Covenant Theologians Wrongly Reduce the Abrahamic Covenant To Only Spiritual Aspects

[Scholten]

This post is another in a series having to do with the book Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ More can be found on this at:

Infant Baptism - Believer's Baptism - Christian Dialogue

Your input is greatly desired.

BAPTIST STATEMENT​

To reduce the Abrahamic covenant to only its spiritual aspects is to run the risk of reading new covenant realities into the old era too fast. In order to properly understand the Abrahamic covenant we must understand it in its context. God approaches mankind in different ways through the ages of human history.
The Abrahamic covenant is very diverse. It includes not only spiritual elements linking it to the new covenant, but it also includes national and typological elements which resulted in significant discontinuity as the transition is made into the age of fulfillment. The best example of this is contained in the different senses Scripture gives to the genealogical principle, the different meanings of "you and your seed" (Genesis 17:7). Covenantal theologians understand "you and your seed" as "you and your physical seed," that is, believers and their children. For them this understanding remains essentially unchanged from Abraham through to Christ. But this understanding does not do justice to the Abrahamic covenant in its own context. This is apparent once the important question, "Who is the seed of Abraham? Who is the true heir of God's promise?" is answered. Scripture teaches that there are four senses in which this phrase is used and they must be distinguished and not confused. *The four senses are given below. (Believer's Baptism, page 133.)

This first sense in which the phrase "seed of Abraham" is used refers to all the physical descendents of Abraham such as Ishmael, Isaac, the sons of Keturah etc. all of these children of Abraham received circumcision even though many of them were unbelievers.
The second usage of the "seed of Abraham" also refers to the natural or physical descendents of Abraham but more specifically the special seed connected to God's saving purposes. This includes Isaac and by extension Jacob and the entire nation of Israel due to God's covenant relationship with Israel, they are a special, chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:7-10). As a nation this "mixed" entity comprised both believers and unbelievers--Elijahs and Ahabs simultaneously-- even though all males within the covenant nation, regardless of whether they were spiritually regenerate or not, were marked by the covenant sign of circumcision.*
The third usage is found in Galatians 3:16 where Paul argues that the singular use of "seed" in Genesis 12:3 and other places is a reference to the true/unique "seed of Abraham," namely Christ. Christ is the promised seed, the mediator of God's people, the one who fulfills all God's promises, not just the Abrahamic promises. For this reason he is the true seed of Abraham, the true Israel, and David's greater Son. In this important sense, then, Jesus is the unique seed of Abraham both as a physical seed through a specific genealogical line and is the anti-type of old covenant mediators of the Old Testament.*
In this fourth and last sense of the "seed of Abraham," the New Testament emphasizes its spiritual nature now that Christ has come. This spiritual seed of Abraham includes both believing Jews and Gentiles in the church. Given this new era that Christ has inaugurated, the way now into Abraham's family is not dependent on circumcision or the Torah, it comes only through faith and spiritual rebirth. Only those who have experienced conversion are Abraham's "seed" in this spiritual sense. To be a member of Abraham's family is no longer tied to a specific physical lineage, nor circumcision, nor any other kind of physical links to other believers. Rather one becomes a part of Abraham's family only through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:26-29). Thus, in the coming of Christ, a new era of redemptive history has dawned where the structures, types, and shadows of the old have given way to the reality and fulfillment of what the Old Testament was all along pointing to. (Believer's Baptism, page 135.)

PAEDO-BAPTIST RESPONSE​

Covenant theologians do not read new covenant realities into the old era. According to covenant theology, for example, in Old Testament times the Abrahamic covenant contained a promise of the land for the Jews. The covenant ranged from such earthly aspects all the way up to the promise that God would be a God to them and they would be his people. Covenant theology acknowledges the earthly aspects of the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament; it does not reduce the covenant only to its spiritual aspects. The discussion of the four senses of "seeds" is the key issue here; it is not clear how this supposed reduction of the covenant to its spiritual aspects is relevant.
Dr. Wellum says in the statement that covenant theology’s understanding of "you and your seed" is not correct. He then goes on to claim,
*
But this understanding does not do justice to the Abrahamic covenant in its own context. This is apparent once the important question, "Who is the seed of Abraham? Who is the true heir of God's promise?" is answered.
*
What Dr. Wellum needs to prove here now is that the first sense of "seed" no longer exists in the New Testament age. He claims in the above quoted statement that this is "apparent," yet he does not succeed in establishing his claim as biblical. It is not at all apparent to this reader. The reader must judge whether his statements are evidence for his position or if they are limited to simply stating what his position is.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Wow, you have a lot to learn. Good luck on this. You are itching for a fight. Ever hear of progressive revelation?

You might want to order a new book. LOL

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/dr-gary-cramptons-book-baptism-available-61953/

 

[steadfast7]

What Dr. Wellum needs to prove here now is that the first sense of "seed" no longer exists in the New Testament age. He claims in the above quoted statement that this is "apparent," yet he does not succeed in establishing his claim as biblical. It is not at all apparent to this reader. The reader must judge whether his statements are evidence for his position or if they are limited to simply stating what his position is.[/SIZE]

I'm confused. The "first sense of seed" in the Baptist statement "refers to all the physical descendents of Abraham such as Ishmael, Isaac, the sons of Keturah etc. all of these children of Abraham received circumcision even though many of them were unbelievers." Why is this relevant to the covenantal position? What does Semitic ethnicity have to do with covenant theology? Are you referring to a new covenant abrogation of another sense of "seed"?

thanks.

 

[eqdj]

Like Tom Schreiner, Dr. Wellum is not a Covenantal Credobaptist but either NCT or some other kind of Dispensationalist (Progressive, etc.)
If your not familiar with NCT see Monergism's Covenant Theology vs. Alternative Systems

 

[Scholten]

Wow, you have a lot to learn. Good luck on this. You are itching for a fight. Ever hear of progressive revelation?

You might want to order a new book. LOL

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/dr-gary-cramptons-book-baptism-available-61953/

Not at all itching for a fight. But, very interested in good, solid input. I have not read Crampton's book yet, but have seen it referred to several times. Does he go into the specifics of the new covenant (Jer. 31) as relates to baptism?



---------- Post added at 12:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------

What Dr. Wellum needs to prove here now is that the first sense of "seed" no longer exists in the New Testament age. He claims in the above quoted statement that this is "apparent," yet he does not succeed in establishing his claim as biblical. It is not at all apparent to this reader. The reader must judge whether his statements are evidence for his position or if they are limited to simply stating what his position is.[/SIZE]

I'm confused. The "first sense of seed" in the Baptist statement "refers to all the physical descendents of Abraham such as Ishmael, Isaac, the sons of Keturah etc. all of these children of Abraham received circumcision even though many of them were unbelievers." Why is this relevant to the covenantal position? What does Semitic ethnicity have to do with covenant theology? Are you referring to a new covenant abrogation of another sense of "seed"?

thanks.

Another way of stating the question here, is, is it a matter of "Semitic ethnicity"? My understanding of the Abrahamic covenant (and I'll gladly bow to others if off base here) is that it continues into the New Testament unchanged. In other words, children of the faithful (Abraham etc. in the OT, believers in the NT) are in a covenantal relationship with God. As in the OT, this can be broken in the NT (and is to be kept distinct from the new covenant, which cannot be broken). The children of believers must accept Christ when they grow up or they have broken the covenant. I hope this helps.

 

[steadfast7]

But, which sense of "seed" are you talking about then? The "first" sense in the OP refers to ethnicity, thus applying only to Abraham's genetic descendants. You said it must be shown that that is no longer carried over into the NT. I can accept the spritualizing that happens as we cross over to the NT, but then we're not talking of the first sense of seed. Hope I'm making sense.

 

[Scholten]

But, which sense of "seed" are you talking about then? The "first" sense in the OP refers to ethnicity, thus applying only to Abraham's genetic descendants. You said it must be shown that that is no longer carried over into the NT. I can accept the spritualizing that happens as we cross over to the NT, but then we're not talking of the first sense of seed. Hope I'm making sense.

This is a good point. Your comment is forcing me to clarify that when I wrote earlier that the seed in the first sense continues into the New Testament, I am in reality using “first seed” in a sense different from what Reisinger used it. The reason for this is that I believe Reisinger used it in a way that is too narrow to capture the OT givens. My reasoning is as follows. When some of the Egyptians joined the Israelites in the Exodus I think it is fair to conclude that most of them became proselytes. As such, the males would have been circumcised. They became full-fledged Israelites themselves. Their children in turn would have been circumcised at eight days as members of the Abrahamic covenant as well. But, they were not genetic descendants of Abraham. Is this a problem? No. The correct definition of the “first seed” should be in my opinion, “physical descendants of the faithful (or those who had the faith of Abraham),” as opposed to “physical descendants of Abraham.”

That sense of “first seed” can carry over to believers (who have the faith of Abraham) in the New Testament age, while “genetic or physical descendants of Abraham” could not. I am quite sure that this confusion is a big part of what keeps Baptists and paedo-baptist covenant theologians apart on baptism.

Thanks for your question.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Pure dispensationalism. This theory has already been debunked, so I don't see the need to go into it again.

 

[steadfast7]

I was browsing through that blog site with discussions on paedo vs. believer's baptism. The writer admits that

If a person, an adult, who had no prior connection with the Christian church (no bias either for or against the practice of infant baptism) would become a Christian and take his or her Bible and go off to some isolated spot say in the woods and study their Bible full-time for ten years, it is highly unlikely that person would emerge from the woods with a commitment to the practice of infant baptism

I'm wondering what others think? Is paedobaptism something that really isn't that clear from scripture?

 

[Barnpreacher]

I was browsing through that blog site with discussions on paedo vs. believer's baptism. The writer admits that

If a person, an adult, who had no prior connection with the Christian church (no bias either for or against the practice of infant baptism) would become a Christian and take his or her Bible and go off to some isolated spot say in the woods and study their Bible full-time for ten years, it is highly unlikely that person would emerge from the woods with a commitment to the practice of infant baptism

I'm wondering what others think? Is paedobaptism something that really isn't that clear from scripture?

Poor analogy on the author's part. God never ordained for disciples to go off in isolation in the woods to learn doctrine. This is why there is such a thing as the Church.

 

[littlepeople]

If a person, an adult, who had no prior connection with the Christian church (no bias either for or against the practice of infant baptism) would become a Christian and take his or her Bible and go off to some isolated spot say in the woods and study their Bible full-time for ten years, it is highly unlikely that person would emerge from the woods with a commitment to the practice of infant baptism

Oh I'm sure that wouldn't be the worst his theological blunders

 

[Scholten]

I was browsing through that blog site with discussions on paedo vs. believer's baptism. The writer admits that

If a person, an adult, who had no prior connection with the Christian church (no bias either for or against the practice of infant baptism) would become a Christian and take his or her Bible and go off to some isolated spot say in the woods and study their Bible full-time for ten years, it is highly unlikely that person would emerge from the woods with a commitment to the practice of infant baptism

I'm wondering what others think? Is paedobaptism something that really isn't that clear from scripture?

Poor analogy on the author's part. God never ordained for disciples to go off in isolation in the woods to learn doctrine. This is why there is such a thing as the Church.

In order to keep the dots connected here, you will probably find it interesting that I am the one who wrote that. And, to Ryan's point (you hit the nail on the head), that was exactly the point I was trying to get across. We would be at a tremendous disadvantage if we ever would (could???) be severed from the church. We need to background in order to learn what is important. The doctrine of the Trinity would probably never be "revived" if it depended on individuals alone.

Now, Brandaon, perhaps you could expound further on your comment on worst of his blunders?

 

[Reformed Baptist]

I was browsing through that blog site with discussions on paedo vs. believer's baptism. The writer admits that

If a person, an adult, who had no prior connection with the Christian church (no bias either for or against the practice of infant baptism) would become a Christian and take his or her Bible and go off to some isolated spot say in the woods and study their Bible full-time for ten years, it is highly unlikely that person would emerge from the woods with a commitment to the practice of infant baptism

I'm wondering what others think? Is paedobaptism something that really isn't that clear from scripture?

Paedobaptism is not clear enough in Scripture to me in that I have to inquire from those who hold that belief where they found it.

 

[steadfast7]

Would you say that first came the decision to view scripture with a covenantal hermeneutic, then came the system, then came the application with respect to baptism?

 

[Scholten]

Would you say that first came the decision to view scripture with a covenantal hermeneutic, then came the system, then came the application with respect to baptism?

This could very quickly turn into circular arguments. Let's take a look at Biblical specifics. That's where the real test is.

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ----------

Paedobaptism is not clear enough in Scripture to me in that I have to inquire from those who hold that belief where they found it.

Geoff, you (and others as well) are encouraged to visit the website referenced in the original post and join in the dialogues on baptism. I have studied it for a number of years and the book by Schreiner and Wright is one of the best ones I've found yet for supporting the Baptist position. They have address Reformed covenantal theology head-on. Yet, after studying it, in my opinion it ultimately comes up short. I am in the process of reviewing the book's main points with a number of Baptist seminary professors and pastors. So far nothing has come to light to cause me to reconsider my evaluation.

All things said and done, I'm very interested in good, Biblical input. So if you are game, come and joine us!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Would you say that first came the decision to view scripture with a covenantal hermeneutic, then came the system, then came the application with respect to baptism?

The answer to that question would be answered in different ways depending on who you are asking. St. Paul was clearly a Covenantal minded man. You can't miss it when you read Romans and the Book of Galatians. But many do miss it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Would you say that first came the decision to view scripture with a covenantal hermeneutic, then came the system, then came the application with respect to baptism?

Nova,
Item first, Please find your way to your profile page, and give yourself the appropriate signature. For requirements, please see the link in my signature block (I hope it is functional)

2) Hermeneutics always comes in at the very first step. There is no possibility of reading any text whatever (even Dick & Jane) without a rudimentary hermeneutic. How to read the Bible, where to begin reading the Bible--all this is basic to understanding the Bible.

3) What I do, in approaching the question of "what is baptism, how do we baptize, whom do we baptize, who baptizes," etc., is I need a Theology of Baptism. The whole Bible is my textbook. Not simply one part of it, like the New Testament. Nor do I think it is appropriate to first locate onesself existentially in the text, so for example since I am a NT believer, should I first find myself existentially post-Pentecost, and therefore begin my understanding of the doctrine of baptism in Acts? Or in the Gospels, at the earliest?

No, this is the same approach that derailed the Pharisees of Jesus' day. They first located themselves existentially at Sinai, and then read both forward and backward a legalist mindset, e.g., upon Abraham. This failure is directly combated by Paul in Gal.3. Abraham is not fundamentally an "Old Covenant" figure. He is the prototype New Covenant believer, though it is somewhat anachronistic to call him that. But the New Covenant is simply the Abrahamic Covenant, the covenant with his Seed, in fulfillment.

4) After we have a highly developed doctrine or theology of baptism, then we approach the narrative and other historically descriptive texts (Acts primarily) to see how the reports of various baptism do (or do not) support the doctrine. If there be a plain contradiction, then obviously something has been missed. On the other hand, since our theology of baptism would have us expect to find (for instance) households--undifferentiated, the common definition used throughout the Bible--lo, we find them.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Would you say that first came the decision to view scripture with a covenantal hermeneutic, then came the system, then came the application with respect to baptism?

Nova,
Item first, Please find your way to your profile page, and give yourself the appropriate signature. For requirements, please see the link in my signature block (I hope it is functional)

2) Hermeneutics always comes in at the very first step. There is no possibility of reading any text whatever (even Dick & Jane) without a rudimentary hermeneutic. How to read the Bible, where to begin reading the Bible--all this is basic to understanding the Bible.

3) What I do, in approaching the question of "what is baptism, how do we baptize, whom do we baptize, who baptizes," etc., is I need a Theology of Baptism. The whole Bible is my textbook. Not simply one part of it, like the New Testament. Nor do I think it is appropriate to first locate onesself existentially in the text, so for example since I am a NT believer, should I first find myself existentially post-Pentecost, and therefore begin my understanding of the doctrine of baptism in Acts? Or in the Gospels, at the earliest?

No, this is the same approach that derailed the Pharisees of Jesus' day. They first located themselves existentially at Sinai, and then read both forward and backward a legalist mindset, e.g., upon Abraham. This failure is directly combated by Paul in Gal.3. Abraham is not fundamentally an "Old Covenant" figure. He is the prototype New Covenant believer, though it is somewhat anachronistic to call him that. But the New Covenant is simply the Abrahamic Covenant, the covenant with his Seed, in fulfillment.

4) After we have a highly developed doctrine or theology of baptism, then we approach the narrative and other historically descriptive texts (Acts primarily) to see how the reports of various baptism do (or do not) support the doctrine. If there be a plain contradiction, then obviously something has been missed. On the other hand, since our theology of baptism would have us expect to find (for instance) households--undifferentiated, the common definition used throughout the Bible--lo, we find them.

Or as I've occasionally quipped, Baptists read the Bible from back to front; Paedobaptists read the Bible from front to back.