The PuritanBoard - Blogs http://www.puritanboard.com/blog.php A forum for the discussion of Reformed Theology and the historic Christian Faith en Fri, 16 May 2008 16:10:19 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.puritanboard.com/images/retro/misc/rss.jpg The PuritanBoard - Blogs http://www.puritanboard.com/blog.php Untitled First Entry http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/turmeric/92-untitled-first-entry.html Sun, 04 May 2008 03:55:00 GMT Hello, everyone,
I don't have much to say in this first entry - I don't blog very often, but decided to try this feature out. I wonder if there are ways to customize it like the profiles? It's a Saturday evening and I'm listening to the local jazz station.

I'm thinking about post-modernism, how it's a descendant of existentialism, which is something I do understand, as opposed to post-modernism, which I don't understand. I've listened to quite a few sermons by someone trying to reach the post-modern age and he almost seems to be apologizing for being a Christian. Are they really so cynical that one has to do that? Puzzling... ]]> turmeric http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/turmeric/92-untitled-first-entry.html <![CDATA[By Choice: A McDonald's Experience]]> http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/joshua/90-choice-mcdonald-s-experience.html Thu, 01 May 2008 16:11:10 GMT By Choice: A McDonald's Experience

I was in McDonald’s one morning, enjoying a nice warm breakfast consisting of an Egg McMuffin, Hash Brown, and a Cinnamon melt. I was hooked up to the internet on my laptop by way of my Wi-Fi technology. As I finished my morning feast, I perused through some of the Puritan prayers found in The Valley of Vision, thanking God for His graciousness to me. I then began to read through my daily Bible reading as appointed by the plan I was using. This I also accessed from the internet, in the comfortable setting of this quiet little McDonald’s.

I was thoroughly enjoying this refreshing time when all of a sudden a stench filled the immediate vicinity. It had the smell of “old” and mold. A figure passed by in my peripheral vision. It was a man dressed very shabbily, his clothes tattered and having the appearance of having been caught in a dust storm. I made the assumption that this man was a bum…and this BY CHOICE. I mean, come on, we’re in America. Anyone can get a job in this country. Sure, one may not like the job they’re doing, but anyone - disabled or not - is capable of finding employment.

This guy walks in, has ruined my time of rejuvination, and hasn’t even purchased anything from McDonald’s! No, from some of the money he’s scrunged up somewhere he went and bought a 44 oz drink from EZ Mart. However, the setting in EZ Mart ain’t exactly EZ. So he brings it to McDonald’s and sits in a remote corner where he’s unfettered by party-poopers who might ask him to leave the premises. As I tried to regain focus on the passage I was reading he was making looks in a few different directions. I supposed by the manner in which he was glaring, that people (like me) had been watching him and he was repaying their looks with dissatisfied looks of his own.

Who was this guy who had the nerve to come into McDonald’s, having paid for nothing, even having brought a drink from somewhere else, and yet who was going to use McDonald’s time and space to sit for a while and get out of the cool morning air? I kept trying to read through Galatians 2 but kept glancing back at this man with contempt and indignation. Out of his dingy coat he pulled out a pair of glasses, like he was going to actually use them for something. It was pathetic. As he put them on his face, I noticed there was only one lens. On the other side, the frame had been broken and was missing the rim on the bottom part as well as a lens.

Not only did this man stink, ruin my morning, and loiter at McDonald’s, but he also looked ridiculously foolish wearing these glasses he’d probably found on the street somewhere. He wasn’t even reading anything! Who was he trying to fool? I know these types. They came on hard times once, possibly fell into a deep depression, and have just never picked themselves up from it. Instead of finding work they wallow in their self-pity and beg their way through life. BY CHOICE. I considered all this and I couldn’t even focus on my reading:
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:15-16)
Instantly my heart was CRUSHED. Just as Nathan the prophet told the King of all Israel - the one who lived in lavished riches, carefree from the things of the world, reigning and ruling from his throne - just as he told King David, “YOU ARE THAT MAN!”, I realized I was once just like this bum toward whom I was holding great contempt and unjustified indignation. I had no 'works' that 'justified' me before God.

I was once a God-hater BY CHOICE. I once loitered God’s creation, my sin bringing a great stench that invaded my surrounding vicinity. Everything I did was BY CHOICE. I was a fool. I enjoyed God’s creation, all the while never giving Him credit or praise for anything (I didn’t have anything to give. It was all filthy, dingy, and without merit). I was a pathetic, shabbily dressed, and drifting soul, befitting of only being left to myself...deserving no one's help. And yet God in His wonderful mercy and saving grace, and despite my hatred toward Him, took captive my darkened heart. He gave me a ring and He robed me with His righteousness. And He did this BY CHOICE.

Back to that morning at McDonald’s. My heart broke and I began to cry, asking God to forgive my foolishness. Sure, I still thought this man was a beggar and bum by choice. I still truly believe that anyone who wants a job in this land is able to get one, regardless of their circumstances…it just may not be the one they want. But I was the same as a filthy sinner before the eyes of God…choosing my circumstances, blinded to His light. But he saved me. I repented of my ungrounded attitude toward this man, and approached him asking him if I could buy him something to eat. He politely said, “No thanks, but if you could leave me a couple of bucks, I’d be grateful.” This was expected, as I knew what he probably wanted it for. I told him I had no cash, only a debit card. He again expressed his gratitude and I wished him a good day.

God was merciful to me as a dead sinner, and He’s merciful to me now as a Christian who still struggles with hypocrisy…BY CHOICE. Blessed be the Name of the Lord Who saves sinners. ]]> joshua http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/joshua/90-choice-mcdonald-s-experience.html Six Phases of a Project http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/jaybird0827/77-six-phases-project.html Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:01:55 GMT This is *not *original. The Six Phases of a Project 1. Enthusiasm 2. Disillusionment 3. Panic 4. Search for the guilty 5. Punishment of the innocent 6. Praise and honor for the non-participants This is not original.

The Six Phases of a Project

1. Enthusiasm

2. Disillusionment

3. Panic

4. Search for the guilty

5. Punishment of the innocent

6. Praise and honor for the non-participants ]]> jaybird0827 http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/jaybird0827/77-six-phases-project.html The Children of Israel http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/joshua/91-children-israel.html Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:24:00 GMT The Children of Israel

Exodus 3:10
Come, I will send you to Pharaoh that you may bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt.
Notice that the whole of God's people was that of Jacob's Children (Children of Israel). At the end of chapter 2 we read, "...and God remembered his covenant he made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." We know that Jacob's name was changed to Israel. Thus, we conclude, according to the precedent set so far in Scripture, that God is dealing with the Hebrew people covenantally. It is interesting to note that God doesn't make a distinction bewteen the righteous children of Jacob and the unrighteous children. Rather, he refers to all of Jacob's descendants. This, no doubt would include both believers and unbelievers, and yet God calls them all his people.

This has been historically understood in different ways. We will look at 3 such ways, and I will offer a dissenting opinion concerning the first (Dispensational). The remaining two (Reformed Paedobaptist and Reformed Baptist) are very much alike, with some differing views concerning the inclusion of infants in the Covenant (amongst others). Because debates between these two tend to polarize I will avoid critiques of them, because I simply want this to be an informative post and not one of polemics. Don't get me wrong, there is a time and a place for such debate, but not here and not now.

1) Dispensational Understanding-Just as there are multipe shades and stripes of Baptists, Presbyterians, etc., there are multiple types of dispensationalists. Some are referred to as classical, some as progressive, and at least one I know refers to himself as a leaky dispensationalist (the last not being an official class of dispensationalism, but I would describe it as dispensational only in the context of eschatology).

The Dispensationalist would tend to recognize this as merely a physical identification of God's people, because, according to them, the covenant is merely that of a land promise, etc. The Dispensational hermeneutic would say that there is little to no continuity between how God worked with Israel and how He works with the Church, resulting in an erroneous "two peoples of God" theology. Though most would say that the Hebrews were saved through justification by faith alone just like any other Christian, this would cause them to downplay, in my humble opinion, the role of God's covenantal dealings with the nation. God's covenant made with Abraham is more than just a land promise, and is called an everlasting covenant.

2) Reformed Paedobaptist Understanding-There are multiple denominations which represent this view. Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, Anglican Reformed, etc. There may be varying distinction in degree of emphasis, but are all very similar in regard to covenant.

The Reformed Paedobaptist would say that God's covenantal dealings with Israel, as based on the Abrahamic covenant, have both eternal and temporary aspects. They would recognize a more strict continuity between God's dealings in the Old Covenant and His dealings in the New Covenant. In fact, the Reformed Paedobaptist would make the case that the New Covenant is much more expansive than the Old Covenant, in that not only are believers and their children in covenant with God from the Hebrew nation, but there is a more thorough inception of Gentile believers and their children equated into the mix as well.

This is where the Reformed Paedobaptist would distinguish between what has been called the "visible" church, and the "invisible" church (Along these same lines is the idea of the external/internal aspects of the covenant). From their perspective, those adults who repent and believe are baptized, they and their children, and then are all a part of the visible church. However, no man can know a person's heart, thus they can't know beyond a doubt that a man is or is not a part of the invisible church. That being said, this means that the invisible church are those who have been elected by God, before the foundation of the world, and who have been irresistibly drawn, effectually called, justified, and are being sanctified until glory. This is how, they say, God could call the whole of Israel his people, yet knowing that many of them ultimately broke covenant. They would say that, likewise, in the New Covenant, there will be those who profess Christ, but do not possess him. These are those to whom the warning passages are directed (Hebrews 6, 10, elsewhere), and many of whom are rooted out by means of church discipline, etc. (The warning passages are also directed to genuine Christians who are in need of repentance)

3) Reformed Baptist Understanding-There are also various shades of Baptists in this camp. Some would be Covenantal, some New Covenant Theologians, and still others may be a cross between, maybe more associated with the Continental Reformed concerning things such as the Sabbath, etc. I will be presenting the thoughts of the Covenantal Baptist camp.

The Reformed Baptist would say, along with the Reformed Paedobaptist, that God's covenantal dealings with Israel, as based on His covenant made with Abraham, have both eternal and temporary aspects. They would, however, stop short of the strict continuity that Reformed Paedobaptists see between the Old and New Covenants. The contention of the Reformed Baptists is that the term "New" in the "New Covenant" means "brand new". Alluding to passages such as Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, the Reformed Baptist says in the New Covenant, all will know God, from the greatest to the least of them, whereas the Reformed Paedobaptist will see an "already/not yet" aspect to the aforementioned passages. Thus, to the Reformed Baptist, the status quo is no longer believers and their children being in covenant with God, but to the individual man, woman, boy, or girl who is confronted with the gospel to believe, repent, and be baptized. According to the Reformed Baptist, a man should only be baptized after having professed faith in Christ.

The Reformed Baptist, though not using terminology like "visible/invisible" church (although the 1689 does make mention of invisible church consisting of visible saints), has an underlying doctrine which basically states essentially the same idea as the Reformed Paedobaptist. In other words, Reformed Baptists understand a distinction between those who merely profess Christ and those who actually possess Christ. A baptism is performed on those who give a "credible profession of faith", and in time this profession is shown to be true for a person who follows the Scripture and bears the fruit of the Spirit. For the man who does not live a godly life, yet professes Christ, he is subject to church discipline. The Reformed Baptist will follow the various stages of Discipline (Matt 18, etc) in hopes that the professing believer will repent and be restored to the fellowship of Christians. If such a professor fails to do so, then he will be considered and treated as an unbeliever, and according to 1 John 3, his actions are showing him as having never having been truly saved in the first place. Thus, the various warning passages in Scripture (Heb 6, 10, etc.) are directed to such a person for the purpose of having them "examine themselves to see whether [they] be in the faith."

The preceding descriptions are not intended to be exhaustive, nor are they the only views out there. However, I think they are the prominent views. If I have misrepresented any positions, please let me know so that I may make necessary amends.
 ]]> joshua http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/joshua/91-children-israel.html <![CDATA[To Those Swallowed Up By Sin's Sorrow]]> http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/joshua/88-those-swallowed-up-sin-s-sorrow.html Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:00:00 GMT To Those Swallowed Up By Sin's Sorrow

Christians, know God's Word. If you know it not, Satan can (and will) use it against you. This is one reason it's so very important to have a good intake of Scripture each day. Blessed be the Lord God Who has given us His Word that we may have the sword by which we mortify sin and resist Satan!

Many times as Christians, we can become overwhelmed by the weight of our sins. We know in our minds that Christ has purchased our redemption, but sorrow looms heavily over our hearts. In desperation we confess and re-confess sins of which we've already repented, hoping to take the sorrow away. This brings us to a state of paralysis. At times even the Word of God may be wrongfully used to bring us into further spiritual depression.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the Bible is ever responsible for wrong in our own lives. What I do mean is that even Satan knows the Scriptures. He can twist them as the Lord permits, and use them against our already broken and repentant consciences...in hopes that we will become further dejected and unfruitful for a time in the work of God's kingdom. We can see an example of Satan using Scripture to his own end in an attempt to make the Lord Jesus Christ Himself sin!
Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” 4 But he answered, “It is written,

“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”


5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple 6 and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,’

and

“‘On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”


7 Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,

“‘You shall worship the Lord your God
and him only shall you serve.’”


11 Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.
Note, I wrote that the devil attempted to do so. But the Lord Jesus, the Living Word of God, would have none of it and turned the tables on "that old serpent, the devil." We ought alwas verse ourselves in Scripture, confessing our sin before its reading, asking for illumination, and reading with our hearts mindful of the over-arching theme of Scripture: Christ the Lord.

So, we see that Satan can use Scripture (albeit twisted) to battle against our hearts, even though we're already repentant and contrite toward God for our sins. He also messes with our thoughts, in attempts to pose as the Holy Spirit convicting and reproving. However, there is a great difference between the work of the Holy Spirit in the saint's conviction and the darts of Satan in the paralyzing of the saint's running of the race to which he's been called.

Thus, I'd like to share a few thoughts from the grand ole' Puritan of old, William Gurnall. This is excerpted from his The Christian in Complete Armour, particularly volume 1 from the Banner of Truth's modernized and abridged version. I know that this remains a very helpful reminder when Satan is having his way with my own thoughts about my sin, though I have confessed and repented of them to the Lord already. Please read and benefit from the words of this wise Puritan divine.

II. SATAN EXAGGERATES THE SAINTS' SINS
His [the devil's] aim is to discredit not the sins but the saints. Here his chief tactic is to deliver his accusations as if they are an act of the Holy Spirit. He knows a charge from God's cannon wounds deeply; therefore, when he accuses a conscientious Christian, he forges God's name on the missile before he fires it. Suppose a child were conscious of gravely displeasing his father, and some spiteful person, to harass him, wrote and sent him a counterfeit letter full of harsh and threatening accusations, copying the father's name at the bottom. The poor child, already painfully aware of his sins and not knowing the scheme, would be overcome with grief. Here is real heartache stemming from a false premise - just the kind of thing Satan relishes.
Satan is a clever investigator. He closely observes the relationship between you and God. Sooner or later he will catch you tardy in some duty or faulty in a service. He knows you are conscious of your shortcomings and that the Spirit of God will also show distaste for them. So he draws up a lengthy indictment, raking up all the aggravations he can think of, then serves this warrant on you as though sent from God. This is how Job's friends reacted to his trouble. They gathered up all the evidence of his infirmities to use against him, implying thy had been sent by God to declare him a hypocrite and denounce him for it.

While Satan is a master inquisitor, we know that not all our rebukes come from him. God's Word clearly states that 'Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth' (Heb 12:6). How, then, can we discern the spiteful accusations of Satan from the loving reprimands of God and His Spirit?

Try this test: If such rebukes contradict any prior work of the Spirit in your soul, they are Satan's and not the Spirit's. Satan's purpose in emphasizing your sin is to try to unsaint you and persuade you that you are only a hypocrite. 'Oh,' hisses Satan, 'now you have shown your true colors! See that horrid stain on your jacket - what other saint ever commited such a sin! Your whole life is a sham! God wants nothing to do with such a desperately wicked person as you.'

And with a single blow Satan dashes all in pieces. The whole mansion of grace which God has been building many years in our soul and all the special conmforts the Holy Spirit has brought are blown down by one gust from his malicious mouth. He leaves your life a shambles, and tells you it is your own fault.

Do not despair. Pacify your fears with this precious truth: Once the Spirit of God has begun a sanctifying work, causing you to hope in His mercy, He never will nor can bring contrary news to your soul. His language is not 'yea and nay', but 'yea and amen' for ever. If you play the prodigal, God will frown and chide you roundly for your sin, as He did David through Nathan: 'Thou are the man!' (2 Samuel. 12:7). Yet not a word is heard from Nathan telling David to unsaint himself and call in question the work of God in his soul. That prophet had no such commission form the Lord. He was sent to make David mourn for his sin - not from his sin to question his state of grace, which God had so often put beyond doubt.

Besides planting seeds of doubt about the sanctifying work of the Spirit, Satan often sends rebukes of the conscience that deny the riches of God's grace. When you find your sins represented to you as exceeding either the mercy of God's nature or the grace of His covenant, this comes from a jealous suitor, the devil. The Holy Spirit, as Christ's intermediary, woos sinners to embrace the grace of the gospel. Would He say anything that would spoil the courtship or lower Christ's esteem in the eyes of His beloved? Surely you must know where such lies orginate! When you hear someone compliment another person as wise or good, then at last come in with a but that dashes all, you know he is no friend but some sly enemy who, by seeming to commend the person, really desires to discredit him. And so, when you find God represented to you as merciful and gracious, but not to such a great sinner as you; strong and mighty, but not able to save someone like you, you can say, 'Be gone, Satan, your speech betrays you. This is not a message sent to me by the Lover of my soul!'
Good words from William Gurnall. Blessings to each of you today! ]]> joshua http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/joshua/88-those-swallowed-up-sin-s-sorrow.html My Xanga Blog http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/haiglaw/72-my-xanga-blog.html Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:55:14 GMT My main blog is at Xanga, where there is a summary of all the latest articles since last September.

Some of those articles of interest to lovers of Christian liberty would be:

Religious-liberty law primer.

LaP admonished -- the story of the PCA's SJC admonishing the Lousiana Presbytery for its failure to timely find probable cause that the views of Rev. Steve Wilkins were out of accord with the PCA's constitution.

Presuppositionalism simply - a summary of presuppositionalism.

Conscience sake -- a summary of the Westminster Confession of Faith teaching on liberty of conscience.

Atheist dialog -- an account of using presuppositionalism witnessing to a group of atheists and agnostics.

Enjoy! ]]> HaigLaw http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/haiglaw/72-my-xanga-blog.html John Tombes on Genesis 17:7 http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/71-john-tombes-genesis-17-7.html Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:49:59 GMT I have been discussing Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic Covenant on the Puritanboard.com. In light of this Dr. Mike Renihan recommended to me a portion of his book ‘Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes’. I just thought I would take the time to type out the section on Genesis 17 and the introduction to the Exegetical Arguments (With Dr. Renihan’s permission) and post it in a blog so I could reference it more quickly and make it accessible to others. I leave you with only a portion of his exegetical arguments. I think he does bring to light some good points concerning the biblical covenants, continuity, and discontinuity.

Be Encouraged,
Randy Martin Snyder

Exegetical Arguments

The eleven exegetical arguments are primarily negative polemics against infant baptism. Tombes usually presented a paedobaptist position in syllogistic form, then proceeded to show how the argument was flawed. At the outset, a word must be said as regards such a methodology. First, Tombes is setting out arguments for infant baptism as an Antipaedobaptist in order to refute them. This approach seems therefore tainted with question-begging. However, it was the typical scholastic methodology of the day – to set out an argument in a plain and straightforward manner proceeding immediately to deal with objections. Tombes was laying these objections before his peers for their consideration. It was a consistent method that Tombes had used since his early days in considering the matter. The arguments presented to the committee of the Assembly of Divines as the Exercitation were honest attempts to know the truth of this issue. This inquiry to the Assembly came out of an earlier meeting, as Tombes recalled:
Whereupon when in a meeting of Ministers in the City of London, the question was propounded what Scripture there was for infant-baptisme, I told my brethren plainly, that I doubted there was none. This occasioned the Dispute Doctor Homes speakes of which happened about January 1643…. Not long after that Conference, my most loving and reverend Father in law Master Henry Scudder fearing the event of this matter, after some writing betweene us, advised me to draw up the reasons of my doubts, and he undertook to present them to the Committee chosen (as I conceived it) to give satisfaction about the point, which I conceived might well be the leave of the Parliament, as the appointing the Assembly to give satisfaction about some doubts in taking the Covenant.(7)

It was not Tombes’s purpose to make controversy for its own sake, but to discover the truth in an important matter as regarded the reformation of his Church. Tombes was guilty, however, of naïveté. He expected that an honest attempt to discover truth would be met with the same. He sought either refutation or affirmation on a point of doctrine and nothing else. By publishing his views, he had everything to lose and the Church’s reformation to gain. His submission was a quest for open and honest debate upon a theological point.
Secondly, the form of the argument was very rigid. Tombes, at times, oversimplified the position he was refuting. However, he always continued to give mounds of evidence for his case, positively and negatively presented.
The syllogism was an accepted part of the seventeenth century academic debate. At Oxford, it was a remnant of late medieval Scholasticism that survived the Renaissance. This methodology used philosophical categories and logic to serve theological reflection. The main thrust of the argument presented is not always readily apparent. In Tombes’s analysis of the issues he refers continually to these syllogistic building blocks borrowed from the scholastical methodology.
Tombes, with very little introduction, started:
The present Tenet, according to which Infant-Baptisme is preached, is, that the Infants born of a Believer, are universally to be baptized. This Doctrine and Practise conformable, is made doubtfull to me, by these arguments.”(8)


Tombes’s Starting Point and the Argument from Genesis 17:7

The first argument is one that examines the case for infant baptism from the interest of believer’s children in the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 17:7. It also serves as the all-important starting point for Tombes’s theological reflection:
Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful
Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful. (9)

Tombes’s first exegetical argument is a comprehensive, yet properly basic argument designed to examine any and all of the biblical evidence for infant baptism. The remaining arguments are applications of the first to specific Scriptures, theological constructions or historical precedents. He then used his conclusions to support the doctrine or practice of paedobaptism:
The Minor is proved by examining the places that are brought for it, which are these: Genesis 17.7. etc. Acts 2.38,39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Mark 10.14, 16. Acts 16.15,32. 1 Cor. 1.16. The Argument from Genesis 17.7, etc. is almost the first and the last in this business; and therefore is the more accurately to be examined….(10)

Tombes often added colour to the debate with maxims and Latin phrases. The fist argument did not escape his cutting wit. Speaking of the argument for infant baptism from Genesis 17:7, etc., he added:
…[b]ut it hath so many shapes, that I may here take up that Speech, With what knot shall I hold shape-shifting Proteus?”(11) But in the issue, it falls into one or other of these forms…(12).

Tombes went on to build his foundation against the interest of believer’s children in the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. He did not give multiple forms of the opposing argument; rather, one form from which he drew four sub-arguments. He thus supported his refutation of the one argument from Genesis 17:7. This was an application of his overriding principle expressed in Argument One - that there is no Scripture to warrant the baptizing of infants. He continued with another syllogism as if arguing for paedobaptism:
Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also.
Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees.
Conclusion: [A]nd consequently Baptisme. (13)

Tombes added, “The Minor is proved from Genesis 17:7. where God promiseth to Abraham, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee”. (14)

Tombes proceeded to four sub-arguments that he believed exposed the basic assumptions of the greater argument presented. By way of introduction to his main point, they were: (1) The Covenant with Abraham is not identical to the Gospel (New) Covenant; (2) Abraham’s seed has more than one meaning; (3) the promise of the Gospel has always been the same irrespective of the age; and (4) Some were circumcised who had no part in the promise made to Abraham. These four parts were intended to undermine the credibility of infant baptism by way of analogy from the Abrahamic Covenant to the New, or in Tombes’s phraseology, the “Euangelicall” or “Gospel Covenant”.(15) These also form the foundation of all of Tombes’s arguments. They were points that were nonnegotiable for him. It is important to see the detail in these sub-arguments in order to understand his inferences within other constructions. Tombes kept coming back to two foundational points, (1) the lack of positive instruction in special revelation for the practice of infant baptism, and (2) to an alternative ( and creative) explanation of the biblical texts which became the foundation of his emerging covenantal and credobaptistic theology.
On the first of the sub-arguments, Tombes declared;
1. The Covenant made with Abraham, is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixt, which I prove; The Covenant takes its denomination from the promises but the promises are mixt, some Euangelicall, belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth, some are Domestique, or Civill promises, specially respecting the House of Abraham, and of Israel; Ergo. (16)


Explaining his distinction between the evangelical (Evangelicall) and domestic (Domestique) or civil (Civill) promises in the Abrahamic Covenant, Tombes implied there were some spiritual promises and some physical or material promises that had to be distinguished. Tombes explained what he means by “Euangelicall promises”:
That was Euangelicall which we read, Genesis 17.5. I have made thee a father of many nations; and that which we find, Gen 15.5 so shall they seed be; in which it is promised, that there shall be of all Nations innumerable that shall be Abrahams children by believing, Rom. 4.17,18. It was Euangelicall, which we find in Gen 12.3 & Gen. 18.18. and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; for in these is promised blessing to Believers, of whom Abraham is father, Gal. 3.16. Acts 3.25 (17)

Tombes immediately proceeded to the “Domestique” or “Civill” promises:
Domestique and Civill promises were many; of the multiplying the seed of Abraham, the birth of Isaac; of the coming of Christ our of Isaac; the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and deliverance thence; of possessing the Land of Canaan, Gen 15.13,18. Gen. 17.7, 8.15,16. Act. 7.4,5,6,7,8. and many other places. (18)

The distinction is between the spiritual blessings which accrue to believers as believers which are called evangelical, and physical (or natural) consequences pertaining to Abraham’s descendants as domestic (or civl); between a spiritual seed brought about by heavenly activity and a natural seed brought about by the earthly procreative act.
Tombes continued to legitimize this distinction as he involved a rigorous trinitarianism in his defence to clarify and balance the issues of continuity and discontinuity within the two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant and the same issues as regards other covenants.
Yea, it is to be noted, that those promises which were Euangelicall, according to the more inward sense of the Holy ghost, do point at the priviledges of Abrahams House, in the outward face [sense} of the words; whence it may be well doubted, whether this Covenant made with Abraham, may be called simply Euangelicall, and so pertain to Believers, as Believers. There were annexed to the Covenant on Mount Siani, sacrifices pointing at the sacrifice of Christ, and yet we call not that Covenant simply Euangelicall, but in some respect.(19)

Therefore, because of the distinction asserted and shown, that the Abrahamic Covenant is not one and the same with the new or Gospel Covenant, Tombes went on to answer the remaining three of this original four questions that paralleled the concerns already stated, “(2) Who is the seed? (3) What is the promise? (4) What of those who were circumcised who had no part in Abraham’s covenant”? Tombes moved to his second sub-point:
Secondly, The seed of Abraham is many wayes so called: First, Christ is called the seed of Abraham, by excellency, Gal 3.16. Secondly, all the Elect, Rom. 9.7 all believers, Rom. 4.11,12. 16.17,18, are called the seed of Abraham, that is spiritual seed. Thirdly, there was a natural seed of Abraham, to whom the inheritance did accrue; this was Isaac. Gen. 21.12. Fourthly, a natural seed, whether lawfull, as the sons of Keturah, or base, as Ishmael, to who the inheritance belonged not, Gen. 15.5. But no where do I find, that the Infants of Believers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams seed, of the three former kinds of Abrahams seed, the promise recited, is meant, but in a different manner thus; that God promiseth, he will be a God to Christ, imparting in him blessing to all nations of the earth, to the spiritual seed of Abraham in Euangelicall benefits, to the natural seed inheriting, in domestick and politicall benefits.(20)

Tombes extended the blessings of the New Covenant back upon the Abrahamic covenant in both aspects of the covenant - spiritual and civil. He saw this as part of the fulfillment of the New Covenant expressed in the time before Christ. He attempted to explain himself as he answered the question as regards the nature of the promise in his third sub-point;
3. That the promise of the Gospel, or Gospel-covenant, was the same in all ages, in respect of the thing promised, and condition of the covenant, which we may call the substantiall and essentiall part of that covenant, to wit, Christ, Faith, Sanctification, Remission of sins, Eternall life; yet this Euangelicall covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified, and various sanctions, by which it was confirmed: To Adam, the promise was made under the name of the seed of the Woman, bruising the head of the Serpent; to Enoch, Noah, in other forms; otherwise to Abraham, under the name of his seed, in whom all nations should be blessed; otherwise to Moses, under the obscure shadows of the Law; otherwise to David, under the name of a successor in the kingdome; otherwise in the New Testament, in plain words, 2 Cor. 3.6. Heb. 8.10. It had likewise divers sanctions. The Promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of circumcision, and by the birth of Isaac; to Moses by the Paschall Lamb, and the sprinkling of Blood on the [door], the rain of Mannah, and other signs; to David by an oath; in the New Testament, by Christ’s blood, 1 Cor. 11.25. Therefore circumcision signified and confirmed the promise of the Gospel, according to the form and sanction of the covenant with Abraham, Baptisme signifies and confirms the same promise according to the form, sanction and accomplishments of the new Tesmament…. (21)

Tombes admitted that each of these covenants has a sign to confirm the promise made. However, he maintains a distinction between the specific sign of circumcision given in the Genesis 17 covenant given to Abraham as part of that specific covenant and the specific sign of baptism given in the New Covenant. He went on to contrast other aspects of these covenants to demonstrate there was not a quid pro quo relationship between them. There was some continuity; there was also discontinuity. If they were identical in all things, they would be the same in essence, character and name. Since there was at least one difference, the sign, it was, for Tombes’s theological opponents, fallacious to impose a view of radical continuity between the covenant made with Abraham and the covenant brought about by Christ, the New Covenant. Tombes continued by looking at the elements involved:
…[N]ow these forms and sanctions differ many wayes, as much as concerns our present purpose in these: First, circumcision confirmed not Evangelicall promises, but also Politicall; and if we may believe Mr. Cameron, in his Thesis, of the threefold Covenant of God. Thesi. 78. Circumcision did primarily separate the seed of Abraham from other nations, sealed unto them the earthly promise; Secondarily, it did signifie sanctification. But Baptisme signifies only Evangelicall benefits. Secondly, circumcision did confirm the promise concerning Christ to Come out of Isaac’ Baptisme assures Christ to be already come, to have been dead, and to have risen again. Thirdly, circumcision belonged to the Church, constituted in the House of Abraham, Baptisme to the Church gathered out of all nations; whence I gather, that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptisme, in signing the Euangelicall covenant; nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of the other.(22)

For Tombes, circumcision sealed an earthly promise and identified Abraham’s seed as set apart to God for God’s purpose. A great part of that purpose was in the Incarnation of Christ from the line of Isaac. Tombes was not denying Isreal’s prized position as God’s special ancient people, he was affirming it. However, for Tomes, it was important to understand the pre-incarnational Covenants in the brighter light of the fulfillment in the New Covenant. Salvific aspects of the New Covenant were found in types and shadows within the older covenants (especially the Abrahamic), but their primary purpose was to anticipate the day when God would bring redemption. The New Covenant, however, looked back to the reality of redemption accomplished and applied. I was through these New Covenant glasses that Tombes saw the salvific aspects of all antecedent covenants. In Tombes’s theological scheme, circumcision was the sign of the former, pointing to among other things, the spiritual realities that will be certain possession of Abraham’s spiritual seed. Baptism looks back at what has been done by the mediator of the New Covenant for his people and is the sign of the latter.
Tombes demonstrated even more discontinuity between the Abrahamic and new Covenants while anticipating the question as regards the subjects of circumcision:
4. That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ismael, God had said, that his covnenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac; and yet he was circumcised, Gen. 17.29, 21.25 Rom. 9.7,8,9. Gal. 4.29,30. the same may be said of Esau; All that were in Abrahams house, whether strangers, or born in his house, were circumcised, Gen. 17.12,13. of whom nevertheless, it may be doubted, whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham, did belong to them; there were other persons, to whom all, or most of the promises of the covenant pertained, that were not circumcised; this may be affirmed of the females coming from Abraham, the Infants dying before the eighth day, of just men, living out of Abrahams house, as Melchisedech, Lot, Job. If any say that the females were circumcised in the circumcision of the Males, he saith it without proof; and by like, perhaps greater, reason it may said, that the children of Believers are baptized in the persons of their own parents, and therefore are not to be baptized in their own persons. But it is manifest that the Jewes comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circumcised, were nevertheless not admitted to Baptisme by John Baptist, and Christs Disciples, till they professed repentance, and faith in Christ. Hence I gather, first, that the right to Euangelicall promises, was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those, but Gods’ precept, as is expressed, Gen. 17.25. Gen. 21.4. Secondly, that those terms are not convertible, [federate and to be signed].(23)

Tombes’s conclusions were drawn from the positive, declarative use of circumcision and baptism in Scripture. His rigid adherence to the meaning of texts as God’s words for his people, and his governing principles for all matters of faith and practice, compelled him to demand positive evidence for paedobaptism beyond mere theological constructions. Tombes demanded some evidence from “God’s precept[s]” for the practice. He also saw more discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the New Covenant through the assertion “those terms were not convertible”. By “convertible”, Tombes meant, synonymous. There may be some similarities; yet great differences remained.
In review, Tombes’s original, foundational argument was stated thus:
Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful
Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful. (9)

Applying this argument to Baptism, he suggested a second:



Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also.
Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees.
Conclusion: [A]nd consequently Baptisme. (25)

After giving the four reasons above why this is not exegetically or theologically accurate, he concluded his first and most fundamental argument.
Whereupon I answer to the Argument: First, either by denying the Major, if it be universally taken, otherwise it concludes nothing: or by granting it with this limitation; it is true of that sign of the covenant which agrees universally in respect of form and sanction, to them that receive the Gospel, but it is not true of that sign of the covenant, which is of a particular form or sanction, of which sort is circumcision.
Secondly, I answer by denying the Minor, universally taken, the reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith, which are not known to us, but by profession, or speciall Revelation.(26)

Here, Tombes, in a summary, has given his refutation of the argument from Genesis 17:7. He denied the Major premise to be universal. Circumcision was a particular part of a particular covenant made with Abraham. Circumcision fits within the structure of that narrow convenantal application to Abraham’s descendants physically. It was a sanction or stipulation from God to Abraham for his house through procreation. Baptism, for Tombes, was a covenantal stipulation through the New Covenant because of, and not antecedent to, regeneration.
However, with Tombes’s conclusion there is this explanatory comment, “[T]he reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams Children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith….”(27) The true children of Abraham are those who are brought into his family through an act of God.

Taken from…….

Pp 69 -78


Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes

An untold story from Puritan England

Michael T. Renihan, PhD ]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/71-john-tombes-genesis-17-7.html Lest We Be Like Dogs Returning to Our Vomit http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/joshua/89-lest-we-like-dogs-returning-our-vomit.html Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:07:00 GMT Lest We Be Like Dogs

The hearts of men are deceitful above all things. We're plagued by sin, inconsistencies, and the struggle to regress back to our old ways. So lest we be like the dog who returns to his vomit, may we consider this Biblical narrative and learn what not to do in such circumstances.

Exodus 32
You know the people, that they are set on evil. (v22b)
Some brief background: The Israelites have been:
-Delivered from Egypt (Ch12)
-Passed safely and dryly through the Red Sea (Ch14)
-Given sweet water from the bitter (Ch15)
-Given mannah to eat (Ch16)
-Given water from a rock (Ch17)
-Victory over the Amalekites despite questionable odds from a human perspective (Ch17)
Keep in mind all these graces have been granted to Israelites by the Almighty...and they weren't even looking to be delivered from Egypt until God sent Moses and gave them hope. What a gracious God. In preceding chapters we read that they promise to obey the Lord (19:8) and the Ten Commandments are given (Ch20). Now, it's interesting to show that the 2nd commandment (No Idols) is not only mentioned at the giving of the Decalogue, but is also reemphasized later (20:23). It's as if the Lord knew the hearts of men and their tendency to pay homage to idols before the one True God (GASP!). In light of these commands given we take interest again in the people's renewed affirmation of obedience to the Lord and His commands in both 24:3 and 24:7. Thus far in the book of Exodus, then, there's been repeated emphasis on the grace of God (deliverance from bondage, mannah, water, etc.), God's commands (in this case the 2nd commandment is explicitly given twice), and the people's commitment to obey these things.
When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him, “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." 32:1
As for this Moses...we do not know what has become of him. 32:1
The people were focused on the wrong thing. They seemed to have depended too much on the person of Moses and not on the God Who'd covenanted with their father, Abraham.

Make us gods who shall go before us 32:1
They were completely blinded to the rememembrance of all that God had done for them (see the background info above). Instead they seemed to be wanting to replace Moses (their only visible 'connection' with God) with idols made of gold and leave the Living God Who actually saved them out of the picture altogether (Despite Ch14:31)! O, the wretchedness of men's hearts!

The man who brought us up 32:1
Wow. God Himself is to Whom the credit is due not Moses (16:6,19:4, 20:2). We see see again their forgetfulness of past history.
So Aaron said to them, “Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” So all the people took off the rings of gold that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. 32:2-3
Next, we consider Aaron's foolishness. What was he thinking? Along with his sons, Moses, and the seventy elders he had actually "beheld God" Himself (24:9-11)! And now would he cave to the pressures of the poeople who hadn't seen the Lord, and make idols for them to worship? Surely not, right? Wrong. I can picture Moses returning and rebuking Aaron as Jesus rebuked the disciples, "Can I not leave you alone...?"

Aaron acted as a puppet in the hands of the people. He catered to the crowd. Had he so quickly forgotten the magnificent and awesome power of God in which he'd recently basked? Apparently so! Not only did he authorize the people's idolatries against the known and repeated commands of the Lord, but he wielded the very idol itself! It's as if he worked for the people and not God Almighty.

These are your gods 32:4
After Aaron took the initiative to have the people bring gold and actually make the idol himself, the people blaspheme by engaging in denial of the One God of Israel-affirming, instead, a host of gods. Like a puppet on a string he fashioned an altar and tried to mix the worship of baal with the worship of the One True God, as if darkness and light could fellowship one with another.

Who brought you out 32:4
Amazing! They can't make up their minds of who has brought them out of Egypt. First, they seemed to rightly recognize that it was the Lord God (14:30-31). Then they confused themselves by applying this role to Moses (32:1). Finally, they digress by designating the work to gods fashioned out of gold that didn't even exist at the time of the exodus! O, how wretched hearts of men are deluded and deceived, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Sin makes us stupid!

They are set on evil 32:22
Moses puts the responsibility on Aaron and Aaron passes the buck. His response to Moses is so laughable. Come on, Moses...it's not my fault. The devil made us do it. You know these people...they're wicked...only doing evil continually. What did you expect to happen having been gone so long? I had to do something to calm their rage...something to meet their felt needs. They had the right intentions. In fact their intentions were shown by their desire to worship. They meant well. Besides, today we had a feast to the Lord on this altar I built.

Out came this calf 32:24
Next-seeing that Moses wasn't buying Aaron's blame-game routine-Aaron tries the passivity route. Well, I mean, I don't really know all the particulars, Moses. You see, all the people just gave me their gold, I threw into the fire and BAM...out comes this idol. It was quite incredible, actually. But the telling verse here is that Moses doesn't fall for that either (v.25). Notice particularly that Aaron fails to mention his active part in the formation of the idol (v.6).

Kill his brother 32:27
God will not be mocked. He has already told the Israelites that He is holy and that He has also set them apart to be the same. Thus, for this very public sin there had to be very public and harsh punishment. Moses summons the sons of Levi, who weren't complicit in the idolatry (other than their head, Aaron, which we'll consider below). He then commands them to kill those whom they knew were the leaders of this idolatrous rebellion, no matter if they were brother, neighbor, or friend. As God will tell them in the future-I will be sanctified.

What did this people do to you? 32:21
As previously mentioned, Aaron acted as a puppet of the people. The reason as to why we're not certain, but obviously there was an excuse. Otherwise, Moses would not have asked what the people had done to Aaron to pressure him to do such a heinous act. From this can be gathered multiple thoughts, but for the sake of brevity we will simply look at a few:
1. Moses knew, without Aaron having said anything, that the people must have done something to sucker Aaron into this idolatry-thus, it follows that Aaron must have otherwise been a godly, pious and faithful man.

2. I believe that Aaron was spared the sword because of Moses' intercession on his behalf, God's grace and purpose, and God's appointment for Aaron to be the leader of the Levitical priesthood. God uses even our sin to further His plan. Our sins may be used to keep us from being puffed up and rather in a greater dependence on the mercies and graces of God. Before coming into the prominent role of leadership in the early church, Peter was humbled and kept in check by his own role in denying Jesus publicly. I'm sure that every remembrance of this kept him humble, grateful, and dependent upon God to do the work only He could do while in the office of God's appointment. I think the same sentiment stands for Aaron's future role as Priest.

3. God's sparing of Aaron is a testimony to God's sovereign choice in saving some while leaving others to their just condemnation. God can save and sanctify the uttermos heinous of transgressors.
Proverbs 26:11 Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.

Like a slave who sees no hope in his independence and returns to his shackles because they hold familiarity, the Israelites whom God had freed lost faith in God's provision and returned to worshipping the gods of Egypt. They were unsure of their future and found comfort in looking back to the familiarities of their stay in Egypt. They were rife with discontent, despite God's years of protection and provision.

Christians, let us not return to living as if we're still under sin's dominion. God will not be mocked. A man reaps what he sews. Let this be a solemn and sobering reminder of God's holiness and also a memento to the glorious truth that God gives grace freely to the utterly undeserving. Blessed be His Name! ]]> joshua http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/joshua/89-lest-we-like-dogs-returning-our-vomit.html Psalm Sing : Fall, 2008 http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/jaybird0827/67-psalm-sing-fall-2008.html Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:02:53 GMT You can find the details on the Precentor Blog (http://precentorincharlotte.blogspot.com). You can find the details on the Precentor Blog. ]]> jaybird0827 http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/jaybird0827/67-psalm-sing-fall-2008.html <![CDATA[The Meaning of "Psalm" in the Westminster Standards]]> http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/naphtalipress/66-meaning-psalm-westminster-standards.html Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:06:21 GMT