this takesthem a stepcloser. And I believe that it is a gtood thing that they admit. Because the next fortres to fall is their view on covenant members. o, they ae only one step away instead of two. That's the way I see it...but we still nizzles! (sorry forthe typing. I'm on vaction in colorado and I have a jacked-up keyboard ad can barey see the screen)
-Paul [/quote:8cdd10cbcf]

Yes I agree, what I was saying is that its a logical step to give infants the sign IF there are actually NC breakers and non-elect covenant members, the "there are no NC breakers/elect only" argument diminishes for then we can in fact baptize them into the covenant community etc etc.... I sure you know where I going with that.

I know that they would not just jump to our side just with that but must realize that its bible logic.

Thanx for clearing that up, duke!

your homey, Roldan:biggrin:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top