Dear Brother,
I will continue with my response. Again, I'm not certain I can be as thorough in my reply as your lengthy post might warrant on some other occasion.
3.) How do we reconcile the baptism of households with the fact that Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth....” (Matthew 10:34-39) Those are Christ’s own words, not mine, and I cannot reconcile the paedobaptist belief that baptism is to be for a believer and their offspring when Christ himself said that “a person’s enemies will be those of his own household”. Again, one must do much violence to scripture if you can fit the paedobaptist view of the baptism of households and reconcile that with other scripture.
a) How
precisely would you relate Jesus' words to the subject of baptism, even credo-baptism? In other words, what connection do you make between these words, and your own theology of baptism? It is not exegetically permissible to simply take words spoken in one context and apply them to another, where the speaker or writer might have put a very different sense to his own statement if asked. Do you think that these verses teach a new fundamental truth concerning NT households, over against OT households? What is your justification for thinking this way?
Could we expect MORE or LESS peace in a household in the New Covenant era? Consider the well-known text of Jer.31:34, "
No more shall every man teach ...
his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD." Whatever else that passage teaches concerning the future New Covenant era, it surely teaches that under the OLD Covenant it was not uncommon for "a man's enemies to be members of his own house."
This fact: there was internecine strife within the Old Covenant church--had no bearing on the question of who should be identified with the community of faith. So, what of Jesus' statement leads you to the opposite conclusion for the New Covenant church? After that, why should that reasoning be equally persuasive to those on this side, who seem to have a different starting point?
So, once again, simply citing Jesus saying that the Twelve he was sending forth could expect the hostility of their own people (perhaps to include their own families), who were conjoined to the
externals of biblical religion, and not to the Christ, the
substance of biblical revelation--I do not accept the idea that Jesus is "revising" our conception of what a household is, even one that is in the church.
b) The very form of your question implies that you are assuming whole and entire your own theological framework as the presumptive agreed-upon basis for working through the issues. But as I have been saying really from my first post in the thread, that is simply not the case. In fact, it was amishrockstar's recognition of the underlying differences in starting point and methodology that led to him creating the thread. You cannot assume you have a grasp of the other side position, and then start leveling charges of inconsistency.
4.) I must say, that I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit never works in a way that a whole household comes to faith, but I do not believe that that is the norm. I refuse to say that whole households will never be saved because to do so would be against the word of God. While at the same time, I refuse to say that baptism is to be given to a whole household when some of those cannot make a profession of faith.
a) There isn't really a question or issue here. It is more of a statement of your own views. So I won't offer any substantive response to it.
b) I will note that you conflate the two issues of "to whom" and "when" for baptism in this statement. This is natural for your side. That is, your theological a priori says that, IF a household was baptized, then ALL of them
must have been professors prior to it, or by synecdoche (part for the whole) ONLY the professors in the house
should have been baptized.
2.) Now to the question itself “How am I a participant in the covenant God makes with Abraham?” The only answer of course is believing in Christ by faith. We both agree here, just as Abraham (and the elect of all ages) are saved by faith so are we presently. The seemingly small difference is the fact that I believe that Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Christ is the Seed!! I know we both know Galations 3:16 (Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ.) so here is how I interpret what Paul is stating. The promises that we see in the Abrahamic Covenant were given to Abraham and his offspring or seed, simple enough. So, the promises are ONLY to Abraham and the seed, there are no exceptions that Paul gives the reader. Next, he quotes Genesis 12:7 in saying that it does not say “offsprings” but to one “offspring”. And lastly, he tells the reader who that offspring is, Christ! Now, in interpreting this passage, I understand it to mean that only Christ (and thus those whom Christ has made one with himself) were meant to be the offspring.
OK. That's your understanding. You seem to be saying that Christ is the fulfillment of Abraham's covenant
to the exclusion of any broad sense (but then you try to tack it on at the end).
a) But the fact is that "the seed" has multiple senses. And Messiah even says, "Here I am, and the
children you have given me" (Heb.2:13; Is.8:18). Thus, the Abrahamic covenant
is concentrated upon Messiah, but does not remove other senses or a wide-reaching fulfillment. Gal.3:7-9 even says that Abraham's true seed are those who share his faith (cf.Rom.2:28-29). So in the same Gal. chapter, we see both the ultimate fulfillment in One, as well as descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven, and the sand of the seashore. And that is the indubitable sense of the text quoted in v8 (Gen.12:3). So you are not letting the whole context of Gal.3 (or Gen.12-22) speak.
b) Nor can you separate Gen.12:2 from 12:7. The most obvious sense of the text is that 12:7 is speaking directly to the many people who would eventually dwell in the Land of Promise by the power of the promise. The most logical reference to the One Seed is Gen.22:18. Not only is that story a climax of the whole promise-covenant narrative (Gen.12-22), but it crystallizes the notion that the
extensive fulfillment of the seed-promise has a definite, Messianic
intensive fulfillment in the One. It allows the many other texts that give an obvious extensive sense to the term "seed" to have that sense, without demanding of them a complete and immediate reductive sense. God not only promises Messiah, he also promises him a people in the same covenant.
c) So, we come back to the question of whether Abraham is a Christian (speaking anachronistically) or not. If in essence he is, then the promises to him in Genesis are ALREADY Christological in scope and intent. The seed he is promised in an extensive sense is ALREADY only realized in truth when the hope is embraced by faith. For my part, I reject the non-sacral nature of ANY PART of the promise to Abraham.
3.) Moving on to Galatians 3:18-19, ... Paul states that the law “was added… until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made”. When was the law fulfilled? When Christ came, he fulfilled the law! The law ... bound everyone under sin so that “the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given those who believe”. Since the offspring has come, the promise is made only to those who believe.
The promise was NEVER made to ANY BUT those who believe.
I know that paedobaptists agree with me wholeheartedly when I point this out. Of course we all believe that only those who come to faith in Christ are given the promise, there is no discrepancy between paedobaptists brethren and myself. The small difference is that I view the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in Christ as fulfilling the sign of circumcision because he fulfilled the Covenant of works, the law. His circumcision, and only his circumcision, is of value because he fulfilled the law on our behalf (Romans 2:25). It is my conviction, that Christ entered into this covenant on our behalf because our circumcision could never have been of value, he fulfilled the covenant!
a) Are you sure that you want to say, "our circumcision had NO value"? What of Rom.3:1? Was there advantage or not? Further, does your baptism have ANY value? Now, I expect you to clarify by saying that you mean to say, "...
saving value," which is externally true, as we all know. But what is the value of circumcision to Christ? Or the value of his circumcision to us? Is it only after a legal question? That Christ was circumcised because the law said so? Just so he could be a completely obedient Jew? What did circumcision MEAN? How did Christ fulfill the MEANING of circumcision, not just the legal prescription?
Of course, if on your premises it is NOT a sacral-question, then I suppose that you are fine with that. But if you are going to understand the position on the other side, you need to see that I am not content to say that circumcision was a "bare sign" on anyone but Christ. It is true his work in both great and small is that which gives meaning to those things that affect us. But it is exactly in the fulfillment that he ensures that the things that affect us attain meaning, through faith.
b) Circumcision was rightly incorporated into the Mosaic Covenant, however it was issued in Abraham's covenant. Therefore, properly speaking circumcision is not "law" in the Mosaic sense, but belongs to Abraham. The fact that the Judaizers Paul fought against treated it as law only shows the more just how bad off they were, in their utter misunderstanding of both law and grace.
You are committing HALF of the same error as the Judaizers, by placing circumcision under "law." (Just because it is
prescription doesn't make it strictly law--or else "repent and believe" would be "law"; "this DO in remembrance of me," would be "law", etc.) So no, circumcision is not "Covenant of Works." It is the sign of the Covenant of Grace.
4.) In conclusion, I would ask any paedobaptist how they fit themselves into the covenant of circumcision when Christ (who is the only seed) fulfilled that covenant?
I believe my immediate-above comments answer to this point. Abraham's covenant is fulfilled in the same sense that the New Covenant is also fulfilled.
1.) Here you state that I “closely tie in union the sign and the thing signified that there is no room between them”. The first thing I would point out is that I never once stated my position on the link between the sign of baptism and the thing signified. My post was simply to discuss how I believe that to base a paedobaptistic view off of the Abrahamic Covenant is simply to do violence to scripture. I never created my “own rubric” and never stated it either.
The problem is, that what you believe about the "basis" of our beliefs is grounded not in our theology or our understanding of the issues, but in an assumed common-ground basis on baptist suppositions.
You wrote
...we do the Bible injustice if we begin separating the Abrahamic Covenant up between sign and substance and then believe that we keep the substance intact but change the sign
Now, how that doesn't represent your view if you call separation "injustice," then begin to challenge the correctness of such distinctions, I don't know. Everyone argues "from" some fixed point, so if your's is simply chosen for convenience, and not your own, you really can't complain if I also "assume" that fixed position is yours "for argument's sake."
So, you can't just "challenge" the other side, and not be expected to have to defend whatever the ground you are standing on to mount your challenge. It doesn't work that way.
2.) I do apologize for not stating my own position on baptism, since it has created much confusion, so I will state my position. Firstly, I can be properly called a credo-baptist. I believe that before one receives the sign of baptism they must first make a profession of faith. Now, you are correct in that it would be ludicrous to believe that everyone who makes a profession has been regenerated. Also, I do not, and have never, believed in baptismal regeneration. In a very true sense, I agree with you that both paedobaptist and credobaptist baptize on presumption. I do not believe that “everyone who has been baptized is de facto in the covenant with Christ”. My understanding on the nature, meaning, and administration of baptism is not rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant (since that covenant has been fulfilled) but as it is described in the New Testament and the nature of the New Covenant. And in those areas, I cannot find any way of finding infant baptism in any part of these scriptures (though I have sought long and hard to convince myself of the paedobaptist view, because I wanted the title of ‘Reformed’ in its fullest sense). I find that a profession of faith must take place before one is baptized. Therefore, I can most properly be said to believe in credo baptism rather than believer’s baptism, because I obviously believe that we can inerrantly see who is regenerated and who is not.
Slight correction; I haven't stated (here, anyway) that p-bs baptize on presumption. I stressed above that we baptize those, and only those, whom we believe we have commandment to baptize. When we judge of visible things, we are acting within our human limitations and by prescription.
3.) I am not desacralizing circumcision in the OT and resacralizing it in the NT. The sign of circumcision was sacramental in the OT. It was to be given to the whole household; we see that clearly in Genesis 17. But, it is not until Christ came that Paul could look back and state that “circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision” (Romans 2:25). Every single male (other than Christ) who bore the sign of circumcision had his circumcision become uncircumcision. Even Abraham’s circumcision became uncircumcision because he could not fulfill the law. So, the sign of circumcision could only be fulfilled by the offspring, which is Christ. But, Paul alerts the reader to know that Abraham had the same faith in the offspring that we do. Abraham’s uncircumcision became circumcision by faith in the fulfillment of the promise, Christ. Therefore, the promise can be guaranteed to both Abraham and his offspring (Christ and those in Christ).
a) I think you are misapplying Rom.2:25. What is the purpose of that whole section of Romans? To conclude the whole world under sin, Gentiles and Jews alike. The Jewish pride in being God's people and having the law--thus being "God's people"--was foolish and damnable. Paul says to them, "By your law-breaking (and lack of repentance and faith) you show that your circumcision is meaningless." He most certainly means this basic thought, because he turns the thought around and teaches that when the Gentiles do obey matters of God's law, it is as though their uncircumcision was counted as circumcision (v26).
b) The statement, "not until Christ came that Paul could look back..." is completely unacceptable to me. Was Abraham a "Christian" or wasn't he? By my lights, he was, which reconfigures the whole argument for me. How do you plan to crack the foundation of my argument? How are you going to persuade me to see an inconsistency in my view, unless you can convince me Abraham (and all those others, pre-Christ, with the very same faith) did not possess all the visionary grasp of the true realities in Christ that Paul and the writer to Hebrews plainly states he, and they, did have?
c) Abraham's circumcision did NOT become uncircumcision! Never! He was given the sign of his faith having that faith already, and God's gifts are without repentance. Because Christ fulfilled the meaning and substance of that circumcision, and God sustained Abraham and all his faithful children in their faith--through trials and the dim ages until Christ's entrance. Therefore, the circumcision of the faithful was a testimony to them of their circumcised hearts. This is real OT theology.
4.) Rev. Buchanan, you also stated “The "New" Covenant is new relative to Moses (properly the "Old") but not to Abraham.”The promise given 430 years prior cannot be disannuled." I totally agree!! This is something where we can find unity!! I agree with you that the New Covenant is relative to Moses and not to Abraham.
OK.
5.) I, as a credobaptist, do believe that the credobaptist viewpoint ... does create a ‘purer church’, that is it would have less unregenerate people in a congregation.... I do not see scriptural basis for not even attempting to gain a profession of faith from a candidate of baptism.
...[Was] Abraham was given the sign of baptism[? ] To which, I would hope at least, you and I could agree that Abraham was not given the sign of baptism; he was given the sign of circumcision.
You want me to agree that Abraham wasn't given baptism, under the strictest of definitions that you impose. So, of course I can agree with you, as long as we agree that you are the party that is defining baptism by stricture. But once we do that, then you must maintain that plain, narrow, contentless definition as the discussion moves along.
But that is not typically how the talk develops. As soon as we move away from the question, relative to Abraham, the definition of baptism wants to expand into fullness, breadth, and meaning. And then I will have to go back, and say, "Well then, under the expanded understanding of baptism, I cannot agree then that Abraham WAS NOT given this "sign", because of all the signification that you now recognize in it." So this path seems fruitless to me.
You’re viewpoint says that God had to scrap the sign of circumcision and replace it with the sign of baptism. But I ask, was the substance of the covenant AND the sign which signified the covenant ever fulfilled? I say yes! And I do not find my directions for applying the sign of baptism in the Abrahamic covenant which ultimately had only one Seed because he was the only Seed who could fulfill the covenant. I find my directions for baptism in the New Testament where the actual ordinance of baptism was given and where the administration was practiced, not the Abrahamic Covenant which has already been fulfilled.
a) I would say God chose a new sign that was better, more fitting, more "inclusive" than the old sign, for cause that the Promise Made has become the Promise Kept.
b) Here again, you fuse the sign and its signification. But does our baptism teach the same elemental gospel content as circumcision? The major difference, once again, is Promise vs. Fulfillment. Since the New Covenant is a covenant of fulfillment, why do we need the sign of baptism? It only teaches the same exact content as circumcision, and besides it too is fulfilled in Christ. So, I argue
ceteris paribus, the same argument that abolishes circumcision
entirely (sign and substance), ALSO abolishes baptism by the same rubric.
c) You don't have any
directions for applying the sign of baptism in the NT. You only have direction so to DO. You don't even have explicit direction as to mode (you are just as much at the mercy of inference as to how much water is needed, etc., as sprinklers are). So you appeal to "good and necessary consequence," relying heavily on the exemplars in Acts. However, no one reads in a vacuum, and so you bring a measure of pre-understanding to those texts also. Now, why you choose to restrict that "good and necessary" to the NT Scriptures is driven by other theological commitments, such as understanding of covenant, etc.
6.) Where, Rev. Buchanan, does the Bible explicitly command us to baptize the offspring of believers? I find no such command.
As stated earlier, your not finding what I find is due to the fact that you and I are looking for different things. You want a text similar to Gen.17 repeated in the NT (which is how you phrased the question in the first place, not a "Bible" command, but "NT" command). I have exactly what I need in Gen.17. If God only needed to speak once, and I've heard him, I am satisfied.
Col. 2:11-12 does not further your own argument because whether you believe that it is talking about physical circumcision and baptism, or spiritual circumcision and baptism (which I believe it is), you cannot say that this section of scripture applies to anyone other than the elect.
a) What am I using the text for? To show the unity of the signs, OT & NT, as to their object. Paul says they both "point" to the same thing, ergo, they possess a unity of purpose. I referenced the text
after I pointed to Gen.17, because of all the NT passages, it most plainly makes this connection between the signs (and their shared significance). Therefore it accomplishes no more or less than I wished for it, being important to explaining NT adjustments to Covenant of Grace realities in the New Covenant.
b) I don't have any hangups about the fact that ONLY the elect, in either the OT or the NT, ever experience the blessed realities behind the signs. Furthermore, curses are real effects of covenant relations also.
7.) “The only thing we admit of "implication" in our practice is that infants are an obvious inclusion in the examples (given the biblical treatment of "household"), on the principle that whole households were baptized in the NT, on the testimony of the faith of a single one.” Here, your argument is based upon the idea that households were baptized based on the faith of a single one. Since I have already dealt with this previously, I find no need to further the discussion here.
To clarify, my view is based on the
explicit witness of the text of Scripture (Acts 16:14 & 34), and not on proposals of what could likely be the case, or what must be the case given theological bias against infant baptism. Chantry provides the plausible arguments for reasons to
exclude infants from consideration in those cases. He is not able to rule them out, nor can he evade the normative force of the inclusive term "household."
1.) I believe it was right and it was commanded Abraham to circumcise his offspring and his household, here we agree!! But, we must ask, where does the fulfillment of the Seed come? In Christ of course!! Then, the question must not be how do I gain the blessings of Abraham but how do I gain the blessings of Christ and from Christ!
And how is our experience at all different from theirs? How were they to gain the blessings of Christ? How has "fulfillment" over against "promise" changed the essence of our faith, or the expression of that faith? Paul goes out of his way to show how we are Abraham's seed who share his faith.
3.) I do believe that we have the same faith as Abraham. I simply place the emphasis on Christ fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant and not just changing the sign.... my activity is regulated by the fact that the covenant, which had yet to be fulfilled in Abraham’s day, is now fulfilled and, in a sense, is daily being fulfilled on this side of Calvary.
You say "fulfilled." Period. Full stop. Pack up the dolly furniture, and close the cupboard. Move on. Those relics are "curios" now. Take them out, look at them, admire them, think about what they once did mean. Before we had the grown up beds, tables, lamps.
This is to make Abraham and the rest of the OT about history. About us. About man. About a reality they could not experience because of where they were. But this is wrong.
Abraham and the rest of the OT is about Christ. The Christ who was a part of their experience then, and to which their experience pointed, just as the Apostle's experiences point, who also had Christ as part of their experiences. The apostles and the patriarchs had essentially the SAME experience, only under vastly different lighting conditions. The reality has always been both future and above. And the fact is that the reality is STILL both future and above. They had almost exclusively the "not yet." We have the "already and the not yet."
I say, "fulfilled," meaning the reality is now alive in our experience. But, brother, we aren't in heaven yet. We haven't yet joined Abraham, our father, in the presence of our Lord. This is why we still have signs! Why we still use pointers to the spiritual reality.
I'm going to let others respond to later postings. This one has already been much too long a session for me. But it has been enjoyable. Thank you.
Blessings,
