Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade So when I see it asserted that warrant for membership in New Covenant Israel is no longer based on blood ties of natural descent as per the old dispensation, but strictly on faith in Christ and the new birth, I must object and answer that inclusion into God’s house has always been by faith, and not natural descent. Those who were but Abraham’s seed after the flesh were not included in His covenant household, though they may have appeared to be. |
and
Sometimes what disturbs me most about arguments trying to establish the New Covenant as not only better but as a whole new species is what they are forced to paint the people in the Old Covenant as being about. This is why paedobaptists repeatedly insist that most arguments for the baptism of professors alone must contend with the issue of paedo-circumcision to establish the credibility of the argument. It seems to me that it's easier just to devalue the significance of circumcision.
It's
always been about salvation by faith alone in Christ's work alone. Is it really any wonder why the Ishmaelites and Edomites no longer circumcised their offspring after the apostasy of their forefathers? Why shouldn't Ishmael's descendants still circumcise if, as argued, he was circumcised simply because he was Abraham's offspring and for on other significant reason? The only time you hear about a notion of the Covenant belonging to men by way of crass natural descent is when it is being roundly condemned by the Prophets, by Christ, and by the Apostles.