Here is something that I think will point out a significant learning opportunity. Were children ever considered to be in the Covenant of Grace just by their participation in any of the Covenants? Just because a child is a part of the Abrahamic Covenant doesn't imply that he was a member of the Covenant of Grace in my understanding. And just because a child was a part of the Mosaic Covenant didn't imply that he was a member of the Covenant of Grace either. Both of these Covenants had promises that administered the Covenant of Grace and maybe you could say that they both administered the Covenant of Works in the fact that there was a blessing and Cursing motif' also. But I don't believe the two mix. This was the point that Rich and I were getting into here. http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=23640&page=3
These are some of my points from that thread.
The sign didn't signify the same thing for Abraham's individual children necessarily. But it was a sign of a covenant that had national promises also that were not necessarily spiritual promises. Some of the promises to Abraham and his seed (not the seed which is Christ) were outside of the Everlasting Covenant as Abraham and Ishmael found out in Genesis 17. Take a minute to Read Genesis Chapter 17. Baptism in the New Testament is a picture of one who is buried in Christ and forgiven of sin. That is not necessarily so with the Covenant of Circumcision.
I am not convinced the sign of circumcision meant the same thing for everyone who was circumcised after Abraham. Case in point it didn't mean the same thing for Ishmael or anyone who was not a member of the Covenant of Grace after him. In relation to the text in Romans 4, I don't see its point about circumcison being a complete exposition of what circumcision was to Abraham. There is no mention of those who would be cut off In Romans 4 if they did not receive this sign of the Covenant of Circumcision who where his decendants.
First off I do believe the sign was spiritual to others beside Abraham. It wasn't for everyone who was descended from Abraham. I also believe the COW is found in Abraham as there is a curse in it of being cut off. That is different for the New Covenant Member according to Jeremiah 31. The Everlasting Covenant promised in Isaac is the Covenant of Grace. The signification of righteousness passes on to one and not to the other.
In Genesis 17 does God establish his Everlasting Covenant with Ishmael whom Abraham petitioned God for? Does God make promises to Abraham (outside of this everlasting Covenant that is in Isaac) within the covenant of circumcision, that allowed Ishmael to live with Abraham and be blessed, that didn't pertain to the Everlasting Covenant that Ismael was not a part of? By circumcision one was permitted to dwell with Abraham even if he was not a descedent of his. Circumcision had promises of land and inhabitation of the land that were not necessarily spiritual. The promises of inhabitation of the land and prosperity did not necessarily grant any spiritual inclusion except that God was God over the people, unrighteous and righteous alike. Baptism is no where spoken of like this. It is always spoken of in a way that points to the forgiveness of sin and union with Christ.
After Rich and I go over these points and he disagrees with me we turn the discussion towards Galatians Chapters 3,4, and 5. We discuss the Two Covenants that proceed from Abraham.
Anyways this ought to be a good starting place.
All of the other threads got a little to out of hand for me and were just side issues to this in my opinion.
But I aint always correct. Now play nice.
These are some of my points from that thread.
The sign didn't signify the same thing for Abraham's individual children necessarily. But it was a sign of a covenant that had national promises also that were not necessarily spiritual promises. Some of the promises to Abraham and his seed (not the seed which is Christ) were outside of the Everlasting Covenant as Abraham and Ishmael found out in Genesis 17. Take a minute to Read Genesis Chapter 17. Baptism in the New Testament is a picture of one who is buried in Christ and forgiven of sin. That is not necessarily so with the Covenant of Circumcision.
I am not convinced the sign of circumcision meant the same thing for everyone who was circumcised after Abraham. Case in point it didn't mean the same thing for Ishmael or anyone who was not a member of the Covenant of Grace after him. In relation to the text in Romans 4, I don't see its point about circumcison being a complete exposition of what circumcision was to Abraham. There is no mention of those who would be cut off In Romans 4 if they did not receive this sign of the Covenant of Circumcision who where his decendants.
First off I do believe the sign was spiritual to others beside Abraham. It wasn't for everyone who was descended from Abraham. I also believe the COW is found in Abraham as there is a curse in it of being cut off. That is different for the New Covenant Member according to Jeremiah 31. The Everlasting Covenant promised in Isaac is the Covenant of Grace. The signification of righteousness passes on to one and not to the other.
In Genesis 17 does God establish his Everlasting Covenant with Ishmael whom Abraham petitioned God for? Does God make promises to Abraham (outside of this everlasting Covenant that is in Isaac) within the covenant of circumcision, that allowed Ishmael to live with Abraham and be blessed, that didn't pertain to the Everlasting Covenant that Ismael was not a part of? By circumcision one was permitted to dwell with Abraham even if he was not a descedent of his. Circumcision had promises of land and inhabitation of the land that were not necessarily spiritual. The promises of inhabitation of the land and prosperity did not necessarily grant any spiritual inclusion except that God was God over the people, unrighteous and righteous alike. Baptism is no where spoken of like this. It is always spoken of in a way that points to the forgiveness of sin and union with Christ.
After Rich and I go over these points and he disagrees with me we turn the discussion towards Galatians Chapters 3,4, and 5. We discuss the Two Covenants that proceed from Abraham.
Anyways this ought to be a good starting place.
All of the other threads got a little to out of hand for me and were just side issues to this in my opinion.
But I aint always correct. Now play nice.
Last edited: