John Tombes on Genesis 17

[PuritanCovenanter]

Well then so is paedo communion. This is not NT baptism. And that is what is being addressed. You are making a slight of hand here. And redefining what is being mentioned. Apples and Oranges again.

The general statement was, "infant baptism is not found in the scriptures." Regardless of the nature of the baptism in 1 Cor. 10, it refutes the point.

1 Cor. 10 does not speak of "communion," whereas it specifically uses the word "baptism."

Concerning Communion....

(1Co 10:3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

(1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The stretch can be made here just like your baptism stretch can be made where you made it.

 

[MW]

Concerning Communion....

(1Co 10:3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

(1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The stretch can be made here just like your baptism stretch can be made where you made it.

A gratuitous stretch it is too. If I were to say there is no example of infant communion in the Scriptures, you would be hard pressed to prove infants communed because the identification is not made between the action of eating and drinking Christ and communion. You are making that identification, not the Scriptures. Whereas the Scriptures make the identification in the case of baptism and the Red Sea crossing, and specifically says that they were ALL baptised.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Concerning Communion....

(1Co 10:3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

(1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The stretch can be made here just like your baptism stretch can be made where you made it.

A gratuitous stretch it is too. If I were to say there is no example of infant communion in the Scriptures, you would be hard pressed to prove infants communed because the identification is not made between the action of eating and drinking Christ and communion. You are making that identification, not the Scriptures. Whereas the Scriptures make the identification in the case of baptism and the Red Sea crossing, and specifically says that they were ALL baptised.

The baptism mentioned into Moses is not an individual baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that is what the syllogism is concerned with. A Gospel Covenant Baptism. Not one done into Moses.

I am just illustrating the stretch. When we partake in the Lord's Supper are we not to partake of the body and blood of Christ?

 

[MW]

The baptism mentioned into Moses is not an individual baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that is what the syllogism is concerned with. A Gospel Covenant Baptism. Not one done into Moses.

Please refer to the gentleman's statement. He is speaking of baptism. You are making qualifications which he never made, and which would have altered the form of his argument if he did make them. You can't accept his argument as is, and then proceed to make qualifications once it is proven wrong.

As for the way in which you are dichotomising the baptism into Moses and Christian baptism, that goes against the grain of the apostle's admonition. Why didn't the Corinthians think of this dichotomy? "Now, Paul, it's not true the Israelites enjoyed the same external privileges with us, because their baptism wasn't Christian baptism; ergo, their falling in the wilderness is no warning to us." Paul's admonition is based on the fact that both groups of people shared common privileges.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The baptism mentioned into Moses is not an individual baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that is what the syllogism is concerned with. A Gospel Covenant Baptism. Not one done into Moses.

Please refer to the gentleman's statement. He is speaking of baptism. You are making qualifications which he never made, and which would have altered the form of his argument if he did make them. You can't accept his argument as is, and then proceed to make qualifications once it is proven wrong.

As for the way in which you are dichotomising the baptism into Moses and Christian baptism, that goes against the grain of the apostle's admonition. Why didn't the Corinthians think of this dichotomy? "Now, Paul, it's not true the Israelites enjoyed the same external privileges with us, because their baptism wasn't Christian baptism; ergo, their falling in the wilderness is no warning to us." Paul's admonition is based on the fact that both groups of people shared common privileges.

In other words, both groups were part of the visible church which has children in it who are entitled to the ordinance of baptism? Is that right?

 

[MW]

In other words, both groups were part of the visible church which has children in it who are entitled to the ordinance of baptism? Is that right?

At present we're only looking at the apostle's admonition in its own context, but that would eventually be a relevant theological abstraction for the doctrine of the church.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The baptism mentioned into Moses is not an individual baptism done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that is what the syllogism is concerned with. A Gospel Covenant Baptism. Not one done into Moses.

Please refer to the gentleman's statement. He is speaking of baptism. You are making qualifications which he never made, and which would have altered the form of his argument if he did make them. You can't accept his argument as is, and then proceed to make qualifications once it is proven wrong.

As for the way in which you are dichotomising the baptism into Moses and Christian baptism, that goes against the grain of the apostle's admonition. Why didn't the Corinthians think of this dichotomy? "Now, Paul, it's not true the Israelites enjoyed the same external privileges with us, because their baptism wasn't Christian baptism; ergo, their falling in the wilderness is no warning to us." Paul's admonition is based on the fact that both groups of people shared common privileges.

In other words, both groups were part of the visible church which has children in it who are entitled to the ordinance of baptism? Is that right?

The children were not set as the example here. They were not overthrown. Those who sinned were overthrown and the age of those overthrown was 20 and above when the sin happened if I am not mistaken. The example is set to say, Don't be displeasing to God or you will face judgment. Kind of like 2 Cor 13:5.

Moses Covenant is a mixed Covenant. I don't believe the New Covenant is. It is an example.

 

[MW]

The children were not set as the example here. They were not overthrown. Those who sinned were overthrown and the age of those overthrown was 20 and above when the sin happened if I am not mistaken. The example is set to say, Don't be displeasing to God or you will face judgment. Kind of like 2 Cor 13:5.

Moses Covenant is a mixed Covenant. I don't believe the New Covenant is. It is an example.

Paul's admonition requires a different construct. The two parties are placed on equal footing so far as privileges and warnings are concerned. You are seeing a "mixed covenant" because the apostle is dealing with the external administration of the covenant ... in both Testaments.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The children were not set as the example here. They were not overthrown. Those who sinned were overthrown and the age of those overthrown was 20 and above when the sin happened if I am not mistaken. The example is set to say, Don't be displeasing to God or you will face judgment. Kind of like 2 Cor 13:5.

Moses Covenant is a mixed Covenant. I don't believe the New Covenant is. It is an example.

Paul's admonition requires a different construct. The two parties are placed on equal footing so far as privileges and warnings are concerned. You are seeing a "mixed covenant" because the apostle is dealing with the external administration of the covenant ... in both Testaments.

I am not sure about that. He is dealing with the people of God needing to be pleasing to God though.

 

[MW]

I am not sure about that. He is dealing with the people of God needing to be pleasing to God though.

Verse 12, "Wherefore" applies the admonition -- "let him that thinketh he standeth take heed LEST HE FALL."