Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Then, forgive me as I misunderstood u. We agree.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This still references the OT, though quoted and applied in the NT:
"How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised." (Rom. 4:10-12)
In the OT, believing preceded the sign of the covenant. Abraham is still the father of believers. There is no difference between the OT and NT in this regard.
Should OT infants have received the sign of the covenant? They did. Was this household principle abrogated or further established in the NT? Who was baptized? Households!
Hope this helps...
But then he also shows us it was valid to give the sign before faith was actually evidenced (to his children)
I would say that is one of of the things that helped me was the continuity between the covenants in relationship to profession of faith and then the giving of the covenant sign. I’m still working on how to properly understand/explain the relationship of the children to the parents who have received the sign. It is definitely something that is drawn from “good and necessary inferences” as the WCF says. The lack of properly understanding the close relationship the covenants have seems to be related to a poor understanding of the OT.
Brother, I must remember to say a prayer for you. My wife and I changed positions at the same time studying the Scriptures together. There was one pount where we had disagreement, and it required great care and tenderness. Theological switches are never easy because our whole lives are structured around our positions. May God give you both light and wisdom.
@Grant Jones and @timfost have given us a very clear example of an OT convert who believed and repented before being circumcised, and that is great precedence of what was required of any Gentile convert before either he or his family could become members of the OT church--they must believe and repent. So the requirements for admission in the NT have an ancient precedent.
My time is limited, but continuing that vein: Can we really say it not required of Gentile converts--outsiders coming into Israel--in the OT to repent and believe, or have some believable profession? I can't possibly imagine the answer is no when God had such a demand of holiness from the covenant people, both internal and external demands. Were I an elder in Israel I dont think I'd ever appoint circumcision to one who clung to his idols, continued in adultery, or was not willing to be justified before God in the way that Abraham was. It'd go against the whole point of being a holy and separate people. As God had said in other circumstances, "I will be sanctified by those who draw near to me" Leviticus 10. And clearly, as OT history shows, this demand was enforced.
Thanks Brother! It is not easy to walk through this theological change. However, I’m learning how merciful and gracious our great God is and how sinful I am. He is teaching me how to be patient and how to better love my wife.
The journey is difficult since my family and I moved to KY last July for me to attend Southern here. The elders of our church in AZ believed God was gifting me to be an elder so encouraged me to come here to be trained. I was questioning some things theologically before and during our move here. Now that we’ve been here for awhile, I’ve really started to lean toward the paedo position but am frustrated because I know my theological shift also means a postponement of being ordained to serve in a church. Learning God know what I need!
I think I know what you are asking, if my answer misses your question tell me.This is something that we can only show by good and necessary inference though correct? In other words, a covenantal understanding of Scripture will lead us to understand certain passages in the NT through that lens.?
covenatal
I'm not in agreement that the "norm" in the NT was adult baptism. Two points.For the OP, one shouldn’t shy away from the idea that the norm in the NT (and maybe for the first century) was adult baptism. Infant baptism doesn’t rest upon the pattern of the 1st century church. The reformed have acknowledged these points from the beginning. See James Bannerman and William Cunningham on these points:
https://renopres.com/2017/03/27/james-bannerman-the-efficacy-of-infant-baptism/
https://renopres.com/2017/03/26/william-cunningham-infant-baptism/
Both my text friends and now my PB friends know that I am not the best speller. Did I just invent a new word?Grant, you obviousy have babies on the mind lately.
Congrats, by the way!
Is it possible to demonstrate that the giving of the covenant sign can be given to someone prior to expressing faith without going back into the OT?
Sure it is. Paul had "A" covenant sign prior to his faith.
Beeke makes a good case that in all cases the NT is better than the OT (baptism is girls whereas circumcision is only boys, no longer converting to Judaism, etc). To not accept the children as part of the visible covenant would be a step back.
As you see from these men, as they are sending you to the OT for references, which is the only place to build any confidence in any doctrine, you are looking in the wrong place for the answers. You must look to the old testament for an understanding of sacramental baptism.
You say that you "lean" towards paedo-. That makes you the wrong person to be instructing her on this doctrine. You need someone who is skilled in teaching this doctrine to both of you. I assume your Church is baptistic. If it is, you should submit to the doctrine taught there. If you want to instruct her in a different doctrine then you should go to Church that teaches that doctrine. By teaching a doctrine which is contrary to that which your Church adheres to is teaching her that your Church is wrong on this point. The logical conclusion is that if they are wrong on one doctrine they may be wrong on others. This is acting as a disrupting factor to her and counterproductive to the work of the shepherds of your Church.
You are in a difficult position to say the least. However you can look at this as an opportunity put wheels on various graces God offers you.
1. You may patiently wait upon the Lord' hand of providence to teach you and her.
2. You may exercise your headship, and leave this Church. Then join a Church which teaches the doctrine that you hold to.
3. The two of you can attend different Churches.
4. You can do nothing.
None of these will be easy, but neither is a sojourn through any wilderness. In fact, that a good place to see the emphasis God puts on this doctrine. God sought to kill Moses for not performing the sign of the Covenant on his own son. Moses did not take responsibility for his own family, and his wife had to do it. She saved his life. God takes this stuff seriously, shouldn't we? (Exodus 4)
Good lessons Ephesians 5 is our model for loving our wives, and I think it's called the washing of water not only for the purifying effect, but for the gentleness of the washing itself. May God grace you.
I can understand the frustration. I would say though, it's ultimately a mercy. The one thing you do not want is to go into eldership in a church/denomination where you cannot confidently subscribe to its confession. It would be insincere at best no matter how you tried to make it work. However, God is a God of great providences. If He has put a gift in you, He's not going to remove it just because you need a clearer understanding of the Word, and this may be part of placing you in the exact place where he would have you serve, first as a church member, and if He wills, as an elder. So, your desire to know the truth on baptism is a cooperation with His Spirit, and not a resistance. That's a comfort. If Christ is the one giving gifts in Ephesians 4, then Christ is the one putting them in their proper congregations.
But I would say, study and study the Scriptures themselves on this matter until you are fully convinced fully from Scripture one way or the other. The Lord bless you in it. Having been on both sides of the baptism debate I can say, if God made me an elder, I'd be happier to do it as a paedo than a credo. I am as a parent for sure.
@Bill Duncan has advice in his post well worth heeding. Studying and searching these things out together is one thing, though it has to be done in light of both of you having membership vows to uphold. When we switched views we were advised by paedo friends not to propogate our views because we were still under membership at an RB church though we then lived in another state. I think joint study is permitted, and no elder should ever hinder honest inquiry into Bible teaching, nor would they desire to, but when it begins to look like propogation of a contrary view then conflicts arise.
The education complicates it. If your sending church is paying for your education, it seems some discussions with your elders back home may be in order, depending on just how far into the PB position you lean. However, I don't have any experience in such things.
Grant, you obviousy have babies on the mind lately.
Congrats, by the way!
True Christian hospitality towards a weaker spelling brother. My vote is cast!
I’ve read a bit from Beeke but have yet to come across that section. Where does he make this case?
Water Baptism in the NC though seems to be implying that the spiritual circumcision is done by God before the person receives the ordinance.This still references the OT, though quoted and applied in the NT:
"How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised." (Rom. 4:10-12)
In the OT, believing preceded the sign of the covenant. Abraham is still the father of believers. There is no difference between the OT and NT in this regard.
Should OT infants have received the sign of the covenant? They did. Was this household principle abrogated or further established in the NT? Who was baptized? Households!
Hope this helps...
Water Baptism in the NC though seems to be implying that the spiritual circumcision is done by God before the person receives the ordinance.
I do not believe the scripture clearly presents infant baptism as a replacement for the mark of the covenant .
How do u understand Acts 16:31 if not by covenant? What could the apostles have meant here?
Read down to v. 34. “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”
They all believed. And they all were baptized. That's the clear biblical pattern.
It is a visible sign, given to visibly mark out the visible church - not a visible sign to mark out the invisible church, because that would be pointless
It is a visible sign, given to visibly mark out the visible church - not a visible sign to mark out the invisible church, because that would be pointless.
Hi Terry,
How do u understand Acts 16:31 if not by covenant? What could the apostles have meant here?
Confessional Baptists do not believe baptism is a 'visible sign to mark out the invisible church'. We fully admit (as do Paedos) that some who receive water baptism are hypocrites.
Read down to v. 34. “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”