Hi:

Jerusalem Blade wrote:

Perfectly acceptable, , it is my contention that those who deny the Free Offer of the the Gospel ("given," "set forth," or "presented") are actually undermining infant baptism, but that may be a subject for another thread.

The "offer" (if you will allow me to use a synonym for "set forth") is presented to all who hear the gospel or have received the sacrament of circumcision. It is offered to all, elect and non-elect alike, but it is effective only for the elect.

The offer was effective to Abraham who "believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness," but it was also set forth and presented to his infant children through the sacrament of circumcision. The offer of the Gospel was given to both Ishmael and Issac, but it was effective for Issac only. This we know because the Scriptures tell us so.

Now, we have a Command in the Old Testament that says believers are to be given the sacrament of circumcision. Believers are also Commanded to offer the Gospel to their children (including infants) through the Sacrament of Circumcision as well:

Does anyone doubt that this is a Command from God Himself? That Believers and their children are offered the Gospel Promises though the Sacrament of the Church.

As I understand it: Credo-baptists argue that, according to Jer 31, the Old Testament laws have been abrogated by the New Covenant. There are many problems with this line of reasoning if one is holding to Covenant Theology.

First, Jeremiah 31 is speaking about the Mosaic Levitical laws, "Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt", also, "Which things are an allegory, for these are the two covenants the one from Mount Sinai, which engenders to bondage, which is Agar."

The contrast in Jeremiah 31 is that of the Covenant of Works, "the one from Mount Sinai which engenders to bondage," and the New Covenant. It is clear that the Two Covenants contrasted in Jeremiah 31 are the Covenant of Works represented by the Mosaic Levitical Laws, and the Covenant of Grace found in the New Covenant. (Note: not everything in the Mosaic Law was considered a matter of the Covenant of Works. The 10 Commands have not been abrogated, Marriage is a matter of the Mosaic Law, and Circumcision is also found in it. All of these things existed prior to Moses).

The law that Believers and their children are to be given the sacrament of the Church is no where found in th Covenant of Works. Everywhere in the Old Testament (where circumcision is rightly understood) Circumcision is equated with the Covenant of Grace (or the New Covenant):

Paul emphatically argues that the outward rite of circumcision does not make one a member of the Covenant of Grace. The heart must be circumcised, and that is done by faith - as it was done to Abraham prior to him, and his children, being circumcised. This is the same with water baptism and the washing of the Spirit.

Circumcision was not a matter of the Covenant of Works found in the Mosaic Levitical Law, but was a sign and seal in the Old Testament of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. That the sacrament was given to Believers (Abraham) and their children (Ishmael and Issac) by a direct command from God cannot then be abrogated by an appeal to Jeremiah 31.

Second, the outward act of circumcision was not abrogated under the New Covenant it was replaced by water baptism. This is proved by both direct and indirect evidence:

In Col 2:11,12 the "circumcision made without hands" is equivalent to being, "buried with him in baptism." Both circumcision and baptism are here indicatives of the believer being united to Christ.

Indirecty, Circumcision and baptism refer to the same things:

1) Abraham was given a "seal" as a sign to establish and confirm the Covenant. Which is the same with baptism.

2) "a seal of righteousness" means a confirmation of the fact that he was righteous. Which is the same with baptism

3) Abraham received this seal by faith - his faith secured the seal. Which is the same with baptism.

Covenant Theology teaches that the Church from Adam to the End of the World (though formally organized under Abraham) is one and the same; identical in all of its essential particulars. Credo-Baptists depart from Covenant Theology here, and they hold to mild or extreme forms of Dispensationalism. The friction between Covenant and Dispensational theologies is where most of the heat comes from in this debate.

Finally, The law requiring children of believers to receive the Promises of God by the Sacrament of Baptism has not been repealed or abrogated by the New Covenant. References to Jeremiah 31 on this matter do not prove the point - since the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, be it circumcision or baptism, were never a part of the Covenant of Works. It is, in fact, a Sign of the Covenant of Grace, or, the New Covenant.

1) In the Covenant of Grace it is Faith that secures the seal: "Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness." After Abraham believed the sign of the New Covenant was given not only to him, but to his children as well.

2) What, then, would one expect concerning the law requiring the children of believers being baptized in the New Testament as to its continuing obligation?

Ans. One would expect to find some statments affirming, or so speaking as to assume its continued obligation.

We find clear evidence in the New Testament that baptism has replaced circumcision.

We find no clear evidence in the New Testament that "Believers Only" has replaced "Believers and the children." In th Old Testament "Believers," like Abraham, were required to be Circumcised/Bapized, but their children/households were also required to be Circumcized/bapitzed as well.

Where is the evidence that Children are now not being offered the Promises of God in the Sacrament?

The requirement for faith? Abraham had to believe in God before he was given the Sign of the New Covenant. No such requirement was given for an infant 8 days old.

That the New Covenant is only with the Elect? Such is true only in the sense that it is effective for the Elect, but the New Covenant is offered to both the Elect and non-Elect alike.

Everywhere it is mentioned: the New Testament assumes the continued obligation to baptize the Children of Believers:

Peter speaking, not as a Dispensationalist, but as a Jew, under the Covenant of Grace, to fellow Jews points out that, "The Promise is to you, your children, and to those who are afar off, to as many as the Lord God shall call."

The only way the Elect recieve the Promises is by (the Call) the Preaching of the Gospel - "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Thus, the Promises of God are offered to both the Elect and non-Elect alike. Baptism is given to Believers, like Abraham, and their children. This is the assumption that Peter has made here.

Paul, in answering a question about a split household states that the child of a believing parent is considered a saint, 1 Cor 7:14 (hagios can be translated, "saint.") If the idea of "set apart" is used, then what is the child being set apart for? Paul is assuming that the status of the child of a believing parent is "set apart." Thus, infant baptism cannot be objected to on the grounds of the non-belief of one parent. in fact the unbelieving spouse is considered "sanctified" for the sake of the child!

Household baptisms: Abraham and his household were baptized - Believers in the New Covenant and their households were baptized. The continunity of the Covenant of Grace from Abraham to today is firmly established.

The Promises of God were/are given to both the Elect and non-Elect alike in both the Old and New Testaments. Thus, we are required by Divine Command to baptize our children.

Grace and Peace,

CalvinandHodge

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO
RPCNA