Split From "Why I am now a paedo!" Thread.

[Hilasmos]

Heres a question from my ignorance.

Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your children, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?

In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to their children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Heres a question from my ignorance.

Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your children, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?

In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to their children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?

Were Esau's sons circumcised? Are you literate in the OT Scriptures in the asking of that question?

It seems you must have jumped into the middle of this thread and not read a single thing in order to ask the question that you did.

Paedo-baptism (or paedo-circumcision for that matter) is not based solely on physical lineage. That is not to make the error that there is no relationship between father and son and to divorce them from one another spiritually but it is to note that the faith of the household is meaningful in this ordinance. Those who are cut off from the people of God for their apostasy have not only cut themselves off from the place where God's grace is manifest in Word and Sacrament but it affects their progeny as well.

 

[TsonMariytho]

An excellent question. When God restored his people back to himself after generations of apostasy, he restored them as children of Abraham. That their immediate parents happened to be Baal worshippers didn't change their unique covenantal obligations under the Abrahamic Covenant. While we can only strictly claim the godly Israelites as being in good covenant standing, and must call the others covenant-breakers, yet there remained on the physical line of Israel a covenantal obligation that is quite simply derived from Genesis 17, and is just as clearly obsolete today.

 

[Hilasmos]

Heres a question from my ignorance.

Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your children, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?

In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to their children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?

Were Esau's sons circumcised? Are you literate in the OT Scriptures in the asking of that question?

It seems you must have jumped into the middle of this thread and not read a single thing in order to ask the question that you did.

Paedo-baptism (or paedo-circumcision for that matter) is not based solely on physical lineage. That is not to make the error that there is no relationship between father and son and to divorce them from one another spiritually but it is to note that the faith of the household is meaningful in this ordinance. Those who are cut off from the people of God for their apostasy have not only cut themselves off from the place where God's grace is manifest in Word and Sacrament but it affects their progeny as well.

Its nice to know that I can read hundreds of posts and ask an honest question only to have my intelligence insulted because I didn't draw your conclusion naturally from this thread. Good grief.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Heres a question from my ignorance.

Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your children, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?

In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to their children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?

Were Esau's sons circumcised? Are you literate in the OT Scriptures in the asking of that question?

It seems you must have jumped into the middle of this thread and not read a single thing in order to ask the question that you did.

Paedo-baptism (or paedo-circumcision for that matter) is not based solely on physical lineage. That is not to make the error that there is no relationship between father and son and to divorce them from one another spiritually but it is to note that the faith of the household is meaningful in this ordinance. Those who are cut off from the people of God for their apostasy have not only cut themselves off from the place where God's grace is manifest in Word and Sacrament but it affects their progeny as well.

Its nice to know that I can read hundreds of posts and ask an honest question only to have my intelligence insulted because I didn't draw your conclusion naturally from this thread. Good grief.

If you would like to withdraw from the conversation then do so if you are so easily insulted.

Did you really read hundreds of posts and conclude that circumcision was based on mere physical descent from Abraham? Would you point to the post that caused you to draw that conclusion? It might help me understand how you formed that question because I honestly can't see how the question is relevant to the paedobaptist position.

 

[TsonMariytho]

I don't think it was a strange question. Physical descent from Abraham by the covenantally elect lines of Isaac and Jacob(=Israel) was absolutely a sufficient condition to make circumcision mandatory. This obligation (of circumcision plus the rest of the Law) would be present regardless of whether one's immediate parents were Baal worshippers. I think this is an aspect of Old Testament covenantal succession that is not sufficiently discussed by some theologians who follow in Zwingli and Calvin's tradition.

Of course, forsaking his sins was important for a spiritually awakening, apostate Israelite too. But if he was uncircumcised, addressing that was a good first step.

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 02:03:22 EST-----

Question:

Were Esau's sons circumcised?

Answer: Maybe?

Jer 9:25 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh--
Jer 9:26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart."​

There is controversy over the meaning of the verse, and historical evidence suggests that Edom at least didn't practice circumcision at the time of Christ (see K&D commentary). Beyond that, this is probably just an academic question since it's clear as time went on that Edom as a nation didn't worship the true God.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't think it was a strange question. Physical descent from Abraham by the covenantally elect lines of Isaac and Jacob(=Israel) was absolutely a sufficient condition to make circumcision mandatory. This obligation (of circumcision plus the rest of the Law) would be present regardless of whether one's immediate parents were Baal worshippers.

False and un-Biblical. You really have no business trying to argue any issue of Covenant theology if you are so woefully ignorant of the Scriptures to present the above point.

The reason Calvin was "under-developed" is that he understood the Scriptures much better.

 

[Hilasmos]

Were Esau's sons circumcised? Are you literate in the OT Scriptures in the asking of that question?

It seems you must have jumped into the middle of this thread and not read a single thing in order to ask the question that you did.

Paedo-baptism (or paedo-circumcision for that matter) is not based solely on physical lineage. That is not to make the error that there is no relationship between father and son and to divorce them from one another spiritually but it is to note that the faith of the household is meaningful in this ordinance. Those who are cut off from the people of God for their apostasy have not only cut themselves off from the place where God's grace is manifest in Word and Sacrament but it affects their progeny as well.

Its nice to know that I can read hundreds of posts and ask an honest question only to have my intelligence insulted because I didn't draw your conclusion naturally from this thread. Good grief.

If you would like to withdraw from the conversation then do so if you are so easily insulted.

Did you really read hundreds of posts and conclude that circumcision was based on mere physical descent from Abraham? Would you point to the post that caused you to draw that conclusion? It might help me understand how you formed that question because I honestly can't see how the question is relevant to the paedobaptist position.

And I would invite you to withdraw from answering any question of mine if you find yourself unable to do so without saying I am stupid for formulating such a question. If its too unworthy of you, just let is pass brother.

Perhaps my question isn't as clear as you would like it, but I was drawing from Gen 17:10, apparently in a wrong way, when I made the statement about circumcision in relation to physical descent.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Heres a question from my ignorance.

Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your children, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?

In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to their children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?

This is not a bad question. Even Moses neglected this and his wife had to do it while she rebuked Moses. Also I believe there were many who needed to be circumcised before they entered the Promised Land because it had been neglected in their generation also.

(Exo 4:25) Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

(Exo 4:26) So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

(Jos 5:7) And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.

We have also discussed this topic in relation to an unbelieving spouse.

I contend that it would definitely be unbiblical in relation to what the New Covenant calls a child of God. Anything else is outside of the New Covenant.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Its nice to know that I can read hundreds of posts and ask an honest question only to have my intelligence insulted because I didn't draw your conclusion naturally from this thread. Good grief.

If you would like to withdraw from the conversation then do so if you are so easily insulted.

Did you really read hundreds of posts and conclude that circumcision was based on mere physical descent from Abraham? Would you point to the post that caused you to draw that conclusion? It might help me understand how you formed that question because I honestly can't see how the question is relevant to the paedobaptist position.

And I would invite you to withdraw from answering any question of mine if you find yourself unable to do so without saying I am stupid for formulating such a question. If its too unworthy of you, just let is pass brother.

Perhaps my question isn't as clear as you would like it, but I was drawing from Gen 17:10, apparently in a wrong way, when I made the statement about circumcision in relation to physical descent.

Invitation is denied. Again, which post did you draw the conclusion from that the paedobaptist position believes that the children of apostates are to be circumcised? This is not a request. Part of moderation is keeping threads on track.

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 02:15:16 EST-----

Heres a question from my ignorance.

Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your children, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?

In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to their children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?

This is not a bad question. Even Moses neglected this and his wife had to do it while she rebuked Moses. Also I believe there were many who needed to be circumcised before they entered the Promised Land because it had been neglected in their generation also.

(Exo 4:25) Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

(Exo 4:26) So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

(Jos 5:7) And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.

We have also discussed this topic in relation to an unbelieving spouse.

I contend that it would definitely be unbiblical in relation to what the New Covenant calls a child of God. Anything else is outside of the New Covenant.

These situations were unequivalent unless you wish to argue that Moses was apostate or that the generation in the wilderness were not in the Ekklesia of God (which the Word says they were).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I would prefer to think that God was long suffering. He was pretty upset with Moses if you look at the text. Zipporah's action actually thwarted God's judgment against Moses if I am not mistaken.

(Exo 4:24) And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

Check out some commentaries

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I would prefer to think that God was long suffering. He was pretty upset with Moses if you look at the text. Zipporah's action actually thwarted God's judgment against Moses if I am not mistaken.

(Exo 4:24) And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

Check out some commentaries

Randy,

Was Moses a believer or not? The question posed was that the children of complete apostates would still be circumcised.

I can't believe we're even having this conversation.

What do folks think it meant to be cut off from the people of God? There are also several sins that would lead to the death penalty and Baal worship was certainly one of them.

 

[Hilasmos]

Rich,

The "posts" that stimulated my question had to do with the paedo emphasis on the promise being extended to one's children. The heart of my question, even though I asked or stated a lot of things in my paragraph, was "how far does children extend." And if that is an inappropriate question in relation to paedo baptism, then I withdraw it, you can delete it, and ban me while your at it for all I care.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Your not addressing the passages I mentioned Rich. Did God consider His nation Isreal to be his old covenant people even when they were disobedient and idolatrous, thus calling them to repent? He is long suffering.

We are discussing continuity between the Old and New.

 

[TsonMariytho]

I don't think it was a strange question. Physical descent from Abraham by the covenantally elect lines of Isaac and Jacob(=Israel) was absolutely a sufficient condition to make circumcision mandatory. This obligation (of circumcision plus the rest of the Law) would be present regardless of whether one's immediate parents were Baal worshippers.

False and un-Biblical. You really have no business trying to argue any issue of Covenant theology if you are so woefully ignorant of the Scriptures to present the above point.

Here is where God lays this obligation on Abraham's progeny:

Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
​

Here God clarifies that it is "through Isaac that your offspring shall be reckoned". In other words, God's peculiar national election follows the line of Isaac and not Ishmael.

Gen 17:18 And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!"
Gen 17:19 God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.​

God's covenantal favor was renewed yet again with Jacob, but not with "godless" Esau:

Gen 32:28 Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed."
Gen 32:29 Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him.
​

Here is the basic scope of God's covenantal operations at the time of the Exodus:

Exo 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.​

It is fair to say that God's outward election of his covenant nation settles on the progeny of Jacob.

Eze 20:5 and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day when I chose Israel, I swore to the offspring of the house of Jacob, making myself known to them in the land of Egypt; I swore to them, saying, I am the LORD your God.
​

Reading the above passages, I would have to regard any physical descendant of Abraham through the line of Israel as very wicked indeed, who would refuse to undergo circumcision in obedience to the covenantal obligation God laid on his entire race. If his immediate parents were Baal worshippers, that's too bad; but it wouldn't change his personal covenantal obligation.

That this peculiar obligation spanned generations is the point being made above, and in my view, it stands unless you can provide some scripture showing otherwise.

The reason Calvin was "under-developed" is that he understood the Scriptures much better.

I did not say Calvin was "under-developed".

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

In relation to his question I would also add this passage.

Jacob said to Joseph...
(Gen 48:5) And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I would prefer to think that God was long suffering. He was pretty upset with Moses if you look at the text. Zipporah's action actually thwarted God's judgment against Moses if I am not mistaken.

(Exo 4:24) And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.

Check out some commentaries

Randy, Rich's point is that Moses' son was still a child and still a part of his household, and Moses and Zipporah certainly weren't apostate. So obviously it was sinful for Moses (a believer) not to circumcise his son. The question Hilasmos posed is different in that it deals with an adult unbeliever or a believer of apostate parents. I don't see how either relates to Moses not circumcising his son.

 

[TsonMariytho]

What do folks think it meant to be cut off from the people of God? There are also several sins that would lead to the death penalty and Baal worship was certainly one of them.

It's true that proselytizing for Baal had a capital punishment in the Torah.

Sin complicates any picture. But as PuritanCovenanter (Randy?) pointed out above, God is merciful, and he frequently called the physical descendants of Abraham back to him, commanded them to repent of the backsliding, unbelief, and, yes, the idolatry of their fathers. The point I'm making here is that they were called back as the physical descendants of Abraham. They were called back as covenant-breakers, but they were called back to a restoration of the union their natural forefather enjoyed. This is a very important element of Old Covenant succession that is obsolete today.

For what it's worth, Calvin recognized the ethnic restrictiveness of God's covenantal dealings in the OT, and also appreciated the explosive and new nature of the Great Commission, not to mention the breaking down of that "dividing wall of hostility" between Jew and Gentile.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Let me step in here and ask that:
1) everyone go back and re-read some of the thread, and try to untangle some of this;

2) try to see where you misunderstood what someone else was saying;

3) try to see where you said something unwarranted, by reading too much into a comment.

 

[Ronnie]

Well, you still haven't addressed the propriety of so-called "covenant children" today singing hymns asserting that their own sins have been forgiven. To assert such is to assert one's election to salvation, not just inclusion in an external covenant with conditional blessings and curses.

Well, I didn’t address it because you didn’t ask it  However, this is pretty simple. Think about it. Did the old covenant non-elect children sing the Psalms that spoke of God forgiving their sins? Do you have visiting non-believers that visit your church which sing hymns that asserts their sins have been forgiven? If so was any of this asserting their election to salvation?
But here is my question to you. Do you believe there is no distinction between God’s love for children of believers and every pagan walking around? If you do, then what is the difference based on?

OK... well, Baptists communicate God's covenantal love to all those who have not yet made a profession of faith, reminding them of their obligation to believe in the name of Jesus Christ, and warning them about "the danger of not putting their faith in the Messiah and suffering the covenant curses".

Huh? You don’t believe those who have not yet made a profession are part of the covenant so why would Baptist communicate God’s covenantal love to them?

This has already been explained, at least from my point of view. But since you ask for more, here is an expansion and practical example:
When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he was dealing with multiple issues that faced this young church. Apparently one of those issues was the unfortunate unequal yokes that were present in the group. We can imagine some men and women of Corinth receiving the gospel with joy, and taking the good news home only to find that their spouses wanted to have nothing to do with it. This put the young Christians in a quandary. It was clear from their instruction as Christians that they were to turn away from every sin of their old life, and be 100% devoted / sanctified / set apart to God.
Some issues are pretty straightforward in that regard. Anyone who was stealing was to steal no longer. Anyone working in a pagan temple should find another line of business.
But what about unbelieving spouses? Should a Christian separate from them, too? Doesn't the spouse reject everything about God? Isn't the spouse sinful and unclean, such that he contaminates the Christian spouse? One can imagine the new Christians asking their elders questions like this, and perhaps some contradictory answers flying back and forth. Perhaps someone invoked the teachings from Ezra, wherein the Israelite men were commanded to send away the idolatrous foreign wives along with the children.
Never fear, the Apostle Paul is here, to provide timely instruction to this young Christian church at Corinth.
"Relax," says the apostle. Your unbelieving spouse has been sanctified. Instead of worrying that your marriage partner will contaminate you, you should be praying and working toward the conversion of your spouse. Who is greater, Christ or Belial? Some of the rules of strict separation in the Old Covenant were ceremonial in nature. Living in the full light of the gospel you are to stay with your spouse to whom you have vowed faithfulness (except in certain exceptional conditions).
And the children? Should they be sent away? Nope, they're "sanctified" too, just like the pagan spouse.

Huh? Should they send away their children? Nope sure where you get that from, I can grant much of what you say in reference to the spouse, but there was no debate about the children. Notice Paul makes that point that “Otherwise your children would be unclean” , this wording suggest it was an agreed upon fact that the children was clean. There is nothing in the text about the thought of having to send them away. But still you haven’t told me in what way they are sanctified. You just stated that they are sanctified. But in what way are they sanctified and clean?

One of the best examples of 1 Corinthians 7:12-17 working itself out in real life is that of Monica, the mother of Augustine. Monica's husband was a pagan. And yet she remained faithful to him and stayed as his wife, in obedience to the Apostle Paul. And was her son "holy". Yes, in a 1st Corinthians 7 sense. Was her son "holy" in the sense of "a Christian"? Absolutely not. As it happens, Monica had reason from a fleshly point of view to despair of hope for her family, because young Augustine initially grew up in the mold of his father -- seemingly embarking on the life of a debauched intellectual.
But as we know, the tears and prayers of Monica were remembered by the Lord, and we all know the rest of the story. God not only converted the young non-Christian Augustine, but made him a doctor of the Church who faithfully taught perhaps more than anyone up to that point the ideas of original sin and the doctrines of grace.

I don’t see how this deals with the issue. Of course her son was holy because she was a Christian. You state that he wasn’t holy in the sense of a Christian, but you have explained what the difference senses are. I think I understand what you mean by a Christian being holy, but in what way was the child holy and clean?

For what it's worth, in Reformed Baptist circles I've run in, it's been the practice to say that so-and-so "has not made a [public] profession of faith", rather than calling the person a "pagan", "unbeliever", etc. I think this way of describing it is optimal for someone who is receptively learning the faith, because it can be said without prejudice to their actual spiritual state, which we don't really know.

But in Reformed Baptist circles one who “has not made a [public] profession of faith” is not considered regenerate. One who is not regenerate is a pagan/unbeliever. If the Baptist wants to rest the foundation of their belief on one being regenerate and making profession of faith for being a member of the New Covenant then they need to be consistent and confess with the Scriptures that anyone who does not do those things is a pagan/unbeliever until things change. Furthermore, I’m not just talking about someone who is receptively learning the faith but your infant children.

If you believe that everyone who was circumcised was automatically entitled to baptism with no questions asked, then you are simply wrong. Baptism doesn't mean exactly what circumcision meant, and the church is responsible to withhold baptism in certain circumstances. There was no prerequisite to circumcision that I'm aware of the OT.

An infant of a believing parent(s) is entitled to baptism, no questions asked of them( kind of hard to ask an infant questions). This is true for circumcision also.

To put it in a form that I think you will be forced to agree with -- a first century Jew who was God-fearing would have to be instructed about Jesus Christ before he could be baptized. A Jew must become a Christian just as a pagan must become a Christian. Of course, in one case we have a man "bringing out new treasures as well as old", whereas in the other case we have a conversion from death to life. But my point remains. Merely being circumcised didn't entitle anybody to baptism with no questions asked / no further instruction.

Of course in the case of adults, but we are not talking about adults. We are discussing paedo vs credo baptism, and the distinction between the two is in regards to infants.

We can't divorce this discussion from the actual covenants of scripture. To put it another way, the use of the word "covenant" doesn't make your point above correct. We would have to examine exactly what covenant you are talking about above. We would have to see what the promises/curses are, and to whom the promises/curses are offered, etc.

I’m talking about the one Covenant of Grace which was administered under the Abraham, Mosaic, and New Covenant. Now there can be only one way of salvation unless you are Dispensationalist, which means there must be one covenant of salvation(i.e. Covenant of Grace ), right?

By all means, show me a scripture I am not treating correctly. Hopefully 1st Corinthians 7 is now clearer per the explanation above.

Well, you gave an answer but of course I don’t think you answered my main point, which is in what way are they children holy and clean. Furthermore, you mentioned that God has covenantal love for children of unbelievers which I’m glad you admitted, but I’m not sure how it really fits in Reformed Baptist theology.

 

[TsonMariytho]

But here is my question to you. Do you believe there is no distinction between God’s love for children of believers and every pagan walking around? If you do, then what is the difference based on?

God's salvific love is only for his elect. God's free invitation of the gospel is given both to children of believers (at least most of the time) and to unbelievers. I can't see any particular non-salvific love of God given to children of believers that isn't equally extended to "Gentiles" who hear the gospel and come under the influence of the Church community.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'd like to pursue the precipitating questions, in this latter-portion (that led to some disagreements)

Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever?

This question is then followed by two more questions, which seem meant to clarify, however I'm not sure they really do. "What about grandchildren, etc?" is the way the further questions come out, however you can see there is commingling of questions here.

Is this a question about adults, or about children?? I have heard of believing grandparents presenting their grandchildren for baptism, in place of their unbelieving children, however this practice is not common in our churches. I think Rev.Winzer has brought up historic examples of this practice, and may have defended it. And the history of Puritan New England contains record of "half-way" covenant practice, which is along these lines.

But whatever the merits or demerits of this practice, I am not sure what this would have to do with the marking with covenant-sign upon an adult, who doesn't profess to believe.

Presenting of the child--whether for circumcision in the OT, or baptism in the new--was/is supposed to be an act of faith in God. It is supposed to be an act of obedience to the command of God who promised blessing to the obedient and curse to the disobedient.

Why should a "son of Abraham" by descendency, not circumcised as a youth, want circumcision as an adult? Hilasmos, you said this was not a prostelyte or a convert. So why does he want this identification--whether by circumcision or baptism?

Perhaps you say, "because he has a right to it?" If he claims the right to have his p---- cut, based on the fact that he is a son of Abraham, and that's it... wh, wha- why?!?! I mean, what's he after? What does he want, if he doesn't believe in the promises to Abraham? Why does this NT age fellow want to be baptized? He comes in the church and says: "My great-grandparents were members here, so I'd like to be baptized next week--I haven't gotten it yet"?

Would the priest have done that for the OT alien that walked in off the street? This seems to be your assumption, that someone during the OT age would have had to deal with this problem. Why?? I don't think that a "no questions asked" policy was in place at all. An adult jumping the "circumcision hurdle" seems like a huge step of commitment to me. Doesn't it seem that way to you? It implies joining the covenant people for the "right" reasons.

And even if it wasn't for the "right" reasons (what would those other reasons be?), people ask for and receive baptism from credo- and paedo- practicing churches all the time, who are either wrong about their motives, or lying.

And even if so, you seem to be saying that, well, he would have that right, no questions asked. No asking "do you know the law?" Really? Just because he's a son of Abraham. Just genetics.

I have a right as an American citizen not to testify against myself in a court of law. So, should I break the law so I can have that opportunity to exercise that right? I don't "care" that I have that right, in this sense (only): I'm not a law-breaker I'm not planning on marching into the D.A.'s office, and asking them to "work me over" and extract an inadmissible "confession" from me, obtained by torture.

Back to the top, what is the rationale behind this question?

 

[Ronnie]

But here is my question to you. Do you believe there is no distinction between God’s love for children of believers and every pagan walking around? If you do, then what is the difference based on?

God's salvific love is only for his elect. God's free invitation of the gospel is given both to children of believers (at least most of the time) and to unbelievers. I can't see any particular non-salvific love of God given to children of believers that isn't equally extended to "Gentiles" who hear the gospel and come under the influence of the Church community.

OK, but I'm not talking about salvific love, nor am I talking about the free invitation of the gospel. So based on the rest of your answer do you believe there is a type of love given to children of believers and those who "come under the influence of the Church community" that is not shown to those who never come under this influence?

Oh, one more question. If you believe the children of believers are loved in no way different by God than what he loves " 'Gentiles' who hear the gospel and come under the influence of the Church community" then why are the gentiles in this condition not called holy, clean( 1 Cor. 7:14), and said to be brought to the Lord for blessing( Mark 10:14), given instruction to obey in the Lord( Eph. 6:1)? Isn't it obvious that there is some distinction here, even if you don't believe they are in the New Covenant?

 

[Hilasmos]

I'd like to pursue the precipitating questions, in this latter-portion (that led to some disagreements)

Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever?

This question is then followed by two more questions, which seem meant to clarify, however I'm not sure they really do. "What about grandchildren, etc?" is the way the further questions come out, however you can see there is commingling of questions here.

Is this a question about adults, or about children?? I have heard of believing grandparents presenting their grandchildren for baptism, in place of their unbelieving children, however this practice is not common in our churches. I think Rev.Winzer has brought up historic examples of this practice, and may have defended it. And the history of Puritan New England contains record of "half-way" covenant practice, which is along these lines.

But whatever the merits or demerits of this practice, I am not sure what this would have to do with the marking with covenant-sign upon an adult, who doesn't profess to believe.

Presenting of the child--whether for circumcision in the OT, or baptism in the new--was/is supposed to be an act of faith in God. It is supposed to be an act of obedience to the command of God who promised blessing to the obedient and curse to the disobedient.

Why should a "son of Abraham" by descendency, not circumcised as a youth, want circumcision as an adult? Hilasmos, you said this was not a prostelyte or a convert. So why does he want this identification--whether by circumcision or baptism?

Perhaps you say, "because he has a right to it?" If he claims the right to have his p---- cut, based on the fact that he is a son of Abraham, and that's it... wh, wha- why?!?! I mean, what's he after? What does he want, if he doesn't believe in the promises to Abraham? Why does this NT age fellow want to be baptized? He comes in the church and says: "My great-grandparents were members here, so I'd like to be baptized next week--I haven't gotten it yet"?

Would the priest have done that for the OT alien that walked in off the street? This seems to be your assumption, that someone during the OT age would have had to deal with this problem. Why?? I don't think that a "no questions asked" policy was in place at all. An adult jumping the "circumcision hurdle" seems like a huge step of commitment to me. Doesn't it seem that way to you? It implies joining the covenant people for the "right" reasons.

And even if it wasn't for the "right" reasons (what would those other reasons be?), people ask for and receive baptism from credo- and paedo- practicing churches all the time, who are either wrong about their motives, or lying.

And even if so, you seem to be saying that, well, he would have that right, no questions asked. No asking "do you know the law?" Really? Just because he's a son of Abraham. Just genetics.

I have a right as an American citizen not to testify against myself in a court of law. So, should I break the law so I can have that opportunity to exercise that right? I don't "care" that I have that right, in this sense (only): I'm not a law-breaker I'm not planning on marching into the D.A.'s office, and asking them to "work me over" and extract an inadmissible "confession" from me, obtained by torture.

Back to the top, what is the rationale behind this question?

Rev,

Thanks for the comments. My question wasn't asking if the unbeliever should seek circumcision just to excercise his right, which brings up the question of why in the world would he even want to do that. It was along the lines of, would the "church", or the Jew's extended "parents," have an obligation to seek his circumcision based on the fact that he meets the requirments of being part of the Jewish seed and is in fact their "child" - despite that his immediate parents, for whatever reason, had not had him circumcised.

Rather the person does it or not wasn't my point, and I understand your questions concerning the potential absurdity of that. Sorry if I don't know enough to explain my point better. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hilasmos,
I would just say "no." The uncircumcised, who should have been, "has broken my covenant." The church then or now had no obligations to hunt such a person down and force inclusion on him.

So, unless that person, as a grown up, wants to "repent" of that--even if he didn't know he was a "lawbreaker" until later (and isn't that the way we all are, prior to knowledge of the law and conversion?)--there is no reason for him to seek circumcision in the religious sense. And no reason, other than to seek his conversion, his reintegration into the covenant life, that a circumcised Israelite (such as his grandparent) would call such a person back to his Israelite heritage.

Has this furthered the discussion at all?

 

[ManleyBeasley]

Hi:

Manley Beasley writes:


But, where does it say "only"? Can you cite your references?

Thanks,

Rob

I don't think it has to say "only". It says "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them..." (Matt. 28:19a) The "them" referred to is those who have been made "disciples". The examples we have of baptism are never infants. Without the argument from the covenants (OC to NC congruency) there isn't a solid basis for infant baptism (numerous paedos have admitted as much). I believe Jeremiah 31 shows that the NC is not a covenant of both regenerate and unregenerate mixed together as the OC was so I believe credo baptism is the correct NC practice.

Hi:

Do you mean that we are not to disciple our children?

Blessings,

Rob

No, we should definitely teach them. Read the earlier discussion and I believe it explains how we view that. We teach them with a desire to evangelize them.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Your not addressing the passages I mentioned Rich. Did God consider His nation Isreal to be his old covenant people even when they were disobedient and idolatrous, thus calling them to repent? He is long suffering.

We are discussing continuity between the Old and New.

Yes, of course God is longsuffering. The point of Israel's continuity in the Covenant, however, is not that they may serve other Gods as if they should sin all the more so that grace may abound. God's preservation is in spite of rebellion and misapprehension of what they were called to. Nevertheless, the substance of their circumcision was that He would be their God and they would be His people. When a person apostasized from the faith, if their children happened to return to the Lord generations down the road then that was extraordinary. The Law, however, cut apostates off (and in some cases killed them). You couldn't just walk into a doctor's office and have your child circumcised. Much like Presbyterial form of government, local synagogues watched over the people in the villages and Rabbis administered the circumcision. It was a religious and not a medical act.

I don't think it was a strange question. Physical descent from Abraham by the covenantally elect lines of Isaac and Jacob(=Israel) was absolutely a sufficient condition to make circumcision mandatory. This obligation (of circumcision plus the rest of the Law) would be present regardless of whether one's immediate parents were Baal worshippers.

False and un-Biblical. You really have no business trying to argue any issue of Covenant theology if you are so woefully ignorant of the Scriptures to present the above point.

Here is where God lays this obligation on Abraham's progeny:

Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
​

Here God clarifies that it is "through Isaac that your offspring shall be reckoned". In other words, God's peculiar national election follows the line of Isaac and not Ishmael.

Gen 17:18 And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!"
Gen 17:19 God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.​

God's covenantal favor was renewed yet again with Jacob, but not with "godless" Esau:

Gen 32:28 Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed."
Gen 32:29 Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him.
​

Here is the basic scope of God's covenantal operations at the time of the Exodus:

Exo 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.​

It is fair to say that God's outward election of his covenant nation settles on the progeny of Jacob.

Eze 20:5 and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day when I chose Israel, I swore to the offspring of the house of Jacob, making myself known to them in the land of Egypt; I swore to them, saying, I am the LORD your God.
​

Reading the above passages, I would have to regard any physical descendant of Abraham through the line of Israel as very wicked indeed, who would refuse to undergo circumcision in obedience to the covenantal obligation God laid on his entire race. If his immediate parents were Baal worshippers, that's too bad; but it wouldn't change his personal covenantal obligation.

That this peculiar obligation spanned generations is the point being made above, and in my view, it stands unless you can provide some scripture showing otherwise.

The reason Calvin was "under-developed" is that he understood the Scriptures much better.

I did not say Calvin was "under-developed".

I'm drawing the line here. I want none of this here. It is interesting that, just today, I was reading something where Calvin was outright condemning your carnal thinking and he was thinking of Servetus when he was doing it.

You've established nothing above but the fact that you can provide a group of quotes from Scripture and establish that you don't know how to properly put them together Systematically and understand the nature of the Law or how the Abrahamic Covenant operated substantively. You're done arguing for this on a Reformed board.

 

[Hilasmos]

Yes, thanks. I guess my confusing mess of questions were steming, in part, from the comments concerning Israel being circumcised as adults prior to entering the promised land after the wonderings. Further, in my mind, I wasn't really mingling the concept of unbeliever = apostate or pagan, but rather, unbeliever = non-saving faith, one who could be, for all practical purposes, in good standing with the covenant community.

Anyways, thanks. I will have to formulate my thoughts more.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks for the clarification Bruce.

Let me apologize for coming on strong but it is very frustrating to have a thread repeat the refrain: "This is not carnal" only to have the popular Baptist headline of what they think Presbyterians are doing and ask why the child of unbelieving parents isn't baptized. In other words, making baptism carnal.

I'll just apologize for being frustrated and leave it at that. I will, however, still insist that respect be shown our forbears in the Covenant and any suggestion that the Abrahamic Covenant was some sort of genetic right independent of belief is simply something I cannot stomach. Those who think otherwise will simply have to chalk it up to the crazy Marine who has no patience for a certain thing but I consider such thinking to go against the very nature of the Covenant of Grace. It throws our forebears in the faith under the bus and is completely antithetical to the tone of the Scriptures - especially highlighted in Hebrews 11. Never, never, never does God for a moment stomach simple outward obedience to a physical act. I urge all to read Calvin on this.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

This Thread is done.