Sign and Seal

[py3ak]

In a sermon on Romans 4 that I heard recently the preacher made the statement that in Scripture a seal is never prospective but is always retrospective (Abraham received circumcision, a seal of the righteousness which he had [i:647b3baad5]before[/i:647b3baad5] he was circumcised). He objected on that basis to infant baptism, but encouraged paedo baptists at the very least not to think of the baptism of their children as a seal.

3 Questions:

1. Is he correct in stating that a seal is invariably retrospective?

2. Can sign and seal be divided? I know you can distinguish --but can you separate? Can you say that someone has the sign, but does not have the seal?

3. If they can, isn't this actually an argument for paedo-baptism (something like this: I apply the sign to all my children, just as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, Eli, etc. did; to those of them whom God does ultimately save, it will then become a seal)?

I'm looking for responses from all sides on these questions.

 

[pastorway]

Baptism may be a sign, but it is not a seal. The seal we have in Christ is the Holy Spirit and we are not sealed until we are saved! Ephesians 1:13-14

I had not thought about it before, but I do not think we can find an example of a seal given in the Scriptures that is not past tense - after the fact. That is why it is a [i:edb24109f6]seal[/i:edb24109f6].

You can deny the sign, but you cannot undo the seal!

Phillip

 

[py3ak]

Baptism not a Seal?

Pastor Way,

That is an interesting way to look at it. Obviously we know circumcision was a sign and a seal --on your view, then, baptism can't correspond to circumcision very closely, because baptism is missing one half of what circumcision was. Am I understanding you? If I am, then it seems that sacraments are qualitatively different in the OT and the NT. Do you have any Scriptures that would back that up? That would be a most interesting example of discontinuity.

There is another implication in your post that I am not sure about, but perhaps I'm not understanding you correctly. If circumcision was a seal (Romans 4 again), but [i:87c9f6bccd]now[/i:87c9f6bccd] we are sealed with the Holy Spirit, doesn't that suggest that Abraham was not sealed with the Holy Spirit? How would circumcision be any kind of a substitute for the Holy Spirit? Of course, if you're right on this (though you may not even mean this implication) it makes me doubly grateful to live in the current dispensation!

What do you mean by saying that we can deny the sign but not undo the seal? That someone can refuse to be baptised, or not understand baptism, but nonetheless be sealed with the Holy Spirit?

Thanks for your quick response.

 

[pastorway]

Abraham was sealed with the Spirit. All believers are.

And yes, I deny the continuity between circumcision and baptism. One does not replace the other, nor do they mean the same thing. I still think that Acts 15 makes the case that if baptism had replaced circumcision then the church at Jerusalem would have told the Gentiles, "Don't worry about circumcision guys, baptism replaced it!"

And we can deny our baptism by the way we live, proving that we are not regerate. But we cannot undo the seal, for no man can undo what the God has sealed with His Spirit.

If we can undo the seal, then baptism is meaningless unless you are already saved.

Now circumcision is referred to in Romans 4:11 as a seal of the righteousness of faith that existed before the sign. The word used for seal there means "a mark of genuineness, that which confirms, attests, or authenticates." Abraham's circumcision was proof of the genuineness of his faith. His obedience authenticated his faith.

Does that mean that every circumcision is a seal? This is the only verse in the Bible that identifies circumcision as a seal and it is referring specifically to Abraham and his faith.

Baptism is never once referred to in Scripture as a seal, but it is referenced as "the answer of a good conscience towards God" (1 Peter 3:21). The conscience is already good, so the act of baptism is not a mark of identification, of ownership, but a profession of the fact that we have been given the seal of the Holy Spirit and have been purchased with the Blood of Christ.

When the Spirit is referred to as our seal (Eph 1:13-14), it is a slightly different Greek word than the word used for circumcision in Romans 4! It is from the same root word, but has a different meaning. There the Spirit is "a stamp for security or preservation." It is a mark of identification. See the difference?

One seal (Abrahamn's circumcision) attests to the genuiness of his righteousness by faith. The other (the Spirit for all believers) is a mark of ownership, a down payment, a secure guarantee that we will be preserved.

So circumcision was a seal to Abraham. Baptism is not a seal. And the Holy Spirit is a different kind of seal than Abraham's circumcision was, one that is applied to every believer as a guarantee that theire salvation will be completed. This much we can prove from the Scriptures.

Phillip




[Edited on 3-28-04 by pastorway]

 

[py3ak]

Thanks for the further comments. I think I understand the distinctions between the different kinds of seals. I had a couple of questions based on what you said.

[u:543f36cbc0]Pastorway said: "If we can undo the seal, then baptism is meaningless unless you are already saved."[/u:543f36cbc0]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow that. Could you elucidate, please?


[u:543f36cbc0]Pastorway said: "The word used for seal there means "a mark of genuineness, that which confirms, attests, or authenticates." Abraham's circumcision was proof of the genuineness of his faith. His obedience authenticated his faith." [/u:543f36cbc0]

Abraham had this specific instance that authenticated his faith: do we have anything similar?

Finally, would I be correct in stating your view this way: "In baptism we testify from a good conscience that we have received the Holy Spirit, the guarantee of our inheritance"? If so, did the OT saints have any corresponding method of profession, or is there another discontinuity here?

Thanks again for the thoughtful post.

Hope all my questions aren't making you feel like this:

 

[pastorway]

[quote:907353eab4][i:907353eab4]Originally posted by py3ak[/i:907353eab4]
Thanks for the further comments. I think I understand the distinctions between the different kinds of seals. I had a couple of questions based on what you said.

[u:907353eab4]Pastorway said: "If we can undo the seal, then baptism is meaningless unless you are already saved."[/u:907353eab4]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow that. Could you elucidate, please?[/quote:907353eab4]

The seal is the Spirit, the sign baptism. If we could undo the seal (kick the Spirit out, "unsave" ourselves), then that makes the sign (baptism) meaningless. It is not a lasting sign and does not represent a lasting reality.

I believe that you must be saved to be baptized. If you are not saved, if you do not possess the Spirit, the reality of salvation, then you may be wet in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but you have not been baptized. Baptism represents a reality, not just a possibility.


[quote:907353eab4][u:907353eab4]Pastorway said: "The word used for seal there means "a mark of genuineness, that which confirms, attests, or authenticates." Abraham's circumcision was proof of the genuineness of his faith. His obedience authenticated his faith." [/u:907353eab4]

Abraham had this specific instance that authenticated his faith: do we have anything similar?[/quote:907353eab4]

Yes, we have the Holy Spirit, who bears witness with our Spirit and leads us into all truth! We need no outward seal, for the work is inward and the outward proof is the way we live. Saving faith is a faith that works! We bear the fruit of repentance.

[quote:907353eab4]Finally, would I be correct in stating your view this way: "In baptism we testify from a good conscience that we have received the Holy Spirit, the guarantee of our inheritance"? [/quote:907353eab4]

Right.

[quote:907353eab4]If so, did the OT saints have any corresponding method of profession, or is there another discontinuity here?[/quote:907353eab4]

Discontinuity indeed.

[quote:907353eab4]Thanks again for the thoughtful post.

Hope all my questions aren't making you feel like this:

[/quote:907353eab4]

HEHE, no problem at all (poor horse, he is a popular figure around here, huh?!)

Phillip

 

[kceaster]

Ruben...

Baptism is a sign and seal as the WCF rightly states. If circumcision was sign and seal for Abraham our father, then it is sign and seal for us as well. The seal part is the part we have not been given to see. It is the circumcision made without hands.

So, Phillip is partly right that the Spirit seals us. But where he is mistaken is when he separates what is signified in both rites. Although the outward means are different, they signify the same thing. One is shadow and the other reality. All saints in the OT have been baptized, just as we in the NT have been circumcised. Paul makes that clear.

BTW, all eat the same spiritual food and drink the same spiritual drink.

So, there is not so much discontinuity as has been suggested.

One more thing about the seal. It is an aspect that is "already...not yet." It must be viewed this way. We were signed, sealed, ingrafted, and saved in Christ in our election before the foundation of the world. However, that does not mean that these things must not be done in time and when God says it's time. Therefore, I don't consider myself as much saved as I am being saved. I think that is a better way to put the terms. That way I am reminded to work out my salvation in fear and trembling instead of believing myself to have arrived.

I would never suggest that anyone can lose their salvation. But to draw a line in the sand as Phillip and others have suggested, when a profession of faith is made and when they have been baptized; they may say they are saved, but it is not true in all cases. My father being my example.

So when we think in terms of sign and seal, perhaps a better way to see it is that our father Abraham received the seal, so shall we if we have like faith, and shall glory in the salvation of Christ. For those who receive this seal for whom there is no faith, they are sealed for destruction.

In Christ,

KC

 

[pastorway]

Please show me one verse that even [i:d342e59212]infers[/i:d342e59212] that baptism is a seal. Circumcision is referred to as a seal only in Romans 4:11. And baptism is nowhere spoken of as a seal. The only seal given to us in the NT is the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14).

Phillip

 

[kceaster]

Phillip...

You just mentioned one in Romans 4:11.

If everywhere you see baptism you think of water and a new convert, you will not see baptism as a seal.

But what is baptism, Phillip? How is the Holy Spirit a seal to us? Don't we have to be regenerated (read spiritually circumcised)? You just said the Holy Spirit is our seal, well, how is He our seal? By the His making us believers through regeneration and faith, the circumcision made without hands, His baptism.

Baptism is not the water rite alone. Baptism is the Spirit's circumcision. Therefore, physical circumcision represents what the Spirit will do in the life of the elect person, just as baptism represents what the Spirit will do in the life of an elect person.

To anticipate your next question, no, everyone who is physically baptized is not sealed with the Holy Spirit. To them the sign is applied only. It is seal only when the Holy Spirit has done His work.

When is the last time you saw, with your own eyes, the act of the Holy Spirit seal someone? If you can see this, then you truly know who is elect and who is not, and, you have been given sight no one has been given.

The thief on the cross was sealed in baptism, though no water was applied. He was circumcised by the Holy Spirit and buried with Christ in baptism.

But, if you automatically equate physical water baptism as a seal and do not look at the thing signified, you will not see it.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Tertullian]

[quote:a0dec184f7][i:a0dec184f7]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:a0dec184f7]
You just mentioned one in Romans 4:11.

If everywhere you see baptism you think of water and a new convert, you will not see baptism as a seal.

But what is baptism, Phillip? How is the Holy Spirit a seal to us? Don't we have to be regenerated (read spiritually circumcised)? You just said the Holy Spirit is our seal, well, how is He our seal? By the His making us believers through regeneration and faith, the circumcision made without hands, His baptism.

Baptism is not the water rite alone. Baptism is the Spirit's circumcision. Therefore, physical circumcision represents what the Spirit will do in the life of the elect person, just as baptism represents what the Spirit will do in the life of an elect person.

To anticipate your next question, no, everyone who is physically baptized is not sealed with the Holy Spirit. To them the sign is applied only. It is seal only when the Holy Spirit has done His work.

When is the last time you saw, with your own eyes, the act of the Holy Spirit seal someone? If you can see this, then you truly know who is elect and who is not, and, you have been given sight no one has been given.

The thief on the cross was sealed in baptism, though no water was applied. He was circumcised by the Holy Spirit and buried with Christ in baptism.

But, if you automatically equate physical water baptism as a seal and do not look at the thing signified, you will not see it.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:a0dec184f7]

This makes for some good thoughts but not very good Bible. For I do not think this answers Pastor Way's question because where is the verse that says that baptism is a seal? Romans 4:11 says that circumcision sealed the fact that Abraham was justified by faith. To infer baptism is a seal from this passage would be like infering that because the Bible says in one place "Judas hanged himself" and in another place "go and do likewise" we can infer that it is our duty to hang ourselves. I mean because the Bible says one place "circumsion is a seal of Abraham's faith" and in another "baptism people" it does not follow that baptism is a seal.


I think this reveals a weakness of the Paedobaptist position because it reveals that it is a tradition not a conclusion derived at from a study of Scripture.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

 

[pastorway]

But KC, you go way beyond inference here. The Bible does not equate physical circumcision and water baptism. It is a huge leap to join the two, or to say that one replaces the other. It denies the fact that the elders and Apostles at Jerusalem told the Gentiles they did not have to be circumcised. And the reasoning was not for them to say that circumcision was unnecessary because now we had the sign and seal of baptism to replace it!

Physical circumcision and water baptism are not synonyms. You cannot insert one where the other is already in the text.

Hence you cannot show me any verse that says that water baptism is a seal. Though it may be a statement in the confession, it sure is not in the Scripture, and so we should insist that it be removed from the Confession so that the confession is conformed to the Scriptures.

Phillip

 

[kceaster]

To both Tyler and Phillip...

Tyler,

You may continue to contend that infant baptism is tradtion and tradition only, but you have not sufficiently proved this. Therefore, until you do, it is merely an assertion on your part.

Phillip,

I am not going way beyond inference here in lieu of Col. 2:11-12 which is ground we have plowed many times. I am sorry you can't see this, but physical circumcision and water baptism ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS in outward sign, but ARE SYNONYMOUS in what they signify. The Holy Spirit does the same work on the soul in both. A person cannot be regenerated without a circumcised heart which is the Holy Spirit's work in baptism. Not the water part, but His part that goes unseen and is done when He wills.

I could quote passage after passage to both of you, but you do not believe the Scriptures are saying what the Reformed have claimed. So, we're right back to square 0, as in tradition 0, because you refuse the light that has shined, and assert that your own interpretation trumps theirs.

Col 2, equates WHAT IS SIGNIFIED in the physical acts of circumcision and water baptism. That is why the spiritual aspect of water baptism is a seal, because the spiritual act of circumcision was a seal.

I know you both can't give up this line of reasoning, because the moment you do, is the moment you will realize how wrong you are. But don't act all offended when the REFORMED position is put forth on this board. It will continue to be put forth in the same way it has been.

It sounds like you're both surprized that I posted this. It is not as if I am some rogue element that has come up with something new. You guys should have seen this coming and refuted the Reformed position while positing yours.

And Phillip, you can insist that this be removed from the Confession, but since you can't affirm it, nor do you plan on submitting to it, you have no grounds for your statement. You already have a confession that has removed it that has been passed on from your dissenting brothers of 1689. Don't insist on what you have, yourself, decided not to be a part of.

I am sorry you do not like this abruptness of this reality. Such is the hardship of the minority report.

In Christ,

KC

 

[py3ak]

Further ??s

Pastorway,

Thanks for your replies. I am glad that I have understood you. A final question (maybe: depends on your response ) would be, do you think I am asking the right questions?

Kevin,

Reading your posts I am not sure that I understood everything you said. Would you mind giving me short answers to these questions?
1. Is a seal always retrospective in Scripture or not?
2. Can someone have the sign and not have the seal? How do we justify this distinction/division?
3. Then, depending on your answers to the above, how do these answers support infant baptism?

I also had some questions raised by your discussion with Pastorway. I know you see baptism and circumcision as symbolising the same things.
4. Would you agree, though, that baptism and circumcision, considered as rites, are both performed "with hands". Both, considered as the Spirit's work are performed "without hands" and in fact, without physical knife or physical water?
It seems also on your view that anytime we read of circumcision (barring patent references to accidents of the physical rite) we can substitute the concept of baptism and gain valuable information.
5. Am I understanding you correctly?
6. If so, is this based on the correspondence between baptism and circumcision specifically, or on the fact that both fit into the category of sacrament?
7. Am I asking the right questions?

Tyler,

Do you have any answers to my original questions? Are they the right questions?


Thanks, all!

 

[kceaster]

Ruben...

[quote:21b1a8129e]Kevin,

Reading your posts I am not sure that I understood everything you said. Would you mind giving me short answers to these questions?
1. Is a seal always retrospective in Scripture or not?[/quote:21b1a8129e]

I think what we are still trying to come up with is a moment in time so that someone can be assured of their salvation. I won't necessarily agree with that mentality. Sometimes this is based on a feeling. Or, like in some of my family's cases, it was based on walking an aisle or praying a prayer.

I think we certainly can know when the Holy Spirit regenerated us. But it becomes a bit cloudy when we start to judge that for others. The point is, we don't know from whence the Spirit comes nor where He goes. Jesus told us that. Because that is so, His seal upon us, although coming at some point in time in the elect, is His alone to know. So I think it is dangerous to say when the Holy Spirit has done a work. We may speculate, but much better to continue in the Word daily for our assurance, going on to perfection. If we tend to draw a line of demarkation, that could tend to make us lax in our going forward.

So, no, I don't believe the seal is always retrospective. It may very well be, but not necessarily.

Then again, perhaps it is according to a certain point of view as well. The Psalmist says that all of our days were written before one existed. So, in a sense, everything about us is retrospective.

However, the Holy Spirit must seal us at some point in our lives. That process uses means like the gospel and the Word, preachers and teachers. So, we may have been baptized early on, even based on a profession of faith. However, we were not sealed necessarily at that moment.

I guess I would term it like this. The sign is promise, the sealing is the promise fulfilled. Now, we would not say that the fulfillment of a promise, say to our kids, is always retrospective. It may be years before it comes to fruition, and then it may never come. As in the promise to Abraham, he looked forward. That certainly seems prospective to me.

[quote:21b1a8129e]2. Can someone have the sign and not have the seal? How do we justify this distinction/division?[/quote:21b1a8129e]

Absolutely. If someone may not have the sign without the seal, then the sign causes the seal or the seal causes the sign. Since we are not privvy to the seal, except perhaps in our own case, there is no way of knowing that the sign and seal accompany each other. Baptistic theology is going to insist that the seal has come first, a person is saved and a believer. But, the revivalism of a century or so ago, should be enough of a witness that many were "saved" that did not have salvation.

My father has the sign, my uncle and his whole family have the sign, but they are not sealed for the day of redemption, at least not the way they are now. They have completely turned their back on the church.

So also, think of all the infants who are baptized but do not profess Christ now. They received the sign, but they have not yet been sealed. Will they be? Who knows?

If we do not make this distinction then we may fall into the ditch of equating baptism with regeneration. We may also fall into the ditch of believing everyone who is baptized is saved. Then we may start to look at baptism only in its sign and equate what the Spirit does to what we do.

We must, then, remember that water baptism is only a sign to us. That is all we are allowed to see. Only God knows who are His. He knows who has been sealed.

Therefore, we should uphold that water baptism is a sign for us, and will be a seal of either redemption for the elect, or damnation for those elected to everlasting death.

[quote:21b1a8129e]3. Then, depending on your answers to the above, how do these answers support infant baptism?[/quote:21b1a8129e]

We apply the sign in the hopes that the Spirit will apply the seal. We do this no matter who is baptized. If it be an infant, we pray that God will bring this child from death to life and will cause him to place his trust in Christ. If it is an adult or a young adult, we should pray that what they have professed with their lips would be true in their hearts.

But in either case, we do not know who is and who is not sealed by the Holy Ghost. We may test, try, prod, and otherwise, but it is not given us to see. Therefore, we can be assured of no one's salvation whom we baptize.

[quote:21b1a8129e]I also had some questions raised by your discussion with Pastorway. I know you see baptism and circumcision as symbolising the same things.

4. Would you agree, though, that baptism and circumcision, considered as rites, are both performed "with hands". Both, considered as the Spirit's work are performed "without hands" and in fact, without physical knife or physical water?
It seems also on your view that anytime we read of circumcision (barring patent references to accidents of the physical rite) we can substitute the concept of baptism and gain valuable information.[/quote:21b1a8129e]

Water is always associated in some way with the Spirit in the Scriptures. So is wind. Therefore, the sign, being washed with water or being buried in baptism, means that the Holy Spirit has done a work in us. It is the Spirit's to do and none other.

Likewise, we also know that this process is regeneration or new birth. This is the strongest link between baptism and circumcision, because both represent the Spirit's bringing us from death to life, replacing our heart of stone, without which we cannot live, with a heart of flesh. Because being born of the Spirit and having our hearts circumcised are one in the same thing, it should be fairly evident that the language of both should be interchangeable. In fact, that is what Paul is getting at when he says that the fathers were baptized. Likewise, Moses is making the analogy forward when he says that we must circumcise the foreskins of our hearts.

So both point to the same operation of the Spirit.

Because of the divergence between the old covenant and the new covenant, we must maintain that signs did change. So, they did change, but the operation of the Spirit remained the same. All those who have been saved by God's grace have been both baptized (washed with the water of the Holy Spirit) and circumcised (heart of flesh for a heart of stone.)

[quote:21b1a8129e]5. Am I understanding you correctly?[/quote:21b1a8129e]

I think so.

[quote:21b1a8129e]6. If so, is this based on the correspondence between baptism and circumcision specifically, or on the fact that both fit into the category of sacrament?[/quote:21b1a8129e]

As you may have seen me post before, sacrament merely means that it is a mystery how these common things can be used of God to accomplish in us a mighty work. As such, Calvin believed that a sacrament common to the NT era of the apostles was their laying on of hands. This was a common thing that was a mystery as to why it would heal and why the Holy Spirit would fall upon those touched.

I would agree with the Reformed that the only sacraments of our time are the preaching of the Word, baptism, and the Lord's Table. But at various times and in various ways, God used a mystery to convey His grace upon the people. Obviously circumcision is one such mystery from the old covenant, but much more than that, it is a mystery to me how other things worked. The bitter water of jealousy for instance. The bronze serpent. Those should rightly be called sacraments.

But, I would count the commonness of baptism and circumcision mostly on the fact that they are signs that signify the Spirit's action in the elect. Sacrament or no, they signify the self same spiritual reality.

[quote:21b1a8129e]7. Am I asking the right questions?[/quote:21b1a8129e]

Fine by me. Blessings to you.

In Christ,

KC

 

[py3ak]

Kevin,

Thanks for your replies.

My first question (is a seal always retrospective) should perhaps be rephrased to be, "Is a seal in Scripture always retrospective?" To state the same thing another way, is a seal ever applied before one has the blessing sealed? In other words, to take the example from Romans 4, Abraham received circumcision (there the physical rite) as a seal of the righteousness that he had while he was still uncircumcised. That rite served as a seal of what he already had. Now are there any instances in Scripture where a person has the seal, and not the blessing? Or is there any Scriptural teaching that this would be possible? I'm not trying to come up with a point in time to give assurance --just seeking to learn the opinions on this board regarding the relationship between signs and seals.
How do you make out that a seal is the fulfillment of a promise? Isn't the blessing that is sealed the fulfillment?
I'm sorry if my questions are confusing or bizarre. I may not have understood something you said.

Finally, and not to be antagonistic, but isn't your definition of sacrament at odds with the Westminster definition? The shorter catechism doesn't speak of a mystery, and does not list the word as a sacrament. A. 92 "A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers."



Any other takers on my original questions?

 

[py3ak]

Any other takers on this one?

In a sermon on Romans 4 that I heard recently the preacher made the statement that in Scripture a seal is never prospective but is always retrospective (Abraham received circumcision, a seal of the righteousness which he had before he was circumcised). He objected on that basis to infant baptism, but encouraged paedo baptists at the very least not to think of the baptism of their children as a seal.

3 Questions:

1. Is he correct in stating that a seal is invariably retrospective?

2. Can sign and seal be divided? I know you can distinguish --but can you separate? Can you say that someone has the sign, but does not have the seal?

3. If they can, isn't this actually an argument for paedo-baptism (something like this: I apply the sign to all my children, just as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, Eli, etc. did; to those of them whom God does ultimately save, it will then become a seal)?

I'm looking for responses from all sides on these questions.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Here's my stab

First a definition or two. A Sign is some kind of pointer (like a "road sign" ). It is a symbol that ought to mean something to the observer. It is comparitively "weightless" except as it refers to something else. A Seal is the residue of an act of sealing or marking. It has some more "weight" than a mere sign, though it could serve as a sign of sorts. It is something-in-itself, although it too has reference to something else.

Addressing issue #1
The seal is not "invariably retrospective." It is [i:e11f124307]extraspective[/i:e11f124307] (J. Murray?). The sealing is an affixation of mark that approves, validates, confirms, authorizes, declares ownership, bans, sets off limits (or similar such descriptions) a letter, a decree, an official act, a place, a person, etc. It could be simultaneous with such (as opposed to retrospective). It could also point to something that is not constrained by time at all.

A seal is the "imprimatur" or signet of authority. It does not necessarily have to be [i:e11f124307]physical[/i:e11f124307], e.g. a king could "seal" a room, or somebody's doom, by a verbal declaration that functioned in the exact same way as boarding up an entrance, or stripping off his belt and laying it across the threshhold, or hanging a piece of thread at waist height across the opening. What's critical is the power behind the seal. Whose seal is it?

Moving to issue #2
The question is, does the sealing spoken of in Scripture in conjunction with circumcision (and by analogy to baptism, for presbyterians generally) rest foundationally on any act of man--whether the act of believing, or of professing belief, or the act of placing of the sign? I say no. The sealing is fundamentally an act of God. God's seal is not placed by man. It cannot possibly be broken by any man or angel or demon (cf. Rev. 5:1-5).

In Rom. 4:11, Paul argues righteousness is not achieved through law keeping--symbolized by obeying the law of Circumcision--because that [b:e11f124307]sign[/b:e11f124307] was given to Abraham [i:e11f124307]after[/i:e11f124307] he was counted righteous by faith and blessed. The sign, given to him [i:e11f124307]and to his family--by blood and adoption,[/i:e11f124307] was itself a [b:e11f124307]seal[/b:e11f124307] of [i:e11f124307]his[/i:e11f124307] righteousness (that is, imputed to him, personally), which he was in possession of as an as-yet-uncircumcised person. It was a seal [i:e11f124307]not[/i:e11f124307] of his [u:e11f124307]faith[/u:e11f124307] but of the [u:e11f124307]righteousness[/u:e11f124307] he had by faith--an alien righteouness he had fundamentally by an act of God.

But it cannot be a seal of [i:e11f124307]Abraham's[/i:e11f124307] righteousness unto [b:e11f124307]others[/b:e11f124307]. His children needed God's righteousness for themselves. Consider Jacob and Esau. Both were circumcised, i.e. both possessed the sign of the covenant. Esau certainly had the sign then but he never had the seal. Again, who could break [i:e11f124307]God's[/i:e11f124307] seal? Could even he, himself, perhaps? No way. He never had it.

But did Jacob? Did Jacob, and by extension all believers, have not merely the [i:e11f124307]sign[/i:e11f124307] of God's saving promise, but also the [i:e11f124307]seal[/i:e11f124307] of God's righteousness, of his justifying power obtained by faith alone, of membership in the Covenant of Grace? Of Isaac's two sons only Jacob had the faith of Abraham; he alone "walked in the steps of our father Abraham (Rom. 4:12). Only Jacob had God's righteousness. But he didn't have it [i:e11f124307]historically[/i:e11f124307] when he was circumcised (an inference I make from the story of his life--in any case we know many children who only evidence faith later in life).

So, [i:e11f124307][b:e11f124307]when was God's righteousness sealed to him if it wasn't at his circumcision?[/b:e11f124307][/i:e11f124307] Asked another way, when did God put his spiritual mark of ownership on him? In one sense wasn't it before the world began (Eph. 1:4)? Before he had done anything good or evil (Rom. 9:11)? As a believer, when Jacob considered his "mark in the flesh," did he not reckon it the sign [i:e11f124307]and seal[/i:e11f124307] of God's promise [i:e11f124307]to himself[/i:e11f124307]? And is it not true that historically he "passed from death to life" (Jn. 5:24) at some time, and was "sealed with the promised Holy Spirit" (Eph 4:13)?

Consider this analogy:
A man creates a will and trust. He affixes his signature, it is "sealed" and notarized by law. In it he names as beneficiary any "issue" of his, when the youth achieves the age of 21. He conceives a child, dies before it's birth, and makes no changes to his will. At birth, that child has a will "sealed" to him, but neither it nor the thing signified is yet his possession. Therefore say I by analogy, someone possessing the righteousness, and having it sealed to him are also two distinct things.

But still another factor affects the discussion of whether the two can be separated. Cannot a person have such a [b:e11f124307]seal[/b:e11f124307] from heaven and [i:e11f124307]not[/i:e11f124307] have the physical sign? To ask it another way, is it not true that a person could have been saved [i:e11f124307]without ever having the covenant sign?[/i:e11f124307] It seems undeniable, else [b:e11f124307]physical[/b:e11f124307] circumcision (and baptism) would be conditions for eternal life, an abhorrent conclusion (WCF XXVIII.5).

Issue #3
Presbyterians (historically) have considered the parallelism between Circumcision and Baptism, these "signs of the Covenants," (as well as Paul's connection of the two in Col. 2:11-12) as decisive justification for infant baptism, considered from a theological standpoint. Baptism is a seal "of the Covenant of Grace" (WCF XXVIII.1). That is, it is a seal that is attached to and inseperable from the Covenant of Grace, which has both external and internal qualities and administrations. Either a grown up or an infant can receive the external sign, and think (sooner or later--that is, immediately, or upon further instruction, or when one has grown up some into fuller rational abilites) that he is in the Covenant of Grace, and be deluded. But to the one who believes, the sealing in all its import--past, present, and future (cf. Eph. 4:13), is powerfully meaningful and efficacious "in His appointed time" (WCF XXVIII.6).

(already too long a post...)

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Tertullian]

[quote:3d194d58a6] In a sermon on Romans 4 that I heard recently the preacher made the statement that in Scripture a seal is never prospective but is always retrospective (Abraham received circumcision, a seal of the righteousness which he had before he was circumcised). He objected on that basis to infant baptism, but encouraged paedo baptists at the very least not to think of the baptism of their children as a seal.

3 Questions:

1. Is he correct in stating that a seal is invariably retrospective?

2. Can sign and seal be divided? I know you can distinguish --but can you separate? Can you say that someone has the sign, but does not have the seal?

3. If they can, isn't this actually an argument for paedo-baptism (something like this: I apply the sign to all my children, just as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, Eli, etc. did; to those of them whom God does ultimately save, it will then become a seal)? [/quote:3d194d58a6]


The more I learn about Calvin's sacramental theology more I view it with suspicion because when one reflects on the origin of Calvin's theology one finds that Calvin felt that the Sacraments were more then just remembrances and so he built his whole theology on his personal feeling. Calvin said that sacraments must be more than what the reformers before him said and less than what Rome said they were... is it any surprise then that this is exactly where Calvin's theology ended up? In some kind of limbo between these two versions of sacrament theology, that is the remembrance and miracle working views?

I mean as beautiful as the idea is that Calvin presents, which runs, the sacraments are special seals of God's promise given not because God's promise is untrustworthy but because man's faith is weak and needs tangible support. Beauty does not equal Scripture and so the question that must be asked is what verse teaches that?

Calvin's sacramental theology leads us to affirm some "special grace" that nobody can exactly pin point not even Calvin could exactly tell you what God accomplishes in baptism... and we have the whole dilemma if Baptism is God's work of Grace what happens to the unregenerate who takes it? But if Baptism only works when men have faith in what sense is it God's work wouldn't God and man be partners in the sacramental grace?

I must confess that I have not been able to figure out what Calvin is talking about but I am comforted with this fact for I do not think that those who follow Calvin know what he was talking about either because there are so many different interpretations of Calvin that we must either attribute the fault with the interpreters of Calvin or with Calvin himself... and neither is a happy conclusion for those who want to follow Calvin. I myself think the fault lies with Calvin sacraments.

Perhaps Calvin asked the wrong questions perhaps instead of starting from a sacramental approach if Calvin had started with a covenantal approach he would have been able to better understand the sacraments. Calvin was a great men but he did not get around to all the traditions of his day he was only human after all... so perhaps Calvin's answers were good but it was the question that was all wrong.

Therefore I think these are the wrong questions the better questions would be what does baptism accomplish... is it a Covenantal oath made by humans as Kline seemed to teach but was unwilling to consistently apply... is it God's act of grace like Rome, Luther, Calvin taught... and what verses can we use to support our answers to these questions.

Hope this helps... for if we reject the whole sacramental approach then we have no more basis to even talk about "seals" "special grace" and we no longer have the problem of what does God's grace do for the unregenerate...

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

 

[kceaster]

Tyler...

[quote:ba0c4a7b36]The more I learn about Calvin's sacramental theology more I view it with suspicion because when one reflects on the origin of Calvin's theology one finds that Calvin felt that the Sacraments were more then just remembrances and so he built his whole theology on his personal feeling. Calvin said that sacraments must be more than what the reformers before him said and less than what Rome said they were... is it any surprise then that this is exactly where Calvin's theology ended up? In some kind of limbo between these two versions of sacrament theology, that is the remembrance and miracle working views?

I mean as beautiful as the idea is that Calvin presents, which runs, the sacraments are special seals of God's promise given not because God's promise is untrustworthy but because man's faith is weak and needs tangible support. Beauty does not equal Scripture and so the question that must be asked is what verse teaches that?

Calvin's sacramental theology leads us to affirm some "special grace" that nobody can exactly pin point not even Calvin could exactly tell you what God accomplishes in baptism... and we have the whole dilemma if Baptism is God's work of Grace what happens to the unregenerate who takes it? But if Baptism only works when men have faith in what sense is it God's work wouldn't God and man be partners in the sacramental grace?

I must confess that I have not been able to figure out what Calvin is talking about but I am comforted with this fact for I do not think that those who follow Calvin know what he was talking about either because there are so many different interpretations of Calvin that we must either attribute the fault with the interpreters of Calvin or with Calvin himself... and neither is a happy conclusion for those who want to follow Calvin. I myself think the fault lies with Calvin sacraments.

Perhaps Calvin asked the wrong questions perhaps instead of starting from a sacramental approach if Calvin had started with a covenantal approach he would have been able to better understand the sacraments. Calvin was a great men but he did not get around to all the traditions of his day he was only human after all... so perhaps Calvin's answers were good but it was the question that was all wrong.

Therefore I think these are the wrong questions the better questions would be what does baptism accomplish... is it a Covenantal oath made by humans as Kline seemed to teach but was unwilling to consistently apply... is it God's act of grace like Rome, Luther, Calvin taught... and what verses can we use to support our answers to these questions.

Hope this helps... for if we reject the whole sacramental approach then we have no more basis to even talk about "seals" "special grace" and we no longer have the problem of what does God's grace do for the unregenerate...

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:ba0c4a7b36]

If you start with the premise that Calvin's sacramentology was traditionalistic, you will always come to the wrong conclusion, which you have in the paragraphs above.

Perhaps if you could prove that Calvin's premise, and all of the Reformed divines for that matter, were merely holding onto a tradition, then you might have a point.

But just looking back and saying that they were just following tradition does not make it so, any more than claiming that all paedobaptists just blindly follow Calvin without proper exegesis of biblical texts.

While it is true, that to be a Calvinist originally connoted one's view of sacramentology, it is not as if all Calvinists were the blind leading the blind.

Do you have proof? If not, then your comments are unwarranted.

In Christ,

KC

 

[JohnV]

Tyler:
[quote:1372c3d172]I must confess that I have not been able to figure out what Calvin is talking about but I am comforted with this fact for I do not think that those who follow Calvin know what he was talking about either because there are so many different interpretations of Calvin that we must either attribute the fault with the interpreters of Calvin or with Calvin himself... and neither is a happy conclusion for those who want to follow Calvin. I myself think the fault lies with Calvin sacraments. [/quote:1372c3d172]

This confuses me. How is it a comfort to you that others don't know what Calvin is talking about either? Don't get me wrong, but it sounds like you don't understand Calvin and also those who agree with him, and then charging both with your lack of understanding. Could you state it in a better way?

[quote:1372c3d172]Perhaps Calvin asked the wrong questions perhaps instead of starting from a sacramental approach if Calvin had started with a covenantal approach he would have been able to better understand the sacraments.[/quote:1372c3d172]
I think that this is totally backwards. Calvin's was a covenantal approach. He wasn't given to sacramental magic. I think you must misunderstand.

[quote:1372c3d172]Therefore I think these are the wrong questions the better questions would be what does baptism accomplish...[/quote:1372c3d172]
But was that not Calvin's aim as well? Is that not the reason for attributing to Baptism and Lord's Supper God's promises rather than man's oaths?


and,
[quote:1372c3d172]for if we reject the whole sacramental approach then we have no more basis to even talk about "seals" "special grace" and we no longer have the problem of what does God's grace do for the unregenerate... [/quote:1372c3d172]
Unfortunately, there would be a great deal more than that that we need not bother about anymore. I think we would very quickly slide into an Arminianism that would make Pelagius blush. Our assurance is God's preserving hand, not our own abilities to keep faithful.

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by JohnV]

 

[Roldan]

Here we go again

Tyler states:

"I must confess that I have not been able to figure out what Calvin is talking about but I am comforted with this fact for I do not think that those who follow Calvin know what he was talking about either because there are so many different interpretations of Calvin that we must either attribute the fault with the interpreters of Calvin or with Calvin himself... and neither is a happy conclusion for those who want to follow Calvin. I myself think the fault lies with Calvin sacraments."

How can you find fault with something that you have so clearly asserted that you can't even figure out?

Also you are comforted by an assumption that you cannot prove? Now that is suspicious.

You also stated:

"Perhaps Calvin asked the wrong questions perhaps instead of starting from a sacramental approach if Calvin had started with a covenantal approach he would have been able to better understand the sacraments. Calvin was a great men but he did not get around to all the traditions of his day he was only human after all... so perhaps Calvin's answers were good but it was the question that was all wrong"


Perhaps you don't have a clue to what his questions are?

Anyone who REALLY understands Calvin knows that his approach is nothing but covenantal.

Yes Calvin was a great man and its a shame that you have misinterpreted him or not understood him and you should break the baptist tradition of of using the "paedo's assert tradition" for an argument when you yourself has said that name calling is no argument but an insult, so please stop insulting us here in this board.

But since you seem to have ALL the answers then please buy all means enlighten us with the "Reformed" nirvana that you at 20 yrs and barely out of Dispensationalism and arminianism have reached.:wr51:

Use better arguments than just the tradition strawman.

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Roldan]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

[quote:274876dfa8]1. Is he correct in stating that a seal is invariably retrospective? [/quote:274876dfa8]

No. That is completely backwards. Abraham circumcisez Isaac based on the promise....nothing retrospective unless you mean that God HAS promised. If that is what you mean (and he does not mean that) then I agree. If he means like Abraham looking back, then, no, he's missed the boat completely.

[quote:274876dfa8]2. Can sign and seal be divided? I know you can distinguish --but can you separate? Can you say that someone has the sign, but does not have the seal? [/quote:274876dfa8]

No. Either you are sealed with blessing, or you are sealed with curse. The sacramanet is a "visible proclamation of the covenant." not a "visible proclamation of the promise". It would only be a "visible proclamation of the promise" if you are in fact elect. But that does not define "a sacrament."

[quote:274876dfa8]3. If they can, isn't this actually an argument for paedo-baptism (something like this: I apply the sign to all my children, just as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, Eli, etc. did; to those of them whom God does ultimately save, it will then become a seal)? [/quote:274876dfa8]

Yes to the first part, no to the second part. The REASON we baptize is based on the promise. We would never baptize anyone whom we did not "claim" the pormise for. Otherwise the sacrament is meaningless. Sinful men do not dictate the power of God's intentions behind the sacrament. That simply partake of its blessings or curses. it either seals their condemantion (CoW) or their salvation (CoR).

:boldblue:

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by webmaster]

 

[pastorway]

[quote:d347ad6d02][i:d347ad6d02]posted by Roldan[/i:d347ad6d02]
But since you seem to have ALL the answers then please buy all means enlighten us with the "Reformed" nirvana that you at 20 yrs and barely out of Dispensationalism and arminianism have reached.[/quote:d347ad6d02]

This kind of condescention is inappropriate. This is not "esteeming others as better than yourself" nor is it edifying. Refrain from such comments in the future and stick to debating the topic instead of spouting your view of the qualifications of the other posters on this forum.

Phillip

 

[Roldan]

[quote:b4d84bec16][i:b4d84bec16]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:b4d84bec16]
[quote:b4d84bec16][i:b4d84bec16]posted by Roldan[/i:b4d84bec16]
But since you seem to have ALL the answers then please buy all means enlighten us with the "Reformed" nirvana that you at 20 yrs and barely out of Dispensationalism and arminianism have reached.[/quote:b4d84bec16]

This kind of condescention is inappropriate. This is not "esteeming others as better than yourself" nor is it edifying. Refrain from such comments in the future and stick to debating the topic instead of spouting your view of the qualifications of the other posters on this forum.

Phillip [/quote:b4d84bec16]

Of course.

Qualifications play a vital role in debating and if a person is not FULLY trained in a subject then he or she has no business arguing as if a Theological professor, thats my point. Having humble questions is one thing but proud and arrogant assertions are another.

my bad.

Have you rebuked Tyler for calling us traditionalist and Roman Catholics and implying that paedo's are not well trainded in bible? NO. May it be that you are defending your baptist ally? or maybe agree with him?

I apologize for how I said it but will not recant the principle of what I meant.

Thanx

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Roldan]

 

[pastorway]

My post was addressed to you directly and I expect a proper reply. What you just posted was not proper.

And my calling you out has nothing to do with the fact that anyone in the discussion is a baptist or not. This is part of what I do as a Moderator and Administrator on this forum. I strive to facilitate edifying discussions, and your tone, your statements, and you pathetic attempt to apologize but not apologize at the same time ie: "I apologize for how I said it but will not recant the principle of what I meant," does nothing to rectify the situation.

This is not an academic debate forum. It is discussion between Reformed believers and you have no right whatsoever to determine who is and is not qualified to partake in these discussions.

Now apologize.

That is not a request.

Phillip

 

[Roldan]

[quote:fa5fbb4a06][i:fa5fbb4a06]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:fa5fbb4a06]
My post was addressed to you directly and I expect a proper reply. What you just posted was not proper.

And my calling you out has nothing to do with the fact that anyone in the discussion is a baptist or not. This is part of what I do as a Moderator and Administrator on this forum. I strive to facilitate edifying discussions, and your tone, your statements, and you pathetic attempt to apologize but not apologize at the same time ie: "I apologize for how I said it but will not recant the principle of what I meant," does nothing to rectify the situation.

This is not an academic debate forum. It is discussion between Reformed believers and you have no right whatsoever to determine who is and is not qualified to partake in these discussions.

Now apologize.

That is not a request.

Phillip [/quote:fa5fbb4a06]

Please refrain from taking me out of context. Did you not read what I said. I did not SAY that he was not qualified to discuss, did I.

Again, What I said is that a person who is fairly new to Reformed theology has NO right to debate as if he or she has all the answers already. Not that you can't discuss but discuss in a more learnable mode.

Your threats are not helpful either.

And if you are going to address me directly then use the u2 instead. Your "and your pathetic attempt" remark is not exactly helpful either now is it.

Again I sincerly apologize for the tone that I stated my remark but the principle is yet the same.

Grace and Peace

 

[Tertullian]

KC,

[quote:37a3510037] If you start with the premise that Calvin's sacramentology was traditionalistic, you will always come to the wrong conclusion, which you have in the paragraphs above. [/quote:37a3510037]

That is true accept for the fact that I did not say that Calvin fallowed blind tradition I said that Calvin was innovating, in this sense and only this sens, that nobody before Calvin had ever articulated his particular flavor of Sacramentalism... and again I do not charge Calvin with giving bad answers I charge him with answering the wrong questions.

[quote:37a3510037] Perhaps if you could prove that Calvin's premise, and all of the Reformed divines for that matter, were merely holding onto a tradition, then you might have a point. [/quote:37a3510037]

Show me one person who held to Calvin's view before Calvin, I mean Calvin disagreed with even the reformers before him (ex. Luther) and as for Calvin's students when it comes to the sacraments they have often contradicted themselves or they said nothing meaningful like "Special grace" for using words that nobody knows is not light but darkness- "special grace" whatever is conveys nothing in English? Or they would disagree about what happens when someone who is unregenerate gets baptized... one saying that it is just water sprinkling another that God them seals in covenant or another that God still seals his promises but that it is a conditional promise or another that God sealed his promises but they just cannot hear it and so it is not meaningful.... Etc.

I mean if Calvin is right and baptism is God's work of grace what does God accomplish or fail to accomplish?

[quote:37a3510037] just looking back and saying that they were just following tradition does not make it so, any more than claiming that all paedobaptists just blindly follow Calvin without proper exegesis of biblical texts. [/quote:37a3510037]

First off I have never said that all paedobaptist just blindly follow Calvin, but where is the verse that teaches that in baptism God seals his promises that we are his children not because God's promise is untrustworthy but because our faith is weak and needs to experience the Gospel with all our senses...

[quote:37a3510037] While it is true, that to be a Calvinist originally connoted one's view of sacramentology, it is not as if all Calvinists were the blind leading the blind. [/quote:37a3510037]

No I just think there is a lot of buzz words and phrases thrown around that are essentially meaningless like "special grace." I appreciate and love Calvin but I just don't think that Calvin was anything more than a man.

[quote:37a3510037] Do you have proof? If not, then your comments are unwarranted. [/quote:37a3510037]

Do I have proof for what I said? Yes, just read what I wrote before, I explained how Calvin tried to answer questions that only makes sense within a sacramental framework. Calvin's answer was original and new plus nobody can agree with what Calvin said or meant on details. Furthermore, I explained that if baptism is God's work of grace then what does God's grace do to the unregenerate, why does it need man's faith to work, what is "special grace" and why cannot one verse support Calvin's assertions about a promise being sealed because men have weak faith that can only be strengthened by their senses? I think it is you who may have failed to address the arguments not me, you accuse me of arguing that infant baptism is a "tradition" but in my last post I was answering somebody else's question about something else and did not even use the word tradition.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

 

[Optimus]

[quote:849dc2aa3a]
I appreciate and love Calvin but I just don't think that Calvin was anything more than a man.
[/quote:849dc2aa3a]

arent we all?


[quote:849dc2aa3a]
you accuse me of arguing that infant baptism is a "tradition" but in my last post I was answering somebody else's question about something else and did not even use the word tradition.
[/quote:849dc2aa3a]


but you did say:

[quote:849dc2aa3a]
I think this reveals a weakness of the Paedobaptist position because it reveals that it is a tradition not a conclusion derived at from a study of Scripture.
[/quote:849dc2aa3a]



[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Optimus]

 

[Tertullian]

[i:71bdb6f4eb]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:71bdb6f4eb]
[quote:71bdb6f4eb][quote:71bdb6f4eb]
I appreciate and love Calvin but I just don't think that Calvin was anything more than a man.
[/quote:71bdb6f4eb]

arent we all? [/quote:71bdb6f4eb]

Amen... therefore let us open up Scripture as I know you would agree.


[quote:71bdb6f4eb][quote:71bdb6f4eb]
you accuse me of arguing that infant baptism is a "tradition" but in my last post I was answering somebody else's question about something else and did not even use the word tradition.
[/quote:71bdb6f4eb]


but you did say:

[quote:71bdb6f4eb]
I think this reveals a weakness of the Paedobaptist position because it reveals that it is a tradition not a conclusion derived at from a study of Scripture.
[/quote:71bdb6f4eb]



[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Optimus] [/quote:71bdb6f4eb]

I think you may have misunderstood me for...

These quotes you quoted of mine were taken from different posts on this same thread. The post I was refering to when I said that I did not even use the word tradition was my second post on this thread... The second post of mine was the one KC was also refering to when he accused me of arguing that Paedobaptist was a tradition and that is why I pointed out that I did not even use the word tradition nor was I directly arguing against infant baptism but was answering a question.

Hope this clarifies... Tertullian

[Edited on 3-31-2004 by Tertullian]

 

[Optimus]

i think KC said that cuz you said:

"I think this reveals a weakness of the Paedobaptist position because it reveals that it is a tradition not a conclusion derived at from a study of Scripture."

KC, correct me if im wrong....