Children part of the NT Church in Scripture

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
First of all, thanks for your welcome, everybody :handshake:

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

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Martin,
To begin with, welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't be discouraged, dear brother! Get into the word :book2:

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

Texas Aggie

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

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Joseph,
You wrote:-


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:amen:

Grace & Peace,

Martin


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

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

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
First of all, thanks for your welcome, everybody :handshake:

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

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Martin,
To begin with, welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't be discouraged, dear brother! Get into the word :book2:

Grace & Peace,

Martin

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

Me Died Blue

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

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

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

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

1. Those who gladly received his word were baptized. Therefore, if words have any meaning,
2. Those who did not receive his word gladly were not baptized.

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

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

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

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

WrittenFromUtopia

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

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

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

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

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

"œBut if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies"”if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. (Leviticus 20:40-42)

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. (Deuteronomy 10:16)

And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deuteronomy 30:6)

Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds." (Jeremiah 4:4)

Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart." (Jeremiah 9:26)

"œThus says the Lord God: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary. (Ezekiel 44:9)

"œYou stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. (Acts 7:51)

But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:29)

I think Scripture is very clear on this issue.
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Martin said:

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

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

My 11 year old son is a theologian.

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

In Christ,

KC
 

Wannabee

Obi Wan Kenobi
Originally posted by kceaster
Martin said:

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

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

My 11 year old son is a theologian.

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

In Christ,

KC

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

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

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Joe...

Thanks for agreeing.

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,

KC
 

Wannabee

Obi Wan Kenobi
Thanks Kevin,

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

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

Steve Owen

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

Me died Blue wrote:-

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

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

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

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

Grace & Peace,

Martin

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

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Martin....

Again, I beg to differ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is Discipleship 101.

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

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

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

In Christ,

KC
 

Steve Owen

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

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

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

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

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by webmaster

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

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

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

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

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

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

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

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

Wilcume to the board
R. Martin Snyder


[Edited on 6-30-2005 by puritancovenanter]
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Paul,
You quoted from B.B.Warfield:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Paul manata
Hi Martin:

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


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

But that's the way it's always been.

:amen:
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Paul,


Originally posted by Paul manata
Hi Martin:

I know I touched on a main difference. The principle of covenant theology vs. a dispensational approach (even if it is Dispensational on just this point).

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

A perfect example is when you write:


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

But that's the way it's always been.

:amen: And your point is?

Grace & Peace,

Martin

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

WrittenFromUtopia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Gabriel,
You wrote:-

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

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

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

:amen:

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

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

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

Grace & Peace,

Martin

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

Steve Owen

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

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

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

Scott Bushey

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

How is this any different practically?


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

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


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

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


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


Is this not retroactive back to the garden?

where exactly do you find paedobaptism in the NT?

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



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

WrittenFromUtopia

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

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


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

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

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

Larry Hughes

Puritan Board Sophomore
Paul,

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

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

L

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

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
:ditto:

One of my favorites is Jeremiah 32:39 . . . because it's in such close proximity to the New Covenant prophecies of Jeremiah 31.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top