Response to Questions Asked

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is heresy. Surly this isn't the common reformed stance! The righteousnes of Christ is only imputed the elect (i.e. those God has decided to save).

Note that Robert says it is a seal; not the actual righteousness of Christ.

It reads as follows:

2) It is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, Rm 4:11 - the very righteousness of Christ was given to the "unbelieving" children of believers.

It sounds to me as if Robert is saying that the very righteousness of Christ was given to unbelievers. I'll let him clarify.

He means that the sign and seal is given to the recipients of baptism.

 

[TheocraticMonarchist]

So the sign and seal is given to the infant, and not the righteousness of Christ? Is this the official infant baptist view?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

So the sign and seal is given to the infant, and not the righteousness of Christ? Is this the official infant baptist view?

See WCF chapter 27:

II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receiver.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi TM:

I am using the word "given" you are using the word "imputed." Was the righteousness of Christ "given" to Simon the Sorcerer when he was Baptized? When you baptize someone you are giving them all of the promises contained therein. That they reject it through unbelief will count sorely upon them at the Last Day:

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace? Hb 10:29.

The seal of the righteousness of Christ is not given only to those who profess faith in Christ. It is given to the infants of Abraham/believers. It is effective only to those who have true faith in Christ. Yet, who among us is going to say that "such and such" has true faith while "this other person" does not? Is this where Credo-Baptism leads you? If so, then you are violating what Jesus teaches in Mt 7:1,2.

Pilgrim:

Spurgeon's Commentary on Matthew was written late in his life, and is the product of his maturer reflections upon the text. (The sermon that you refer to was spoken in his youth) No where does Spurgeon say that Baptism is in view here. However, he does in fact admit that children of believers can be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven:

Children, and those like them, may freely come into the Kingdom of the Lord of Heaven.

Spurgeon makes no difference between "children" and "infants" - especially given the fact that infants are mentioned in the parallel passage in Luke. Do you think that no infants were brought to Jesus? And if "children" can be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven why not "infants"?

If you are going to tell me that "infants are incapable of faith" then where in Scripture does it so state? Such a belief is a false philosophy that is no where substantiated in Scripture.

TM writes:

Unbelieving children are covenant breakers whether or not they are baptized. They are wicked, depraved, God hating, hell bound heathens. They are already cut off from the people of God whether or not they get their little head got wet. They must hear the gospel and by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ be saved.

You are confusing the matters of the visible and invisible church. I will refer you to your own (1689) Confession of Faith chapter 26 sections 1,2 for a description of the visible and invisible Church.

All members of the visible church - whether circumcized (OT) or baptized (NT)- are under the Covenant of Grace. All of the promises are given to them, and they receive all of the blessings that the visible church can give. However, without true faith in Jesus they are not members of the invisible church. They have broken the promises of God given to them through the visible means of preaching, hearing, and the sacraments. They were instructed on the means of salvation, and knew what their duty was, but they never had the faith to embrace it.

So, why does this block infants of believers/disciples from being considered members of the Covenant of Grace? Since God has commanded us to receive infants, 8 days old, into the New Covenant, then where is the commandment that forbids infants from receiving the sacrament of baptism?

It is a pleasure to discuss these things with you,

-CH

 

[swilson]

Baptism, from what scripture teaches, is an outward symbol of the faith and confession of/in Christ Jesus. Not a way into the New Covenant. I understand the historical thought on this, but let's go to scripture and look for baptism being anything but what people who profess Christ do. The visible church is always filled with thistles and chaff...this is sad, but true. We are to raise them in the ways of the Lord, but there is no covenant taught in NT scripture that states that a believers child has any hope of being saved in the future than a non-believers child - "I come not to bring peace, but a sword...family member will be divided against family member"....if there is a covenant to the children of saved parents, how does a child of unsaved parents get saved, and did he/she get saved through some "lower percentage" means, but the child baptised into "the coventant" had a better chance? Is this scriptural or traditional? Because, I'm leaning this to be very much traditional.....proof texts please?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Baptism, from what scripture teaches, is an outward symbol of the faith and confession of/in Christ Jesus. Not a way into the New Covenant. I understand the historical thought on this, but let's go to scripture and look for baptism being anything but what people who profess Christ do. The visible church is always filled with thistles and chaff...this is sad, but true. We are to raise them in the ways of the Lord, but there is no covenant taught in NT scripture that states that a believers child has any hope of being saved in the future than a non-believers child - "I come not to bring peace, but a sword...family member will be divided against family member"....if there is a covenant to the children of saved parents, how does a child of unsaved parents get saved, and did he/she get saved through some "lower percentage" means, but the child baptised into "the coventant" had a better chance? Is this scriptural or traditional? Because, I'm leaning this to be very much traditional.....proof texts please?

Hi:

The baptism of John was it from heaven, or from men?

-CH

 

[TheocraticMonarchist]

I'm thinking back to all the problems the early church had with those jews who wanted to put the gentiles under the law, especialy with circumcision.

I don't think that the Apostles ever had in mind that baptism replaced circumcision.

Can you show me a strong textual case where the apostles equate circumcision of the forskin with water baptism?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised...

The only way these verses do not connect baptism and circumcision as separate signs (in separate eras) pointing to the same thing is if "circumcision without hands" (i.e. "circumcision of the heart", Deut. 10:16) is not symbolized in the circumcision of the forskin.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

CH,

You wrote this in an above post:

"So, why does this block infants of believers/disciples from being considered members of the Covenant of Grace? Since God has commanded us to receive infants, 8 days old, into the New Covenant, then where is the commandment that forbids infants from receiving the sacrament of baptism?"

Can you elaborate on this a little? Thanks in advance.

Daniel

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised...

The only way these verses do not connect baptism and circumcision as separate signs (in separate eras) pointing to the same thing is if "circumcision without hands" (i.e. "circumcision of the heart", Deut. 10:16) is not symbolized in the circumcision of the forskin.

Extract from Pink's Divine Covenants

"It is a mistake to suppose that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. As that which supplanted the Old Testament sacrifices was the one offering of the Saviour; as that which superseded the Aaronic priesthood was the high priesthood of Christ; so that which has succeeded circumcision is the spiritual circumcision which believers have in and by Christ.‘In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ’ (Col 2:11)- how simple! How satisfying! ‘Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him’ (v12 ) is something additional: it is only wresting the Scriptures to say these two verses mean, ‘Being buried with Him in baptism ye are circumcised.’ No, no; verse 11 declares the Christian circumcision is ‘ made without hands’ and baptism is administered with hands! The circumcision ‘made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh’ has come in the place of the circumcision made with hands. The circumcision of Christ has come in place of the circumcision of the law. Never once in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as the seal of the New Covenant; rather is the Holy Spirit the seal (Eph 1:13; 4:30 )."

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised...

The only way these verses do not connect baptism and circumcision as separate signs (in separate eras) pointing to the same thing is if "circumcision without hands" (i.e. "circumcision of the heart", Deut. 10:16) is not symbolized in the circumcision of the forskin.

Also Nehemiah Coxe here. Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? - The PuritanBoard

Nehemiah Coxe, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005, 140) A reprint of A Discourse of the Covenants that God Made with Men before the Law, 1681

Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision.

Certainly it is safer to interpret one text according to the general current of Scripture and in full harmony with it, than to force such a sense on many texts (which they will in no way admit) to bring them into a compliance to a notion with which our minds are prepossessed. It is plain that the notion I have insisted on fully agrees with other places where circumcision is discussed according to its immediate and direct use in the old covenant. For there can be no contradiction in ascribing a different and seemingly opposite use and end to the same thing, if it be done in a different respect. What circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing; what it was as subordinate to a better covenant and promise that had precedence to it, is another. It is easy to conceive that it might be that to the father of the faithful in its extraordinary institution, what it could not be to the children of the flesh or carnal seed in its ordinary use.

To conclude: if circumcision and baptism have the same use and are seals of the same covenant, I can hardly imagine how the application of both to the same subjects should at any time be proper. Yet we find those that were circumcised in their infancy were also baptized on the profession of faith and repentance even before circumcision was abrogated. Yes, according to the opinion that has been argued against, the Jews that believed before Christ suffered were at the same time under a command both of circumcising and baptizing their infant seed. But if the principles that this discourse is built upon are well proved by Scripture, as I take them to be, there must be allowed a vast disparity between circumcision and baptism. The old covenant is not the new; nor that which is abolished, the same with that which remains. Until these become one, baptism and circumcision will never be found so far one that the law for applying the latter should be a sufficient warrant for the administration of the former to infants.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Right, Randy,
And of course the biblical names for things we CAN see and CAN'T see may be identical, but they have nothing to do with one another. Sure.

My answer to the question asked of me was direct to the point which was asked. As we have gone round and round on many times, the whole question of "which baptism" "and "which circumcision" is in view is really meaningless to me when we aren't addressing an historic baptism, but rather the theology of baptism.

We deny that the two circumcisions were fundamentally about two different things, just like we deny that the two baptisms are about two different things. But don't forget to drop the Barcellos quote in this thread too. Gotta get all the RBs to "represent." Three posts to one. You win.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Right, Randy,
And of course the biblical names for things we CAN see and CAN'T see may be identical, but they have nothing to do with one another. Sure.

Shadows and fulfilment have nothing to do with each other? Circumsion of the flesh and Circumsion of the heart are two that have a link. One was a shadow and the other is the reality. Isn't that what the quotes just said? Maybe I am slipping.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

CH,

You wrote this in an above post:

"So, why does this block infants of believers/disciples from being considered members of the Covenant of Grace? Since God has commanded us to receive infants, 8 days old, into the New Covenant, then where is the commandment that forbids infants from receiving the sacrament of baptism?"

Can you elaborate on this a little? Thanks in advance.

Daniel

Hi Daniel:

I am sorry that I have not answered sooner. This past week I was at the Synod of my denomination (RPCNA).

One of the reasons why I do not believe in Abortion is that I believe that the fetus is a human being. Thus, I believe that a fetus can think, feel and act. That he/she has all the reasoning capabilities of a human being.

Consequently, I believe that infants are capable of saving faith. I believe that the Bible teaches this when John the Baptist leapt in the womb of Elizabeth upon hearing the voice of Mary (who was pregnant with Jesus).

The matter also of the infant Jesus being the very Son of the Living God from conception is also relevant. Though Jesus grew in wisdom and honor before God and man it is a remarkable thing that a human infant can "contain" (if I can use that expression) the Divine Nature. If infants are incapable of faith, then how can the infant Jesus "hold" the Second Person of the Trinity?

If "Elect infants are regenerated" then they obviously are capable of saving faith.

What I find most curious is that Credo baptists have no Scripture that teaches their mantra, "Infants are incapable of faith."

Where they get that, and why they are so militant about barring infants from the Kingdom of God where there is so much evidence to the contrary is beyond me.

Grace,

-CH