The PuritanBoard - Blogs - PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/ A forum for the discussion of Reformed Theology and the historic Christian Faith en Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:25:01 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.puritanboard.com/images/retro/misc/rss.jpg The PuritanBoard - Blogs - PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/ Just a few more words / FV http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/397-just-few-more-words-fv.html Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:50:34 GMT Just a few words. I find it amazing that one of the central issues concerning Covenant Theology is rarely addressed in this discussion. Maybe it is something that I hold too dear to. But I absolutely love the doctrine of the Covenant of Works... Just a few words.

I find it amazing that one of the central issues concerning Covenant Theology is rarely addressed in this discussion. Maybe it is something that I hold too dear to. But I absolutely love the doctrine of the Covenant of Works and the Bi-Covenantal system of understanding our Bible. I include the Covenant of Redemption in the Covenant of Grace. Sorry if that bothers some of you. Well, not really.

The Federal Vision advocates hate this system of theology. Now they will acknowledge some form of the CofW but all of them that I have known of hold to a monocovenantalism which teaches only one Covenantal structure of grace for understanding the workings of God in historical redemption. This simply amazes me. This is so far from being Confessional that it ought to make the Confessional Church rise up and cry against it. It totally changes the Work of Christ and what He did. John Coloquoun made a great observation concerning this issue.

John Coloquoun
Quote:
Although eternal life was, in the covenant of works, promised to Adam and his posterity on condition of his perfect obedience, and that only, yet a man is to be counted a legalist or self-righteous if, while he does not pretend that his obedience is perfect, he yet relies on it for a title to life. Self-righteous men have, in all ages, set aside as impossible to be fulfilled by them that condition of the covenant of works which God had imposed on Adam, and have framed for themselves various models of that covenant which, though they are far from being institutions of God, and stand upon terms lower than perfect obedience, yet are of the nature of the covenant of works. The unbelieving Jews who sought righteousness by the works of the law were not so very ignorant or presumptuous as to pretend to perfect obedience. Neither did those professed Christians in Galatia who desired to be under the law, and to be justified by the law, of whom the apostle therefore testified that they had "fallen from grace' (Galatians 5:4), presume to plead that they could yield perfect obedience. On the contrary, their public profession of Christianity showed that they had some sense of their need of Christ's righteousness. But their great error was that they did not believe that the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone was sufficient to entitle them to the justification of life; and therefore they depended for justification partly on their own obedience to the moral and ceremonial law. It was this, and not their pretensions to perfect obedience, that the apostle had in view when he blamed them for cleaving to the law of works, and for expecting justification partly on their own works of obedience to the moral and ceremonial laws, they and the apostle informed them, were fallen from grace; Christ had become of no effect to them. And they were "debtors to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:3-4). By depending for justification partly on their imperfect obedience to the law, they framed the law into a covenant of works, and such a covenant of works as would allow for imperfect instead of perfect works; and by relying partly on the righteousness of Christ, they mingled the law with the gospel and works with faith in the affair of justification. Thus they perverted both the law and the gospel, and formed them for themselves into a motley covenant of works.

A Treatise on the Law and Gospel
pp. 18,19
John Coloquhoun
Published by Soli Deo Gloria
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...w-neither.html

Here is what Federal Vision advocate Douglas Wilson says about the Covenant of Works.

Quote:
Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith". Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15
I also discussed this with Dr. R. Scott Clark whom some of you might or might not like. He responded to a similar question concerning Wilkin's that I had asked him so I just used it as a response to the Doug Wilson quote.


Here is Dr. Clark's response.

Quote:
The classic Reformed folk tended to use the expressions "covenant of works" and "covenant of life" and "covenat of nature" (and the like) interchangeably.

Works refers to the terms.

Life refers to the goal.

Nature refers to the setting.

It's not that complicated.

Wilkins clearly denies the substance of the covenant of works. According to W. the prelapsarian covenant is legal-gracious and the post-laps. cov. is gracious-legal.

To admit a purely legal prelapsarian covenant does profound damage to the covenant moralist scheme because it entails the sort of law/gospel dichtomy which they abhor and which the Protestant faith embraces.

Wilkins is advocating a "trust and obey" scheme before and after the fall. The Westminster Confession doesn't. Neither do the rest of the Reformed confessions. They have it that Adam was righteous, holy, good and able to obey. He chose not to obey. He sinned. He fell and we with him. (The truth is, Adam) He didn't fall from grace. He broke the law. The Wilkins account confuses law and grace. Of course, the Apostle Paul has no such problem.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...ry-1689er.html

This off base doctrine of monocovenantalism and teaching that the Covenant of Works is a gracious covenant is unconfessional and should be dealt with. Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf. He fulfilled what the first Adam failed to fulfill. If he didn't then the justice of God was not met in Christ's sacrificial atonement. There is no propitiation. The person and work of Christ is demerited by these men who teach this unconfessional and very unbiblical doctrine. ]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/397-just-few-more-words-fv.html Good Exclusive Psalmody Debate on the Narrow Mind. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/369-good-exclusive-psalmody-debate-narrow-mind.html Fri, 09 Oct 2009 09:12:14 GMT This debate was recorded at "Hoagies and Stogies" in San Diego , Ca. on 12.01.07. Pastor Mark England of San Diego Reformed Presbyterian Church debated Pastor Jonathan Goundry, of Great Oak Church in Temecula.

http://www.unchainedradio.com/new/index.php

You have to have itunes /quicktime downloaded to listen to the two links below. Be Edified.

Part 1
http://podcast.unchainedradio.com/po...ALMdebatel.mp3

Part 2 Q&A
http://podcast.unchainedradio.com/po...LMdebate2l.mp3

I really found Pastor Goundry's exgesesis to be good on the Colosian's 3:16 passage and his Isaiah 42:10 and Isaiah 40:31 comments on new and renew to be illuminating.
http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/12/exc...te-120107.html ]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/369-good-exclusive-psalmody-debate-narrow-mind.html Sanctification and New Covenant Membership (II) by Alan Conner http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/352-sanctification-new-covenant-membership-ii-alan-conner.html Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:00:00 GMT Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner Chapter 13 ---Quote--- Sanctification and New Covenant Membership (II) It may be appropriate at this point to comment on a passage that is often used by paedobaptists. It concerns the parable of the... Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner Chapter 13

Quote:
Sanctification and New Covenant Membership (II)

It may be appropriate at this point to comment on a passage that is often used by paedobaptists. It concerns the parable of the tares in Matthew 13.

Tares are Not Covenant Members

24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, ‘First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:24-30)

Many paedobaptists refer to the tares, which were sown among the wheat in the field (13:25), as being members of the kingdom. Their main support for this view is found in the interpretation in verse 41, where Christ says, “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness” (emphasis added). They infer from the phrase “out of His kingdom” that the tares must have previously been “in the kingdom.” With this interpretation, the tares become an example of one who was in the kingdom as an unbeliever, or as a covenant-breaker. Thus, they claim that it supports their view that you can have covenant members, or members of the kingdom, who end up being lost. This seems to suggest there is a compartment of the kingdom, or New Covenant, which can be legitimately occupied by “tares,” for at least a period of time.

This whole viewpoint, however, needs to be reevaluated in light of a closer reading of the explanation of the parable given by Christ in Matthew 13:36-43. In these verses, our Lord gives us the following interpretation:
• The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man (verse 37).
• The field is the world (verse 38).
• The good seed are the sons of the kingdom (verse 38).
• The tares are the sons of the evil one, the devil, who sowed them (verses 38-39).
• The harvest is the end of the age and the reapers are angels (verse 39).
• The tares, who are described as “all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness” (verse 41), will be gathered up and burned with fire at the end of the age (verse 40).

Several key observations here are needed. First, the field is the world, not the kingdom of God (verse 38). So, when the tares are sown among the wheat (verse 25), they are sown among them, and live side by side with them, in the field of the world; not the field of the kingdom. Second, only the good seed are called “the sons of the kingdom” (verse 38). The tares are not called “sons of the kingdom” because they were not members of the kingdom of heaven. On the contrary, they are called “the sons of the evil one” (verse 38) because they are in Satan’s kingdom. This is crucial. Our Lord clearly indicates that the tares were not “sons of the kingdom” but were actually in league with the devil.

We should also observe that these tares did not start out as the good seed and then gradually over time become tares. No, they were sown in the field as tares from the beginning (verse 25). They began as “sons of the evil one” (verse 38) and never changed their character. They were never “sons of the kingdom.” They were sown as tares and were harvested as tares and their doom was certain. Thus, the Lord’s assessment of the tares is the same as the false professors, “I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matthew 7:23).

Christ’s Spiritual or Universal Kingdom?

Now comes the crucial verses (verses 41-42): “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom, all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire” (emphasis added). The key issue is to identify the nature of this kingdom.

The simplest solution is to see this kingdom as Christ’s universal kingdom, not his spiritual (i.e., redemptive) kingdom as in verse 38. In other words, when the Son of Man gathers the wicked for judgment, he takes them out of his universal kingdom in which he has dominion; the universe and all that is in it. For biblical references to this universal kingdom of Christ, see Psalm 2:8-9; Matthew 28:18; Ephesians 1:20-22 and Philippians 2:9-11. Thus, this meaning of “kingdom” in verse 41 differs from its meaning in verse 38, “the sons of the kingdom.” In the latter case, the “sons of the kingdom” refer to the good seed who are the elect of God saved by the blood of Christ. This kingdom is clearly the spiritual kingdom of Christ which is redemptive and connected to the church of Christ. But, in verse 41, when the wicked are cast into the lake of fire, Christ is not coming to his church to execute this judgment, for there is no condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1). The judgment of believers is one of commendation, not condemnation (2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 14:10; 1 Corinthians 3:8-15). But in Matthew 13:41 the judgment is unto condemnation for they shall be cast into the “furnace of fire, in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (13:42). For this judgment Christ goes to his universal kingdom over the world. It is from his universal kingdom where Christ will gather “all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire;” not from his spiritual kingdom of the redeemed.

Further support for this difference in kingdoms is found in Matthew 13:43, where we see yet another reference to the kingdom. This verse concludes Christ’s teaching on the parable of the tares. There he says that after the lawless are removed from his (universal) kingdom, “Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.” This kingdom is called, “the kingdom of their Father” which refers to the kingdom of God in its spiritual and heavenly character, where the redeemed of Christ will dwell in eternity. This kingdom is actually the spiritual kingdom of Christ which he will hand over to the Father after he has conquered all his enemies (see 1 Corinthians 15:23-28). Thus, the Lord has referred to three different aspects of his kingdom reign in this one parable!
The point to be made is that when Christ comes to judge the wicked in Matthew 13:41, he does not gather them from his spiritual kingdom, but from his universal kingdom of the world where the tares were sown (verse 38).

Problems with Tares in the Spiritual Kingdom

Those who argue that the kingdom in verse 41 is the spiritual kingdom of Christ, as in verse 38, run into many problems. Are we to understand that the tares, represented by the stumbling blocks and doers of lawlessness who will be gathered “out of His kingdom,” were really at some point members of Christ’s spiritual kingdom? In order to draw this conclusion, one must reinterpret the parable along different lines than our Lord did. For example, to say that the tares were really legitimate members of the kingdom requires interpreting the “field” (verse 24) as the “spiritual kingdom” rather than as the “world” as Christ explains it (verse 38). Also, you must basically neuter the meaning of the good seed as the “sons of the [spiritual] kingdom,” and the tares as the “sons of the evil one.” Clearly, the distinction is important and the tares, as Satan’s children, are not in any way to be numbered among the “sons of the kingdom.” In other words, the tares belong to the kingdom of Satan, not the kingdom of God. As such, even though they may be found at times in the visible church, and appear outwardly to be true kingdom members, in reality they are spiritually outside of the New Covenant and not members of Christ’s church or kingdom at all. When the tares do make their way into the church, then the words of the apostle John are again applicable, “They went out from us, but they were really not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). To say that such people “were really not of us” clearly indicates that they never belonged to Christ or to his spiritual kingdom.

Another Option

There is yet another way to think about the kingdom in Matthew 13:41. Instead of viewing it as the universal kingdom of Christ, Christ may be just speaking figuratively of the tares being in the kingdom in terms of their physical presence only. Christ has already explained that the tares are not members of his spiritual kingdom, but followers of Satan. They do not partake of any of the blessings of the New Covenant. They do not have the new heart, the indwelling Holy Spirit, or the forgiveness of their sins. They also are not in Christ’s kingdom for they do not live under the rule and reign of Jesus Christ. But they can, nevertheless, be found among the true “sons of the kingdom.” Like illegal aliens living in our own country, the tares live among the wheat. Though they may participate in some of our blessings, and even access some of our social aid programs, legally they are not citizens of our nation. If they are caught and removed from our country, we could similarly say that they are gathered “out of America,” but this in no way infers that they were legitimate members and citizens of our country. They lived and worked here physically among true citizens of our country and enjoyed many of our freedoms, but they were not citizens themselves. Thus, in Matthew 13:41 the tares whom Christ “will gather out of His kingdom” could be understood in the same way. They are found among God’s wheat physically but they are spiritually illegal aliens. They may show up in our churches, sit next to us in our pews and look as if they belong, but in reality they have no rights or status in the kingdom of God. They are tares awaiting the Day of Judgment when they will be “gathered out of His kingdom.” They never belonged to the Lord of the harvest.

Holy Children

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. (1Corinthians 7:14)

This verse has raised many questions about the nature of New Covenant sanctification. The situation appears to be that some in the Corinthian church have come to faith in Jesus Christ, but their spouses have not. Paul tells them that both their unbelieving spouses and their children are holy. Based on this, many assume that since the children of at least one believer are holy, then they are members of the New Covenant and worthy of receiving baptism. However, to make this assumption requires a leap in thought far beyond the boundaries of this passage.

It is true that the children of a believing parent are holy. But what does this mean? Since the unbelieving spouse is also “sanctified” (same word as “holy” used for the children only in its verbal form), it seems only logical that they will be holy in the same way that the children are holy. No one in their right mind would assert that the unbelieving spouse is a member of the New Covenant. Neither should anybody think that the unbelieving spouse is worthy of being baptized. To baptize an unbeliever would make a mockery of the gospel which requires faith for salvation. But if both the unbelieving spouse and the children are sanctified and made holy by the believing spouse and parent, why do some argue that the children are members of the covenant and should be baptized, but not the unbelieving spouse? And why do some insist on calling the children “saints” (holy ones), but not the unbelieving parent? Since both are made holy by the believer, to make one a holy covenant member and not the other, and to baptize one and not the other is an inconsistency which renders this viewpoint completely unacceptable. Whatever this sanctification means, it cannot be used to argue for the paedobaptist view of “covenant children” which sanctions the baptism of infants or else, one must also argue for “covenant unbelieving spouses” and the baptism of unbelievers.

How then are we to explain the sanctification in this verse? We could take it in a similar way to Hebrews 10:29 and understand that both the unbelieving spouse and the children of believers are made holy or sanctified outwardly in some sense by the godly influences of the believer. But this verse states the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse and children as a fact, and yet this may not always be the case if it only refers to some kind of a moral influence brought to bear upon them by the believer.

A better solution is to see this sanctification as referring to their being conformed to God’s moral law so that the marriage and family unit are morally sound and holy in the sight of God. In other words, the marriage and family are legitimate and lawful, even though one spouse is still an unbeliever. Their unbelief does not make the marriage void or invalid.

One cannot help but think of a similar situation in Ezra chapters 9 and 10 in which the Israelites had married the daughters of the Canaanites. Such mixed marriages were looked upon as an abomination and the Israelites had to put away all of their foreign wives and their children (Ezra 10:3). If the Corinthian believers were aware of this, as the Jewish believers no doubt were, we could understand their concern about their own mixed marriages to unbelievers. “Is my marriage to an unbeliever an abomination? Should I put them away like God commanded the Israelites in the days of Ezra? What about my children, are they an abomination too?” These thoughts could easily be in the background of these verses to the Corinthian church.

What, then, is Paul’s answer? In essence it is this – both your marriage and your children are legitimate before the Lord. They are holy and not to be discarded even though your spouse is an unbeliever and your children are descended from him as well as from you. The situation with Ezra was a different time and a different set of circumstances. Your children are not illegitimate because your marriage to the unbeliever is a lawful marriage and conforms to God’s will.

Thus, the sanctification found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 cannot be made to argue that the children of believers are covenantally holy and therefore should be baptized as infants. To do so would open the same doors to unbelievers and, as a result, greatly muddy the waters of what it means to be a member of the New Covenant.

New Covenant Sanctification is Permanent and for All New Covenant Members

There is no convincing support for any kind of New Covenant sanctification which is imparted to infants of believers, or which makes a person a true member of the New Covenant, but can be lost in the end. When the New Testament authors do speak of sanctification in this way, it is not New Covenant sanctification that they have in mind. The sanctification provided by Christ in the New Covenant is not one that can be forfeited and lost resulting in damnation (Hebrews 10:29); once a saint, always a saint. Once made holy by the New Covenant, holy you remain. No church struggled spiritually more than the Corinthian church and yet Paul described them as “those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling” (1 Corinthians 1:2) and he then added a few verses later that Christ “will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (verse 8). There was no doubt in Paul’s mind that all of those who were sanctified by the New Covenant, even those who struggled, would be confirmed to the end by the faithfulness of God (verse 9). This would not apply to either the infants of believers or to counterfeit Christians who fall away from the faith.
]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/352-sanctification-new-covenant-membership-ii-alan-conner.html New Covenant Sanctification PT. 1 by Alan Conner http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/351-new-covenant-sanctification-pt-1-alan-conner.html Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:59:19 GMT This is chapter 12 in Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner. Not sure how much I agree or disagree with it. I do appreciate his references in Hebrews though. ---Quote--- Sanctification and New Covenant Membership An issue that... This is chapter 12 in Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner.

Not sure how much I agree or disagree with it. I do appreciate his references in Hebrews though.

Quote:
Sanctification and New Covenant Membership

An issue that needs to be addressed involves what may be called covenantal sanctification. There are passages in the New Testament which some believe set forth a kind of sanctification which a person can have that may not end in salvation. Individuals that partake of this sanctification are supposedly members of the covenant for a season. They enjoy many of its outward and external blessings, even though they eventually fall away from the faith and are lost.

The impact of this line of thought on the issue of covenant membership and infant baptism is important. Many of our paedobaptist brethren believe that the New Testament teaches this kind of covenant sanctification. This belief becomes a reason for why they baptize their infants. In effect, this view is embraced in order to justify the practice of baptizing their infants even though some of them will grow up, depart from the faith and become “covenant-breakers.” They argue that since their children are holy, or sanctified (1 Corinthians 7:14), they belong to the covenant. Therefore, even as infants, they should receive the covenant sign of baptism. But, since they also admit that not all of their baptized infants grow up to embrace the faith, they have to hold to a form of covenant sanctification that can be lost. Thus, some paedobaptists want to import into the New Covenant a type of sanctification found in the Old Covenant. They adopt a viewpoint where one can be, at least outwardly speaking, sanctified in some way that brings them into New Covenant membership, but falls short of actual salvation.

Worse still, some go so far as to believe that their infant children are holy in the sense of being saved, being in Christ and having received the Spirit, but still in the end can fall away from grace and be lost. For some of them, their infant children actually receive these blessings when they are baptized. Thus, they embrace something very near, if not identical, to what the Roman Catholics teach about baptismal regeneration.

But there are numerous problems with these assertions about covenant sanctification. In this chapter, we will examine some of the Scriptures used to argue for these assertions. We will examine this view of a sanctification which does not save in the end, yet, nevertheless, makes a person, especially infants, members of the covenant for a limited period of time and, therefore, worthy of baptism. Let us begin, however, by reviewing one of the elements of the New Covenant that we established previously in chapters seven and eight.

The New Covenant Gives Persevering Grace to its Members

The New Covenant gives to all of its members persevering grace. This is the Achilles’ heel of any view that says one can be a member in the New Covenant temporarily and then somehow become a covenant-breaker and fall out of it and be lost. What was true for the Old Covenant is impossible in the New Covenant. Remember Jeremiah 31:31-32, which says: 31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.

The New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant in this specific way: it cannot be broken as the Old Covenant could. The reason for this is that the New Covenant is a covenant of salvation which regenerates the hearts of its members, forgives them of all of their sins, writes God’s laws on their hearts, and gives them the Holy Spirit by which they are enabled to walk in God’s ways. The Old Covenant did not provide these blessings to all of its members. But, in the New Covenant, “’they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,’ declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 31:34).


The New Covenant cannot be broken because it provides saving grace to all of its members.

Remember also Jeremiah 32:39-40, which says: 39 and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for the good of their children after them. 40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me (emphases added).

The New Covenant does not have a kind of sanctification that can fall short of salvation or which can be lost by unbelief or disobedience. Why? Because it gives all of its members a new heart which creates a godly fear in them “so that they will not turn away from Me.” Ezekiel 36:27 says the same: “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” No one can be a member of the New Covenant and then fall away from the faith or apostatize because the Holy Spirit dwells in them and causes them to walk according to God’s Word. God’s New Covenant grace will guarantee their perseverance in the faith. All true members of the New Covenant will remain covenant-keepers; none can fall away. Thus, the New Covenant actually changes the heart and makes one a permanent child of God who cannot practice sin as a way of life (1 John 3:9).

This is a crucial observation. There are no second-class citizens of the New Covenant who get sanctified with only some outward blessings and privileges but who are denied the spiritual grace of salvation. Also, there are no members of the New Covenant who get the spiritual grace of salvation but who lose it in the end. Such reasoning denies the well established doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; 1 John 3:9; Romans 8:35-39; John 10:26-30). Those who advocate the view that one can have and then lose their salvation have basically fallen into the error of Arminianism. Those who promote the former view are guilty of pouring new wine into old wineskins. They have failed to see the newness of the New Covenant. The blessings of the New Covenant are not temporary, nor do they provide only outward benefits. They secure in saving grace those who enter into its hallowed halls. Those who become members of the New Covenant are sanctified by the Spirit and kept safe unto the day of glory (1 Peter 1:3-5).

Can an Apostate be previously Sanctified?

How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:29)

Some suggest that Hebrews 10:29 teaches a view of sanctification in the New Covenant that is similar to that found in the Old Covenant in which a person can be sanctified as a covenant member but eventually turn away and become an apostate. This view asserts that the person referred to in this verse appears as having been sanctified by the blood of the covenant. He subsequently tramples under foot the Son of God, having regarded as unclean the blood by which he was sanctified. This brings down upon himself severe punishment from God. Even though he once was in the covenant, he has now become a covenant-breaker and comes under the severe judgment of God (10:30-31).

This same theory of sanctification is often applied to the infants of believers. They are understood to be legitimate and sanctified members of the New Covenant, even though some may fall out of the covenant later in life. But does Hebrews 10:29 teach this?

There are several reasons for rejecting this point of view. One reason is that this entire interpretation may be misguided in its understanding of the crucial clause, “and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified” (verse 29). Instead of it meaning that the apostate was previously sanctified by the blood of the covenant, there is another possible interpretation. The great Puritan theologian, John Owen, was convinced that the person who was sanctified did not refer to the apostate, but to Jesus Christ himself. The meaning would be that the apostate in this verse was not sanctified himself but regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which Christ was sanctified. I will refer the reader to Owen’s insightful exposition of this text in his seven volume commentary on Hebrews.

For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that the one who was sanctified in this verse does refer to the apostate who trampled under foot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant. What can we infer from this kind of sanctification? Is there evidence that this apostate was truly a member of the New Covenant and then lost his position in the covenant due to his sin of apostasy? In order to find biblical answers, we shall first consider the context and what it teaches about sanctification in the New Covenant. Then, we will take a closer look at Hebrews 10:29.


First, New Covenant sanctification results in perfection. The context clearly identifies the nature of New Covenant sanctification and it does not allow for anything that results in less than perfection. Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (emphasis added). Those who are sanctified by the New Covenant have been perfected by Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross (see Hebrews 10:15-20 for what is clearly sanctification in a New Covenant context). The word “perfect” is used in the book of Hebrews of the tabernacle in heaven (9:11), of Christ (2:10; 5:9; 7:28; 12:2) and the resulting perfection of the saints in heaven (12:23). When applied to believers, this perfection is basically synonymous with salvation and the forgiveness of all sins. On the other hand, this kind of perfection could not be achieved by the law and its various forms of sanctification and cleansing (7:11, 19; 9:9; 10:1). In other words, the sanctification brought about by the New Covenant is not like the defective kind found in the Old Covenant. Unless there was saving faith involved, the Old Testament sanctification that came from its sacrifices and cleansing rituals could only remove the ceremonial uncleanness of sin whereas, the sacrifice of Christ removes the guilt and penalty of sin. New Covenant sanctification brings about a perfection and final salvation unlike anything the Old Covenant law could produce. Those sanctified in the New Covenant are made perfect by Christ. They are perfectly forgiven. They do not receive just outward blessings and privileges which may fall short of salvation. All who are sanctified in the New Covenant are made perfect by the blood of Christ. He has obtained eternal redemption for them all (9:12).
Second, New Covenant sanctification is eternal in duration. It is not temporary, neither can it be lost. As Hebrews 10:14 teaches, those who are sanctified by Christ’s sacrifice have been perfected for all time, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (emphasis added). In other words, our perfection is not temporary in nature but eternal. And if our perfection through Christ’s offering is eternal, then so is our sanctification for how can one remain perfect in God’s sight if they lose their sanctification?

Thus, those in the New Covenant have been perfected and sanctified for all time by the blood of Christ. To say that one can be a member of the New Covenant and receive its sanctification and subsequently lose it, is to make the sacrifice of Christ no more effectual or powerful than the sacrifice of goats and bulls. Sanctification in the New Covenant is superior to that of the Old Covenant.

Third, New Covenant sanctification cannot result in damnation. The author of Hebrews does not think that true New Covenant members can fall away or shrink back from the faith. In confidence he says about his readers, “But we are not those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith in the preserving of the soul” (Hebrews 10:39). Also, consider 6:9: “But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.” True members of the New Covenant are “perfected for all time” (10:14). None are lost or shrink away to destruction. All have faith and are preserved to the end.
Thus, the context of our debated verse in Hebrews 10:29 is full of guidelines to protect us from making a false deduction. What we can say is that New Covenant sanctification does not fit into the model suggested by those who believe that one can have it and be a member of the New Covenant and then later be lost. Clearly, New Covenant sanctification results in perfection; and that forever.

So what are we to think about this apostate in Hebrews 10:29? Let’s take a closer look and see what we can learn about him and his sanctification.

The Sanctified Apostate

We learn several things about the person described in Hebrews 10:29. First, he has trampled under foot the Son of God. This was done, at least in part, by his vicious verbal attacks against Christ and his saving sacrifice on the cross. Second, he has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified. His view of the blood of Christ has been dramatically reversed from his former profession. Third, he has insulted the Spirit of grace. Fourth, he deserves a severer punishment than those who set aside the law of Moses (verses 28-29). In addition to this information found in verse 29, we also learn in verse 26 that he goes on “sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth” and consequently there no longer remains “a sacrifice for sins” for him. This type of person, indeed, received the “knowledge [epignosis] of the truth.” Yet, even though his knowledge of the truth may have included a full understanding of the basic facts of the gospel, he fell short of regeneration for he kept on sinning willfully. A regenerate person simply does not do this. He is no longer under the dominion of sin (1 John 3:9; Romans 6:14), and though he will still wrestle with sin until the day he dies, he does not continue to sin willfully as this person does. It is impossible (1 John 2:29; 5:4, 18; Matthew 7:18).

But was the unregenerate apostate in Hebrews 10:29 previously a member of the New Covenant? In what sense was he sanctified? Are we to assume that the New Covenant has two kinds of sanctification, one that saves and one that does not? No doubt he partook of some kind of sanctification for it says that he “regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” But is this the same kind of sanctification that perfects for all time (10:14)? Obviously not, since he fell away into willful sin and came under the judgment of God (10:26-31). Rather than assume that the New Covenant has two kinds of sanctification, it is more biblical to think in terms of there being only one. All members of the New Covenant partake of this sanctification and are eternally saved. However, there is also another kind of sanctification, or spiritual influence, which comes upon those who are outwardly identified with the church but spiritually outside the covenant and which does not make them a member of the covenant.

Therefore, the sanctification that this apostate received was not genuine New Covenant sanctification at all because it did not perfect him for all time (10:14). Rather, it was more of a superficial form of sanctification that comes by way of contact with the gospel and Christ’s true church. Those who have this kind of sanctification never have the real thing. They may have knowledge of the truth (10:26) in their head, but no grace in their heart. They really never stopped their sinning (verse 26) because their nature was never really changed. Whatever moral affect the blood of the covenant had upon them was defective and temporary. Like the scribe who came close to the kingdom of God, but apparently never entered in (Mark 12:34), this apostate came close to the New Covenant but never entered in.

This apostate was sanctified in the same way as those described in Hebrews 6:4-6, which says: 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

These people were temporarily influenced by the grace of the New Covenant gospel and the love of the New Covenant people. They also received a similar kind of sanctification as the man in Hebrews 10:29, a sanctification that temporarily cleansed the outer man, but did not change the inner man (cf. Hebrews 9:13-14). But, those addressed in Hebrews 6:4-6 were never really true members of the New Covenant themselves. They had been enlightened, were partakers of the Holy Spirit which no doubt sanctified them in some spiritual way, and tasted both the word and power of the kingdom. Nevertheless, they never had the new heart (Ezekiel 36:26), nor was the law written on their heart, nor were their sins forgiven (Jeremiah 31:31-34), nor did they receive the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:27), nor did they “fear God always” (Jeremiah 32:39), nor did they persevere in faith. Rather, they “turned away” (Jeremiah 32:40) because they did not really “know God” (Jeremiah 31:34). They were like Judas who partook of many godly influences, but was a devil (John 6:70). As John says, “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). These apostates were not “of” the New Covenant. They may have drawn near and been temporarily affected by the godly influences and powers of the New Covenant, but they “were not really of us.” They were like those who “profess to know God” but their lives deny him and they become worthless for any good work (Titus 1:16). They claim a name that they are alive, but they are spiritually dead (Revelation 3:1), and their end is destruction.

Thus, the sanctification they received from the covenant was not the kind received by members of the New Covenant which is “for all time” and which makes one “perfect.” They have a very different kind of sanctification. It reforms a person temporarily and makes them outwardly look like a Christian. They may even talk like a Christian, but eventually the affect wears off and they walk away dry as a bone on the inside. They are like a man who sits on a rock next to the ocean. When the waves come crashing down on the rocks he will be misted and sprinkled with its spray, even though he never enters into the ocean itself. He gets a little wet, but he never enters the water. Such wetness will quickly dry from him because he was only near the ocean, but never actually in it.

So, there is no doubt that the apostate in Hebrews 10:29 received some kind of sanctification from the covenant, but the context makes it clear that is was not the same kind of sanctification received by members of the New Covenant. The apostate can be outwardly and temporarily sanctified by virtue of his proximity to the New Covenant. He can be affected superficially by its power and grace. Like the man above, they can be misted by the spray, but they never enter into the real thing. They never become true members of the New Covenant. Though they may join a church, be baptized and engage in some of the church activities and worship, they nevertheless remain spiritually on the outside.

This is the only interpretation that seems to do justice both to the saving nature of the New Covenant, which gives the new heart and persevering grace to all of its members, and to the fact that there are some who are in the visible church that do fall away. Whether they are like the “every branch in Me that does not bear fruit” which are removed from the vine (John 15:2), or the unbelieving branches on the olive tree that are cut off (Romans 11:17-24), or those who have “once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit” (Hebrews 6:4ff.), they all refer to the same group of people. None of them were ever saved covenant members. None of them have ever partaken of the sanctification of the New Covenant which “has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14).

Thus, those who fall away were never in the New Covenant. They never belonged to Christ. They are like those in Matthew 7:22-23 who say to Christ, “‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (emphasis added). Christ never knew them! How could they have been at some previous point a true member of his covenant when he uses this language, “I never knew you?” How could they have formerly been a true “branch in Me,” or a true “branch on the olive tree,” or really and spiritually “once tasted of the heavenly gift” when Christ says that he never knew them? Such language shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are some who are baptized members in the church, but who are not, and have never been, true members of the covenant of Christ.

Such apostates are “false brethren” (2 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 2:4) who never had the faith of the covenant. They are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15), tares among the wheat (Matthew 13:25) and pigs who, after washing, return to wallowing in the mire (2 Peter 2:22). And, as Jude describes them, “These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever (Jude 12-13). These were not once covenant members who fell out, but “sons of the evil one” who were sown by the devil among the sons of the kingdom (Matthew 13:38-39). They may have been outwardly influenced by the morality of the church for a season. They may have outwardly appeared to belong to Christ. But, in reality, they were strangers to the covenant of grace. They never possessed the sanctification or the saving grace which the New Covenant gives to all of its members. Like Judas, they never belonged to Christ’s covenant, but are devils masquerading among the saints (John 6:70).

In light of this, there is no support in Hebrews 10:29 for any kind of sanctification that makes one a member of the New Covenant but which can be eventually lost. Also, since there are no infants mentioned in the context, it is hardly appropriate to make any application to them. Hebrews 10:29 certainly does not teach, nor imply, that the infants of believers are “sanctified” as covenant members in such a way that they may fall out of the covenant later in life. This verse deals only with an adult who made a profession of faith, was received into the church and was superficially sanctified by his contact with the true members of the covenant. But having no true saving grace in his heart, he fell away and proved that he never was a true member of the New Covenant, nor did he ever participate in the sanctification that perfects for all time (10:14). Therefore, to apply the sanctification of this verse to the infants of believers is unwarranted.

Christ our Superior High Priest

Another issue that needs to be raised is how does all of this reflect on the high priestly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ? The fact that Christ is our high priest is clearly taught in the book of Hebrews (2:17; 3:1; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11). Yet, how can his high priestly ministry be superior to the Old Covenant high priests if he loses some of his covenant people through apostasy? In other words, if Christ, as our high priest, mediates the blessings of the New Covenant to his covenant people, and yet some of them can lose these blessings, how can the New Covenant be better than the Old Covenant? How can Christ be a superior high priest?

Let’s apply this to the paedobaptist view of the infants of believers. Their infants are considered to be “covenant children” based on the Abrahamic Covenant principle of physical descent. Thus, they are viewed as members of the New Covenant. As members of the New Covenant, Christ is their high priest. As such, he mediates the covenant blessings to all covenant members. But, most, if not all, paedobaptists would agree that some of their children grow up and become covenant-breakers and fall away and are lost in the end. So how does this reflect on Christ as their high priest? Does Christ fail to mediate the covenant blessings to all of his covenant people? In what way is Christ a superior high priest if he fails to save some of his people?
These are serious questions for those who believe that some (such as the infants of believers) can be covenant members and yet eventually apostatize and lose out on the covenant blessings. Does it not make a mockery of the superiority of Christ’s high priestly ministry? Does this not make him a failure like the Old Covenant high priests?

Which of Christ’s high priestly ministries can be lost or rendered ineffectual? For example, can some of Christ’s covenant people miss out on his atoning sacrifice? Can he fail in his high priestly ministry to atone for some of his covenant people? Hebrews 2:17 tells us, “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (emphasis added). Now, is this true for all of his covenant people, or only some of them? The context identifies the people as the “children” (verses 13-14) and “brethren” (verses 12 and 17). The clear implication is that he made propitiation (i.e., removed God’s wrath due to their sins) for all of his covenant people. However, those who believe that covenant members can be lost in the end must rewrite the above text to make it say that he made propitiation for only some of his people. But if, as the text says, Christ made propitiation for his covenant people, which implies all of them, then which ones are left out? Are some “covenant babies” eventually left out due to later apostasy? If so, then has Christ failed as their covenant high priest? The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ “obtained eternal redemption” for his people (Hebrews 9:12) and “put away [their] sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (9:26). This is why he is a superior high priest to those in the Old Covenant who could not take away sins. Yet, if some of his covenant people end up being lost, then Christ’s high priestly ministry is no better than those in the Old Covenant.

Consider, also, our Lord’s high priestly ministry of intercession. Christ “always lives to make intercession for them [His covenant people]” (Hebrews 7:25). Christ’s prayers are one of the reasons why “He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him” (verse 25). But if some of his covenant people eventually fall away, does Christ fail in his high priestly petitions for them? We may assume that our Lord is now praying for his covenant people similarly as he prayed for Peter: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Luke 22:32). As our Lord’s prayer was effectual then, so it is also now. And if this is the case, then how can any of those for whom he prays fall away and apostatize? Does he not pray for all of his people? Or does he pray for only some of them? And if some for whom he intercedes eventually fall away, is his high priestly ministry in the New Covenant really superior to that of the Old Covenant?

Those who believe that New Covenant members can fall away just like they did in the Old Covenant must severely limit the superiority of both the New Covenant and of Christ’s high priestly ministry. If the high priest of the New Covenant can not effectually save all his covenant people, then in what way is he a superior high priest? Yet, the New Testament teaches that Christ died to remove God’s wrath (propitiation) for all of the sins of all of his people. He accomplished eternal redemption for them and he prays effectually for them that their faith may not fail. By giving his covenant people a new heart and writing his laws into their hearts and minds (Hebrews 8:10; 10:16), he effectually transforms them so that they remain covenant keepers who cannot fall away. Though the church may have its share of counterfeit Christians, who are devoid of saving grace and end up falling away, Christ will never lose any of his covenant people (John 6:39). As their merciful and faithful high priest, he lives forever and saves forever all for whom he died and for whom he now intercedes. He is, indeed, a superior high priest!

A Superficial Sanctification

In conclusion, Hebrews 10:29 does not teach that the apostate was a true member of the New Covenant. He was sanctified in some way by the covenant, but not in a way that indicated regeneration or membership in the New Covenant. Since those who are sanctified by the blood of Christ are perfected forever (Hebrews 10:14), the apostate in Hebrews 10:29 could not have partaken of this kind of sanctification. His sanctification was defective, superficial in nature, and did not make him a true member of Christ’s covenant or his high priestly ministry.
]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/351-new-covenant-sanctification-pt-1-alan-conner.html Covenant Head and Covenant Children http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/349-covenant-head-covenant-children.html Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:50:54 GMT This is a major part of Chapter 2 of Alan Conner’s book Covenant Children Today. I received permission from Rich Barcellos the publisher of the book to post this in my blog for the benefit of others. Link to order book.... This is a major part of Chapter 2 of Alan Conner’s book Covenant Children Today. I received permission from Rich Barcellos the publisher of the book to post this in my blog for the benefit of others.

Link to order book.
http://www.shop.rbap.net/product.sc?productId=1

Narrow Mind interview with Alan Conner and host Gene Bridges.

http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/11/covenant-children-today-and-interview.html

Be Encouraged,
Randy

Christ and the New Covenant Family


There is a lot of talk today about the “covenant family.” But, many who are teaching on this topic assume that the “covenant family” today is based on the same principles as found in the Old Covenant. That is to say, the children of believers are automatically considered as members of the New Covenant. But, does the Bible support this assumption?

An important principle in determining the nature of covenant children is to realize the role that the covenant heads play in this process. In God’s covenant with Abraham, he established that Abraham would have both a physical and a spiritual seed. The promise of a physical seed (Genesis 12:2) would begin with the miraculous birth of Isaac by the power of God (Romans 4:18-21). Isaac’s birth initiated the principle of a physical seed which would govern the covenant’s progress and fulfillment down through the centuries, consummating in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16). But Abraham also had a spiritual seed. Since Abraham was a believer (Galatians 3:6, 9; Genesis 15:6), his spiritual seed constitutes both the believing remnant of Israel and believing Gentiles (Romans 9-10; Galatians 3:8, 14). Thus, God ordained that the nature of covenant children in Abraham’s covenant would be established by Abraham himself as the covenant head, both by his faith and his physical children.

But, what about the New Covenant? Should the nature of covenant children established with Abraham continue on in the New Covenant as well? The New Testament is clear that the New Covenant administration of the Abrahamic Covenant does not require the principle of a physical seed descended from Abraham for “be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham” (Galatians 3:7). This indicates that in the New Covenant we are dealing with Abraham’s spiritual seed. The unbelieving Jews have been broken off of the olive tree of the people of God (Romans 11:17-20).

This shift to an emphasis on the spiritual seed is also clearly demonstrated in the covenant head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. As God established in Abraham the nature of his covenant seed, so also he established in Christ the nature of his covenant seed. The same pattern holds for both covenants: the covenant head determines the nature of the covenant seed. Thus, as the head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ would personally initiate the principle of his covenant seed just as Abraham did for his covenant. But, what kind of children (seed) did Christ have? As the head of the New Covenant, what is the nature of his seed?

As we consider what the Bible teaches about the covenant seed connected to Jesus Christ, we need to consider the Fatherhood of Jesus Christ in relation to his covenant children. Then, we will examine the way in which Christ defines his covenant family. When we do this, we will see that the New Covenant family is not based on physical relationships at all, but on spiritual qualities alone. Christ’s covenant seed and family is not based on the flesh as it was in the Old Covenant, but is a “household of faith” (Galatians 6:10 - KJV); a “family of believers” (Galatians 6:10 - NIV).

The Fatherhood of Jesus Christ

The Bible teaches that Christ’s relationship with his redeemed people is one that is rich and many-colored. The glory of Jesus Christ cannot be contained in one simple description. The Bible sets forth his redemptive character with many different analogies and pictures. To the Father, he is the eternal Son of God, but to Christians he is many things. Christ is the sacrificial Lamb of God who died in our place; the Vine and we are the branches; the Head and we are his body; the good Shepherd and we are his sheep; the Husband and we are his bride. In addition to all of this, Christ Jesus is also a Father and we are his children.

This last truth has important implications for how we are to view membership and the concept of covenant children in the New Covenant. What we will discover is that the Fatherhood of Jesus Christ argues strongly for the concept of spiritual children in the New Covenant, rather than children of physical descent.

Christ as our Eternal Father

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)


As Isaiah looked ahead to the coming of Christ who would inaugurate the New Covenant, he describes him as a Father to his followers. This relationship is verified in the way that our Lord loves his disciples as a father, cares for them as a father, provides for them as a father, and instructs and disciplines them as a father. What a precious thought. Our Savior is also our spiritual Father so that, in a sense, within the holy Trinity we have no less than two Fathers: God the Father, and God the incarnate Son, both of whom watch over us as spiritual Fathers in their own unique way.

Second, the obvious result of the fact that Christ is an Eternal Father is that he must also have children – since a father is such only if he has children. But who are his children? The children of Christ cannot be based on the genealogical principle found in the Old Covenant. But, if they cannot be his physical children, then who are they? The obvious suggestion is that they are his spiritual children.

The Gospels also indicate the idea that Christ has spiritual children; namely, his disciples. We see this in the following passages where Christ refers to his disciples as children:

And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! (Mark 10:24)

Little children, I am with you a little while longer. (John 13:33)

Jesus therefore said to them, Children, you do not have any fish, do you? (John 21:5)

Now what is the significance of Jesus calling his disciples children? Is he saying that they are immature and prone to error like children? This is possible, but the example from John 13 which took place during the Passover feast suggests that Jesus was assuming the paschal role of the head of the family who would preside at the meal and explain its meaning to his children. So, at least in John 13:33, the use of “children” would fit with the concept that Jesus is looking upon his disciples as his spiritual children. The other examples above can also be understood in the same way.

This concept of a spiritual father with spiritual children was also used by the apostles in the way they sometimes addressed those who came to faith under their ministry (see Galatians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 4:14; 1 John 2:1). And, most notably, it is used of all believers in their relationship with God since he is our heavenly Father and we are his children through the new birth and adoption into his family (John 1:12; Romans 8:14-17). All believers are “children of God.”

Christ’s Covenant Children

Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me. (Isaiah 8:18 in Hebrews 2:13)

Not only does the prophet Isaiah teach us about Christ’s role as a spiritual Father, he also has something to say about Christ’s spiritual children as well. These children are mentioned in Isaiah 8:18, which is also quoted in Hebrews 2:13 as the very words of Christ, “Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”

Here again it is quite clear from the context that these “children” who are given to the Messiah by God are not physical children but his spiritual followers united to him by faith. In the context of Hebrews chapter two, they are called “many sons” who are brought to glory (verse 10), his “brethren” (verses 11-12) for whom Christ made “propitiation…” (verse 17) and they are those who, along with Christ himself, put their trust in God (verse 13). No other kind of children is in view here. It is impossible that these covenant children of Christ are based on any principle of physical descent. They can only be spiritual children of faith. The principle of the Old Covenant family no longer applies to Christ and his New Covenant family.
Also of interest in this passage is the observation that these spiritual children that are given to Christ by God the Father are the reason for his incarnation:

Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Hebrews 2:14)

Christ came down from heaven to assume our human nature that he might set his children free from the power of death held by the devil (verses 14-15) and deliver them from their sins (verse 17). Christ does not bring this help to the angels, but rather to “the descendant (seed) of Abraham” (verse 16).

This is an important designation. To call the covenant children of Christ (verses 13-14) the seed of Abraham (verse 16) makes another important statement about the nature of Christ’s covenant family. Clearly, they are not defined in terms of physical descent as they were in the Old Covenant. Christ’s spiritual children are now the New Covenant equivalent to the seed of Abraham. They are his spiritual followers, his brethren for whom he died, and those who trust in God. Here we have a clear redefining of the “seed of Abraham” in the New Covenant. The genealogical principle of inclusion in the covenant by physical lineage is replaced by the spiritual principle of faith.

Christ’s Covenant Offspring

He will see His offspring. (Isaiah 53:10)

This same truth about the identity of Christ’s covenant children is also seen in Isaiah 53:10, when Isaiah speaks prophetically of Christ’s reward for his self-sacrifice for our sins. The prophet announces, “He will see His offspring.” Now what is the prophet speaking about? In what sense did our Lord have offspring? Again, it cannot be physical children in view. So, it must refer exclusively to his spiritual offspring who are connected to him through faith.

Thus, both testaments teach that the children of Christ are not physical children at all. Clearly, the genealogical principle of the Old Covenant cannot apply to him. And, as the head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ establishes in himself the new governing principle of membership in his Church. As clearly as Abraham established his seed according to the principle of physical birth, so Christ establishes his seed according to the principle of spiritual birth. The old genealogical principle of being a member of the covenant by physical descent has come to an end. A new principle is established with Jesus Christ. Being numbered among Christ’s covenant children is now based on the principle of faith alone. As John 1:12 states, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” The New Covenant has a new standard for membership. Abraham’s physical principle of membership is replaced by Christ’s spiritual principle of membership.

Thus, the belief that the covenant family today follows the pattern of the Old Covenant is nothing but an assumption. It is based on so-called covenant logic that does not reflect accurately the teachings of the prophets as they foretold the coming of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant. Christ, as the head of the New Covenant, clearly establishes in himself the new standard for what it means to be a covenant child. It is a standard based on faith, not physical descent.

Christ Defines His Covenant Family

Not only is Jesus Christ our “Eternal Father,” and as such establishes a new principle for what it means to be his covenant child, but he also gave specific instruction on the nature of his covenant family. We find this in such passages as Luke 8:19-21:

19 And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was reported to Him, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You.” 21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”

In the parallel account, Matthew gives these words, “whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50). What is clear is that Christ is redefining the nature of his family. He uses this request from his physical family to teach about his covenant family. As his words indicate, the principle of the physical family is no longer the determining factor in establishing his covenant family. Hearing the word and doing it now comprise the spiritual qualifications for being one of Christ’s covenant family members.

This shows a deliberate intent on the part of Christ to distance himself and his covenant family from the physical principles of the covenant family established with Abraham. If Christ defined his “mother and brothers,” and also his “children” (see above) exclusively in terms of spiritual qualities, then where is there continuity with the Old Covenant? Where do children automatically become covenant members based on their physical descent from covenant parents? Christ’s words clearly exclude from his covenant family those who are connected only by physical ties. “My mother and My brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” He does not say that they are “those who hear the word of God and do it and their physical seed.” His New Covenant family is comprised only of those who hear the word of God and obey it. Infants cannot hear and obey the word of God.

On several occasions, the Lord emphasized this New Covenant principle which stresses the importance of the spiritual family. In Luke 11:27, Christ was teaching truths that were so profound that one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But the Lord responded, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (verse 28). The exact same principle is revealed here as above. Christ is saying in the most emphatic way that blessedness is not based on the ties of the physical family. Notice his words, “On the contrary.” The Lord is downplaying the blessedness of his biological mother in order to draw attention to the greater blessedness of those who are connected to him spiritually. Those who hear the word of God and obey it are esteemed as more blessed than his physical mother. Mary’s blessedness would be rooted far more in her faith than in her merely being the physical mother of our Lord (cf. Luke 1:46-55). I’m sure these were shocking words indeed to this woman. ]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/349-covenant-head-covenant-children.html Mingled Covenants of Gospel and Law are neither. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/347-mingled-covenants-gospel-law-neither.html Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:34:38 GMT Here is something I read by John Coloquoun that I found to be spot on. ---Quote--- Although eternal life was, in the covenant of works, promised to Adam and his posterity on condition of his perfect obedience, and that only, yet a man is to... Here is something I read by John Coloquoun that I found to be spot on.

Quote:
Although eternal life was, in the covenant of works, promised to Adam and his posterity on condition of his perfect obedience, and that only, yet a man is to be counted a legalist or self-righteous if, while he does not pretend that his obedience is perfect, he yet relies on it for a title to life. Self-righteous men have, in all ages, set aside as impossible to be fulfilled by them that condition of the covenant of works which God had imposed on Adam, and have framed for themselves various models of that covenant which, though they are far from being institutions of God, and stand upon terms lower than perfect obedience, yet are of the nature of the covenant of works. The unbelieving Jews who sought righteousness by the works of the law were not so very ignorant or presumptuous as to pretend to perfect obedience. Neither did those professed Christians in Galatia who desired to be under the law, and to be justified by the law, of whom the apostle therefore testified that they had "fallen from grace' (Galatians 5:4), presume to plead that they could yield perfect obedience. On the contrary, their public profession of Christianity showed that they had some sense of their need of Christ's righteousness. But their great error was that they did not believe that the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone was sufficient to entitle them to the justification of life; and therefore they depended for justification partly on their own obedience to the moral and ceremonial law. It was this, and not their pretensions to perfect obedience, that the apostle had in view when he blamed them for cleaving to the law of works, and for expecting justification partly on their own works of obedience to the moral and ceremonial laws, they and the apostle informed them, were fallen from grace; Christ had become of no effect to them. And they were "debtors to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:3-4). By depending for justification partly on their imperfect obedience to the law, they framed the law into a covenant of works, and such a covenant of works as would allow for imperfect instead of perfect works; and by relying partly on the righteousness of Christ, they mingled the law with the gospel and works with faith in the affair of justification. Thus they perverted both the law and the gospel, and formed them for themselves into a motley covenant of works.
A Treatise on the Law and Gospel
pp. 18,19
John Coloquhoun
Published by Soli Deo Gloria ]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/347-mingled-covenants-gospel-law-neither.html Sanctification in 1 Corinthians 7:14 http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/338-sanctification-1-corinthians-7-14.html Tue, 21 Jul 2009 04:51:35 GMT Here is an spot of Alan Conner discussing holy in 1 Corinthians 7:14

http://www.shop.rbap.net/product.sc?...=1&productId=1

Quote:
It is true that the children of a believing parents are holy. But what does this mean? Since the unbelieving spouse is also "sanctified" (same word as "holy" used for the children only its verbal form), it seems only logical that they will be holy in the same way that the children are holy. No one in their right mind would assert that the unbelieving spouse is a member of the New Covenant. Neither should anybody think that the unbelieving spouse is worthy of being baptised. To baptise an unbeliever would make a mockery of the gospel which requires faith for salvation. But if both the unbelieving spouse and children are sanctified and made holy the the believing spouse and parent, why do some argue that the children are members of the covenant and should be baptised, but not he unbelieving spouse? And why do some insist on calling the children "saints" (holy ones), but not the unbelieving parent? Since both are made holy by the believer, to make one a holy covenant member and not he other, and to baptise one and not he other is an inconsistency which renders this view point completely unacceptable. Whatever this sanctification means, it cannot be used to argue for the paedobaptist view of "covenant children" which sanctions the baptism of infants or else, one must also argue for "covenant unbelieveing spouses" and the baptism of unbelievers.

How then are we to explain the sanctification in this verse? We could take it in a similar way to Hebrews 10:29 and understand that both the unbelieving spouse and he the children of believers are made holy or sanctified outwardly in some sense by the godly influences of the believer. But this verse states the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse and children as a fact, and yet this may not always be the case if it only refers to some kind of moral influence brought to bear upon them by the believer.

A better solution is to see this sanctification as referring to their being conformed to God's moral law so that the marriage and family unit are morally sound and holy in the sight of God. In other words, the marriage and family are legitimate and lawful, even though one spouse is still an unbeliever. Their unbelief does not make the marriage void or invalid.

One cannot help but think of a similar situation in Ezra chapters 9 and 10 in which the Israelites had married the daughters of the Canaanites. Such mixed marriages were looked upon as an abomination and the Israelites had to put away all of their foreign wives and their children (Ezra 10:3). If the Corinthian believers were aware of this, as the Jewish believers no doubt were, we could understand their concern about their own mixed marriages to unbelievers. "Is my marriage to an unbeliever and abomination? Should I put them away like God commanded the Israelites in the days of Ezra? What about my children, are they an abomination too?" These thoughts could easily be in the background of these verses to the Corinthian church.

What, then, is Paul's answer? In essence it is this - both your marriage and your children are legitimate before the Lord. They are holy and not to be discarded even though your spouse is an unbeliever and your children are descended from him (or her) as well as from you. The situation with Ezra was a different time and a different set of circumstances. Your children are not illegitimate because your marriage to the unbeliever is a lawful marriage and conforms to Gods' will.

Thus, the sanctification found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 cannot be made to argue that he children of believers are covenantally holy and therefore should be baptised as infants.....

Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner pp. 98-99
]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/338-sanctification-1-corinthians-7-14.html Holiness and Leadership http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/334-holiness-leadership.html Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:54:09 GMT Just a quote from J. I. Packer that will be relevant for generations. *Leadership* What do we Christians chiefly value in our leaders, our preachers, teachers, pastors, writers, televangelists, top people in parachurch ministries, money-men... Just a quote from J. I. Packer that will be relevant for generations.


Leadership

What do we Christians chiefly value in our leaders, our preachers, teachers, pastors, writers, televangelists, top people in parachurch ministries, money-men who bankroll churches and other Christian enterprises, and other folk with key roles in our set-up? The answer seems to be not their holiness, but their gifts and skills and resources. The number of North American leaders (and other Christians too) who in recent years have been found guilty of sexual and financial shenanigans, and who when challenged have declined to see themselves as accountable to any part of the body of Christ, is startling. Much more startling is the way in which, after public exposure and some few slaps on the wrist, they are soon able to resume their ministry and carry on as if nothing had happened, commanding apparently as much support as before. To protest that Christians believe in the forgiveness of sins and the restoration of sinners is beside the point. What I am saying is that the speed of their reinstatement shows that we value them more for their proven gifts than for their proven sanctity, since the thought that only holy people are likely to be spiritually useful does not loom large in our minds.

More than a century and a half ago, the Scottish parish minister and revival preacher Robert Murray McCheyne declared: “My people’s greatest need is my personal holiness.” It seems clear that neither modern clergy nor their modern flocks would agree with McCheyne’s assessment. In the past when your church has appointed a calling committee to hunt for the next pastor, I am sure that a very adequate profile of required gifts has been drawn up, but how much emphasis has been laid on the crucial need to find a holy man? Shall I guess?

Rediscovering Holiness pp. 33,34 ]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/334-holiness-leadership.html J. I. Packer Knowing God chapter 4 The Only True God... The Second Commandment http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/328-j-i-packer-knowing-god-chapter-4-only-true-god-second-commandment.html Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:28:19 GMT I took this from Pastor Andrew Webbs page. http://www.providencepca.com/essays/seccomroundup.html (1973) J.I. Packer, Knowing God, Chapter 4 What does the word idolatry suggest to your mind? Savages groveling before a totem pole? Cruel–faced... I took this from Pastor Andrew Webbs page.

http://www.providencepca.com/essays/seccomroundup.html

(1973) J.I. Packer, Knowing God, Chapter 4
What does the word idolatry suggest to your mind? Savages groveling before a totem pole? Cruel–faced statues in Hindu temples? The dervish dance of the priests of Baal around Elijah’s altar? These things are certainly idolatrous, in a very obvious way; but we need to realize that there are more subtle forms of idolatry as well.

Look at the second commandment. It runs as follows, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God” ( Ex 20:4–5 ). What is this commandment talking about?

If it stood alone, it would be natural to suppose that it refers to the worship of images of gods other than Jehovah* the Babylonian idol worship, for instance, which Isaiah derided ( Is 44:9–20 ; 46:6–7 ), or the paganism of the Greco–Roman world of Paul’s day, of which he wrote in Romans 1:23 , 25 that they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. . . . They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator.” But in its context the second commandment can hardly be referring to this sort of idolatry, for if it were it would simply be repeating the thought of the first commandment without adding anything to it.

Accordingly, we take the second commandment* as in fact it has always been taken *as pointing us to the principle that (to quote Charles Hodge) “idolatry consists not only in the worship of false gods, but also in the worship of the true God by images.” In its Christian application, this means that we are not to make use of visual or pictorial representations of the triune God, or of any person of the Trinity, for the purposes of Christian worship. The commandment thus deals not with the object of our worship, but with the manner of it; what it tells us is that statues and pictures of the One whom we worship are not to be used as an aid to worshiping him.

The Dangers in Images:
It may seem strange at first sight that such a prohibition should find a place among the ten basic principles of biblical religion, for at first sight it does not seem to have much point. What harm is there, we ask, in the worshiper’s surrounding himself with statues and pictures, if they help him to lift his heart to God?

We are accustomed to treating the question of whether these things should be used or not as a matter of temperament and personal taste. We know that some people have crucifixes and pictures of Christ in their rooms, and they tell us that looking at these objects helps them to focus their thoughts on Christ when they pray. We know that many claim to be able to worship more freely and easily in churches that are filled with such ornaments than they can in churches that are bare of them. Well, we say, what is wrong with that? What harm can these things do? If people really do find them helpful, what more is there to be said? What point can there be in prohibiting them? In the face of this perplexity, some would suggest that the second commandment applies only to immoral and degrading representations of God, borrowed from pagan cults, and to nothing more.

But the very wording of the commandment rules out such a limiting exposition. God says quite categorically, “Thou shalt not make any likeness of any thing” for use in worship. This categorical statement rules out not simply the use of pictures and statues which depict God as an animal, but also the use of pictures and statues which depict him as the highest created thing we know*a human. It also rules out the use of pictures and statues of Jesus Christ as a man, although Jesus himself was and remains man; for all pictures and statues are necessarily made after the “likeness” of ideal manhood as we conceive it, and therefore come under the ban which the commandment imposes.

Historically, Christians have differed as to whether the second commandment forbids the use of pictures of Jesus for purposes of teaching and instruction (in Sunday–school classes, for instance), and the question is not an easy one to settle; but there is no room for doubting that the commandment obliges us to dissociate our worship, both in public and in private, from all pictures and statues of Christ, no less than from pictures and statues of his Father.

But what, in that case, is the point of this comprehensive prohibition? From the emphasis given to the commandment itself, with the frightening sanction attached to it (the proclaiming of God’s jealousy, and his severity in punishing transgressors), one would suppose that this must really be a matter of crucial importance. But is it?

The answer is yes. The Bible shows us that the glory of God and the spiritual well–being of humans are both directly bound up with it. Two lines of thought are set before us which together amply explain why this commandment should have been stressed so emphatically. These lines of thought relate, not to the real or supposed helpfulness of images, but to the truth of them. They are as follows:

1. Images dishonor God, for they obscure his glory . The likeness of things in heaven (sun, moon, stars), and in earth (people, animals, birds, insects), and in the sea (fish, mammals, crustaceans), is precisely not a likeness of their Creator. “A true image of God,” wrote Calvin, “is not to be found in all the world; and hence . . . His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever He is set before our eyes in a visible form. . . .Therefore, to devise any image of God is itself impious; because by this corruption His majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be other than He is.”

The point here is not just that an image represents God as having body and parts, whereas in reality he has neither. If this were the only ground of objection to images, representations of Christ would be blameless. But the point really goes much deeper. The heart of the objection to pictures and images is that they inevitably conceal most, if not all, of the truth about the personal nature and character of the divine Being whom they represent.

To illustrate: Aaron made a golden calf (that is, a bull–image). It was meant as a visible symbol of Jehovah, the mighty God who had brought Israel out of Egypt. No doubt the image was thought to honor him, as being a fitting symbol of his great strength. But it is not hard to see that such a symbol in fact insults him, for what idea of his moral character, his righteousness, goodness and patience could one gather from looking at a statue of him as a bull? Thus Aaron’s image hid Jehovah’s glory.

In a similar way, the pathos of the crucifix obscures the glory of Christ, for it hides the fact of his deity, his victory on the cross, and his present kingdom. It displays his human weakness, but it conceals his divine strength; it depicts the reality of his pain, but keeps out of our sight the reality of his joy and his power. In both these cases, the symbol is unworthy most of all because of what it fails to display. And so are all other visible representations of deity.

Whatever we may think of religious art from a cultural standpoint, we should not look to pictures of God to show us his glory and move us to worship; for his glory is precisely what such pictures can never show us. And this is why God added to the second commandment a reference to himself as “jealous” to avenge himself on those who disobey him: for God’s “jealousy” in the Bible is his zeal to maintain his own glory, which is jeopardized when images are used in worship.

In Isaiah 40:18 , after vividly declaring God’s immeasurable greatness, the Scripture asks us: “To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him to?” The question does not expect an answer, only a chastened silence. Its purpose is to remind us that it is as absurd as it is impious to think that an image modeled, as images must be, upon some creature could be an acceptable likeness of the Creator.

Nor is this the only reason why we are forbidden to use images in worship.

2. Images mislead us, for they convey false ideas about God . The very inadequacy with which they represent him perverts our thoughts of him and plants in our minds errors of all sorts about his character and will.

Aaron, by making an image of God in the form of a bull–calf, led the Israelites to think of him as a Being who could be worshiped acceptably by frenzied debauchery. Hence the “festival to the Lord ” which Aaron organized ( Ex 32:5 ) became a shameful orgy. Again, it is a matter of historical fact that the use of the crucifix as an aid to prayer has encouraged people to equate devotion with brooding over Christ’s bodily sufferings; it has made them morbid about the spiritual value of physical pain, and it has kept them from knowledge of the risen Savior.

These examples show how images will falsify the truth of God in the minds of men. Psychologically, it is certain that if you habitually focus your thoughts on an image or picture of the One to whom you are going to pray, you will come to think of him, and pray to him, as the image represents him. Thus you will in this sense “bow down” and “worship” your image; and to the extent to which the image fails to tell the truth about God, to that extent you will fail to worship God in truth. That is why God forbids you and me to make use of images and pictures in our worship.

Molten Images and Mental Images:
The realization that images and pictures of God affect our thoughts of God points to a further realm in which the prohibition of the second commandment applies. Just as it forbids us to manufacture molten images of God, so it forbids us to dream up mental images of him. Imagining God in our heads can be just as real a breach of the second commandment as imagining him by the work of our hands.

How often do we hear this sort of thing: “I like to think of God as the great Architect (or Mathematician or Artist).” “I don’t think of God as a Judge; I like to think of him simply as a Father.” We know from experience how often remarks of this kind serve as the prelude to a denial of something that the Bible tells us about God. It needs to be said with the greatest possible emphasis that those who hold themselves free to think of God as they like are breaking the second commandment. At best, they can only think of God in the image of man* as an ideal man, perhaps, or a superman. But God is not any sort of man. We were made in his image, but we must not think of him as existing in ours. To think of God in such terms is to be ignorant of him, not to know him.

All speculative theology, which rests on philosophical reasoning rather than biblical revelation, is at fault here. Paul tells us where this sort of theology ends: “The world by wisdom knew not God” ( 1 Cor 1:21 KJV). To follow the imagination of one’s heart in the realm of theology is the way to remain ignorant of God, and to become an idol–worshipper *the idol in this case being a false mental image of God, made by one’s own speculation and imagination.

In this light, the positive purpose of the second commandment becomes plain. Negatively, it is a warning against ways of worship and religious practice that lead us to dishonor God and to falsify his truth. Positively, it is a summons to us to recognize that God the Creator is transcendent, mysterious and inscrutable, beyond the range of any imagining or philosophical guesswork of which we are capable* and hence a summons to us to humble ourselves, to listen and learn of him, and to let him teach us what he is like and how we should think of him.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,” God tells us; “neither are your ways my ways,” for “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” ( Is 55:8–9 ). Paul speaks in the same vein: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord?” ( Rom 11:33–34 ).

God is not the sort of person that we are; his wisdom, his aims, his scale of values, his mode of procedure differ so vastly from our own that we cannot possibly guess our way to them by intuition or infer them by analogy from our notion of ideal manhood. We cannot know him unless he speaks and tells us about himself.

But in fact he has spoken. He has spoken to and through his prophets and apostles, and he has spoken in the words and deeds of his own Son. Through this revelation, which is made available to us in holy Scripture, we may form a true notion of God; without it we never can. Thus it appears that the positive force of the second commandment is that it compels us to take our thoughts of God from his own holy Word, and from no other source whatsoever.

That this is the commandment’s positive thrust seems plain from the very form in which it is stated. Having forbidden the making and worshiping of images, God declares himself jealous; he will punish not image worshipers as such but all who “hate him,” in the sense of disregarding his commandments as a whole.

The natural and expected thing in the context would be a specific threat to image–users; why, instead, is God’s threat generalized? Surely this is in order to make us realize that those who make images and use them in worship, and thus inevitably take their theology from them, will in fact tend to neglect God’s revealed will at every point. The mind that takes up with images is a mind that has not yet learned to love and attend to God’s Word. Those who look to man made images, material or mental, to lead them to God are not likely to take any part of his revelation as seriously as they should.

In Deuteronomy 4 , Moses himself expounds the prohibition of images in worship along exactly these lines, setting the making of images in opposition to the heeding of God’s word and commandments as if these two things were completely exclusive of each other. He reminds the people that at Sinai, though they saw tokens of God’s presence, they saw no visible representation of God himself, but only heard his word, and he exhorts them to continue to live, as it were, at the foot of the mount, with God’s own word ringing in their ears to direct them and no supposed image of God before their eyes to distract them.

The point is clear. God did not show them a visible symbol of himself, but spoke to them; therefore they are not now to seek visible symbols of God, but simply to obey his Word. If it be said that Moses was afraid of the Israelites borrowing designs for images from the idolatrous nations around them, our reply is that undoubtedly he was, and this is exactly the point: all manmade images of God, whether molten or mental, are really borrowings from the stock–in–trade of a sinful and ungodly world, and are bound therefore to be out of accord with God’s own holy Word. To make an image of God is to take one’s thoughts of him from a human source, rather than from God himself; and this is precisely what is wrong with image–making.

Looking to the True God:
The question which arises for us all from the line of thought which we have been pursuing is this: How far are we keeping the second commandment? Granted, there are no bull–images in the churches we attend, and probably we have not got a crucifix in the house (though we may have some pictures of Christ on our walls that we ought to think twice about); but are we sure that the God whom we seek to worship is the God of the Bible, the triune Jehovah? Do we worship the one true God in truth? Or are our ideas of God such that in reality we do not believe in the Christian God, but in some other, just as the Muslim or Jew or Jehovah’s Witness does not believe in the Christian God, but in some other?

You may say, how can I tell? Well, the test is this. The God of the Bible has spoken in his Son. The light of the knowledge of his glory is given to us in the face of Jesus Christ. Do I look habitually to the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as showing me the final truth about the nature and the grace of God? Do I see all the purposes of God as centering upon him?

If I have been enabled to see this, and in mind and heart to go to Calvary and lay hold of the Calvary solution, then I can know that I truly worship the true God, and that he is my God, and that I am even now enjoying eternal life, according to our Lord’s own definition, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” ( Jn 17:3 ).

(1993) J.I. Packer – Additional Note

A steady trickle of letters over the years has urged that my dissuasive from using images of God for didactic or devotional purposes goes too far. Does it?

Three arguments are brought against it. First, the worship of God requires Christian aesthetic expression through the visual arts no less than it requires Christian moral expression through family love and neighbor love. Second, imagination is part of human nature as God made it and should be sanctified and expressed, rather than stigmatized and suppressed, in our communion with our Creator. Third, images (crucifixes, icons, statues, pictures of Jesus) do in fact trigger devotion, which would be weaker without them.

The principle of the first argument is surely right, but it needs to be rightly applied. Symbolic art can serve worship in many ways, but the second commandment still forbids anything that will be thought of as a representational image of God. If paintings, drawings and statues of Jesus, the incarnate Son, were always viewed as symbols of human perfection within the culture that produced them (white–faced Anglo–Saxon, black–faced African, yellow–faced Chinese or whatever), rather than as suggesting what Jesus actually looked like, no harm would be done. But since neither children nor unsophisticated adults view them in this way we shall in my opinion be wiser to do without them.

The principle of the second argument is also right, but the biblical way to apply it is to harness our verbal and visual imagination to the task of appreciating the drama and marvel of God’s historical doings, as is done in the Prophets and the Psalms and the book of Revelation, rather than to fly in the face of the second commandment by constructing static and seemingly representational images of him.

As for the third argument, the problem is that as soon as the images are treated as representational rather than symbolic, they begin to corrupt the devotion they trigger. Since it is hard for us humans to avoid this pitfall, wisdom counsels once more that the better, safer way is to learn to do without them. Some risks are not worth taking. [Packer, J.I. Knowing God., Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996, c1973.] ]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/328-j-i-packer-knowing-god-chapter-4-only-true-god-second-commandment.html Sinners, Truth, and a Fallen Pastor http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/320-sinners-truth-fallen-pastor.html Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:34:29 GMT Sinners, Truth, and a Fallen Pastor

A Pastor friend of mine made this comment concerning the new controversey about a fallen Pastor of a very large church.

"In this crucial time of war within the fabric or our culture this will be a severe blow regardless of outcome. "

The News of his fall will definitely be devestating upon his family, friends, and those lives he has influenced. It will also seem to give ammunition and fodder to the enemy in their claim that his fall is proof that Christianity is not real. This may seem to be true but I always like to mention that this is an opportunity for us to point to the countless many faithful brothers who are not neglecting their souls and the souls of their flocks. This is where the early verses in John 15 become applicable and where we see His word is true.

When this kind of thing is mentioned and thrown in my face from those I witness to, I appreciate the condemnation that is expressed because it shows that God doesn't tolerate sin and we shouldn't. It also reveals everyone's need for a Saviour. I like pointing that out to those I discuss such matters with. Many of our Bible heroes were utter failures at some point. Consider King David and Uriah the Hittite. This is what the Scriptures are about. God saving sinners of whom we are all chief.

What Love, What Forgiveness. What an Awesome God. He is building His Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail. He has dominion and nothing is taking Him by surprise.

St. Paul's prayer is that we may know...

(Eph 1:19) ... what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

(Eph 1:20) Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

(Eph 1:21) Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

(Eph 1:22) And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

(Eph 1:23) Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.



Be Encouraged brothers. Truth is Truth and Christ is Risen. He is Risen Indeed! ]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/320-sinners-truth-fallen-pastor.html An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12 http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/318-exegetical-appraisal-colossians-2-11-12.html Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:14:29 GMT Here is an article a friend of mine published in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review. http://www.rbtr.org/You can see the article with the footnotes included at this site. http://www.reformedreader.org/RBTRII.1.Col.2.Barcellos.RPM.doc The... Here is an article a friend of mine published in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review. http://www.rbtr.org/You can see the article with the footnotes included at this site. http://www.reformedreader.org/RBTRII...cellos.RPM.doc The greek font works from the downloaded document.

Sorry the greek font doesn't show up on this page.

Quote:
AN EXEGETICAL APPRAISAL OF COLOSSIANS 2:11-12

By Richard C. Barcellos*


“and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” (Col. 2:11-12)

Colossians 2:11-12 is a text used by paedobaptists to justify their practice of baptizing infants. This text is used to display the relationship between OT circumcision and NT baptism. The conclusion drawn is that what circumcision was, baptism is. As John Murray puts it, “baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.” Simply put, in paedobaptist thought baptism replaces circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. Since infants were circumcised in the OT, infants should be baptized under the NT. A replacement theology between circumcision and baptism is argued by this understanding of the text.
It must be admitted that a prima facie glance at the text seems to give credibility to such an interpretation. Our purpose in this article, however, is to examine Col. 2:11-12 in the Greek text to determine its meaning in context and to compare our findings with the claim that it is a proof text for infant baptism. The approach will be as follows: first, to set the text in its context; second, to examine its syntactical structure and provide exegesis of its contents; third, to compare our conclusions with arguments used in The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism; and fourth, to draw some pertinent conclusions.

Colossians 2:11-12 in Context

Colossians 2:11-12 comes in a larger context where Paul is exposing error and giving its remedy (Col. 2:4-3:4). In the immediate context, Paul warns the Colossians: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (2:8). Verses 9-15 give the reasons why they are not to be led astray in ways not according to Christ.
Verses 9 and 10 give two (possibly three) reasons why Christ is the remedy against error. “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head of all rule and authority” (2:9-10). The first reason is Christ’s deity (2:9). The second reason is the completeness that Christians have in Christ (2:10). A third reason may appear in the final clause of v. 10: “and He is the head over all rule and authority.” This is surely added due to the complex heresy Paul is combating. Paul assures the Colossians that Christ is head of all rule and authority. T.K. Abbott adds:

He is the head of all those angelic powers to whose mediation the false teachers would teach you to seek. As they are subordinate to Christ, ye have nothing to expect from them which is not given you in full completeness in Christ.

Christ is God and provides everything the Colossians need for their souls.
Verses 11-15 present the means by which completeness in Christ has come. The first means occurs in vv. 11-12 (see the syntactical and exegetical discussion below). Christians are complete in Christ by means of being “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” Christ performs this circumcision or it is Christ’s circumcision in that it belongs to Him as Christian or New Covenant circumcision (see below). The second means by which completeness in Christ has come to the Colossians is found in vv. 13-15. It is due to what God did to them while they were “dead in [their] transgressions and the uncircumcision of [their] flesh.” He made them “alive together with Him,” that is, with Christ. This making “alive together with Him” was effected by God the Father. The verb sunezwopoi,hsen (“made you alive together”) implies a subject other than the “Him” of su.n auvtw/| (“with Him”). Christ, therefore, is not the subject of the verb. This would be a cumbersome tautology indeed. Taking o` qeo.j (“God” the Father) as the implied subject does away with the tautology and is supported by the parallel passage in Eph. 2:4-5.
The Colossians were told that Christ alone was not enough. Paul argues against such anti-Christian teaching by highlighting Christ’s deity and the completeness Christians have in Him.

Syntactical Structure and Exegesis of Colossians 2:11-12

Having set the verses in context, we are now prepared to uncover the relationship and meaning of their parts. As we move through the text, the completeness Christians have in Christ will become clearer.
The first question is the meaning and function of the first three words in the Greek text, evn w-| kai., translated “and in Him” (NASB), “In Him …also” (NKJV), and literally “in [or “by”] whom also” (KJV). The “whom” (w-|) refers back to Christ in v. 10. Some commentators take this to mean union with Christ. For instance, John Eadie says:

…the formula evn w-| has its usual significance–union with Him–union created by the Spirit, and effected by faith; and, secondly, the blessing described in the verse had been already enjoyed, for they were and had been believers in Him in whom they are complete. Through their living union with Christ, they had enjoyed the privilege, and were enjoying the results of a spiritual circumcision.

On the face of it, Eadie’s comments seem appropriate. Upon further examination, however, problems arise. Notice that he is arguing that the union under discussion is vital, experiential union with Christ “created by the Spirit, and effected by faith.” Commenting further, Eadie adds, “It is plain that the spiritual circumcision is not different from regeneration.” Assuming a causal order in Col. 2:11 (which will become clearer below), Eadie’s position would imply that the Spirit creates and faith effects union with Christ, thus, evn w-| kai,. which is then followed by spiritual circumcision or regeneration. Eadie understands union with Christ here in terms of a vital union (i.e., communion) “created by the Spirit, and effected by faith.” If this is so, then causally, faith precedes circumcision of the heart or regeneration. Communion with Christ through faith precedes regeneration by the Spirit. As we will see below, in this passage faith comes as a result of spiritual circumcision or regeneration (Col. 2:13; cf., Jn. 3:3-8) and is the means through which believers are personally united to Christ (i.e., vital union and communion).
Can Paul be alluding to union with Christ by evn w-| kai.? The answer is yes, but not without crucial qualification. To understand union with Christ here as commonly understood in the realm of the application of redemption effected by faith is unnecessary for several reasons. First, the idea of faith is not found in the text until the end of v. 12. Second, faith itself is a result of the “circumcision made without hands” (see the discussion below). Third, the concept of union with Christ is not limited to the application of redemption effected by faith elsewhere in Paul. John Murray says, “It is quite apparent that the Scripture applies the expression ‘in Christ’ to much more than the application of redemption.” Eph. 1:4, for instance, indicates that Christians were chosen “in Him before the foundation of the world.” This indicates a pre-temporal union with Christ apart from faith and void of communion with Christ. Vital union (i.e., communion with Christ), the type of union experienced in space and time, unites us to Christ in such a way that we experience personally the spiritual benefits of being saved (i.e., justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification). Fourth, assuming a causal sequence in the text and assuming evn w-| kai. refers to vital union, we would have an ordo salutis as follows: union with Christ by faith then spiritual circumcision (i.e., regeneration). Again, as we shall see, faith that unites one vitally to Christ is a product of the “circumcision made without hands” and proceeds from it, not the other way around. It may be better to paraphrase evn w-| kai. as “through your relation to Him” understanding union with Christ here in a non-vital manner. This would allow for a union apart from faith that corresponds with the broader meaning of union with Christ in many other places in Paul. Richard Gaffin argues for a “broader, more basic notion of union” in his Resurrection and Redemption. He lists three types of union: predestinarian, redemptive-historical, and existential.
There are at least two other ways to understand evn w-| kai.. It could be understood like the evn auvtw/| (“in Him”) of Col. 1:17. The evn (“in”) would function like a dative of sphere. It would be paraphrased as “in the sphere of Christ’s activity you were circumcised.” Or it could be translated “by whom also.” The evn (“by”) would function like a dative of means or agency. Paul uses evn w-| 26 times in the Greek text. The NASB translates it “by which” in Rom. 7:6; 8:15 [“by whom” NKJV]; 14:21; and Eph. 4:30. He uses evn w-| kai. seven times in the Greek text. Though the NASB does not translate it “by whom also,” the NKJV does in 1 Pt. 3:19a and Clarence B. Hale suggests this translation for Eph. 2:22 (i.e., “…by whom you also are being built together…”). It would be translated as “by whom also you were circumcised.”
The union with Christ in Col. 2:11 may be understood best either as a union based on election “in Him” (Eph. 1:4) and true of all the elect prior to the personal application of redemption in space and time or in one of the last two ways suggested above. Either of these views fits the context of Col. 2:11ff. and is syntactically and theologically consistent with Paul’s usage elsewhere. And either view will allow for the causal relationship between circumcision and union with Christ effected through faith, which is clear in the passage (see the discussion below).
The evn w-| kai. refers back to Christ and our being complete in Him (v. 10). Verses 11 and 12 go on to describe just how Christians are complete in Him. The verb perietmh,qhte (“you were circumcised”) indicates a past action in which the Colossians were passive. They were acted upon by an outsider. They did not circumcise themselves. Someone else was the subject, the circumciser, and they were the objects, the recipients of circumcision. The rest of vv. 11 and 12 are subordinate to this verb and explanatory of it.
The first thing Paul tells us about this circumcision is its character or nature. It was peritomh/| avceiropoih,tw| (“a circumcision made without hands”). It was performed without human hands, unlike the circumcision of the OT and the type being promoted by Judaizers in the first century. John Eadie says, “The circumcision made without hands is plainly opposed to that which is made with hands.” It is a spiritual circumcision, a circumcision of the heart (cf., Dt. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 44:7; Rom. 2:28-29; Phil. 3:3). Harris says, “It is spiritual surgery performed on Christ’s followers at the time of their regeneration.” The Colossians are complete in Christ due to being circumcised without hands.
The second thing Paul tells us about this “circumcision made without hands” is its effect. This spiritual circumcision was evn th/| avpekdu,sei tou/ sw,matoj th/j sarko,j (“in the removal of the body of the flesh”). “[T]he body of the flesh” (tou/ sw,matoj th/j sarko,j) is also spiritual. Since the circumcision under discussion is spiritual, then its effect must be spiritual. The preposition evn (“in”) is best understood epexegetically (NASB). It could be stated as “consisting of the removal of the body of the flesh.” It exegetes or explains the “circumcision made without hands.” The effect of the spiritual circumcision was a spiritual “removal of the body of the flesh.” But what does Paul mean by “the body of the flesh”? The noun avpekdu,sei (“removal”) has a double prepositional prefix (avpo and e`k) which intensify the noun so that it can be translated “completely off from.” The “removal of the body of the flesh” was a radical and spiritual act effected by the “circumcision made without hands.” The “body of the flesh” is what is stripped off or radically affected. As noted above, “the flesh” (th/j sarko,j) is best taken as spiritual. In this case, sarko,j (flesh”) is used in an ethical sense. It refers to the sinful natures of the Colossians (cf., Col. 2:18; Rom. 8:5-7; 13:14; and Eph. 2:3 for similar uses). Eadie says, “Flesh is corrupted humanity.” The fleshly body (i.e., the entirety of their sinful natures) was radically altered by this spiritual circumcision. Abbott adds, “The connexion requires it to be understood passively, not ‘ye have put off,’ but ‘was put off from you.’” The sinful souls of the Colossians were radically changed. The body of the flesh was put off from them. This is a description of the radical effects of heart circumcision upon the soul within the complex of the grace of regeneration (cf. Tit. 3:5). Discussing regeneration, Murray says:

There is a change that God effects in man, radical and reconstructive in its nature, called new birth, new creation, regeneration, renewal–a change that cannot be accounted for by anything that is in lower terms than the interposition of the almighty power of God. . . . The governing disposition, the character, the mind and will are renewed and so the person is now able to respond to the call of the gospel and enter into privileges and blessings of the divine vocation.

Regeneration involves both cleansing from sin (Tit. 3:5) and new life (Jn. 3:3-8). Paul is saying that the Colossians have experienced regeneration. They were complete in Christ because of the radical alteration of soul effected by the “circumcision made without hands.”
The third thing Paul tells us about this “circumcision made without hands” is its author or owner. This is indicated by the words evn th/| peritomh/| tou/ Cristou/ (“by the circumcision of Christ”). This phrase has three possible meanings. The primary issue revolves around the function of the genitive tou/ Cristou/ (“of Christ”). One option takes it as an objective genitive and translates as “the circumcision performed on Christ” or “experienced by Christ.” This would refer either to Christ’s physical circumcision or “to his death when he stripped off his physical body.” This is strained. Paul has been talking about what has happened in and to the Colossians not for them. Paul discusses what Christ did for the Colossians in vv. 13b and 14. Verses 11 and 12 discuss what happens in the Colossians and to them. Callow says:

Ingenious though this view is, it seems rather far-fetched to take circumcision as figuratively referring to Christ’s death. There is no suggestion of this in such passages as Rom. 2:28f. or Phil. 3:3. And in the nearer context of Col. 2:15, it is not said that Christ put off his body of flesh, but the powers and authorities. Further, in the ethical application of the teaching here which is given in chapter 3, Paul says (3:9) that the Colossians have “put off” the old man with his (evil) deeds, a statement which is very similar to the one used here.

Another option takes the genitive as subjective and translates as “a circumcision effected by Christ.” The NIV reads “done by Christ.” This makes Christ the circumciser of the Colossians’ hearts.
The last option sees the genitive as possessive. It is “Christ’s circumcision” or “Christian circumcision.” It is a circumcision that belongs to Christ. Either of the last two options fits the context better than the first option. The genitive of possession view, of course, does not preclude Christ from performing the circumcision, especially if we translate evn w-| kai. (2:11a) as “by whom also.”
In Tit. 3:5-6, God is said to have “saved us…by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Regeneration is by the Holy Spirit and through Jesus Christ and all is connected to God’s act in saving us. The Holy Spirit is the effective agent of regeneration; however, He is, nonetheless, the Spirit of Christ and God. In the economy of redemption, He convicts of sin and glorifies Christ by bringing the fruits of His redemption to the souls of elect sinners. And He does this as Christ’s emissary. The application of redemption is God’s act through Christ by the Spirit. Therefore, the genitive of possession option can be viewed in a way that encompasses the subjective genitive contention. It is Christ’s circumcision, as opposed to Moses’, the fathers’, or anyone else’s. It is Christian or New Covenant circumcision because it is under the authority and administration of Christ. He commissions the Holy Spirit to perform it, yet can be viewed as the author. As God uses means to save us, so Christ uses means to circumcise us.
An important observation to make at this point is that Christian circumcision, the circumcision of the heart, is the counterpart to physical circumcision. Harris says:

. . . v. 11 presents spiritual circumcision, not baptism, as the Christian counterpart to physical circumcision. A contrast is implied between circumcision as an external, physical act performed by human hands on a portion of the flesh eight days after birth and circumcision as an inward, spiritual act carried out by divine agency on the whole fleshly nature at the time of regeneration.

Just as everyone who was physically circumcised under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants became covenant members, so all who are spiritually circumcised become members of the New Covenant. Physical circumcision is replaced by spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant.
The fourth thing Paul tells us about this “circumcision made without hands” is its subsequent, spiritual concomitant or attendant. We are introduced to v. 12 by an aorist, passive participial clause, suntafe,ntej auvtw/| evn tw/| baptismw/| (“having been buried with Him in baptism”). The participle, suntafe,ntej (“having been buried”), finds as its antecedent verb perietmh,qhte (“you were circumcised”) of v. 11. It indicates a further and subordinate explanation of the “circumcision made without hands.” Wallace calls this a dependent, adverbial, temporal participle. Wallace defines this type of participle as follows:

In relation to its controlling verb, the temporal participle answers the question, When? Three kinds of time are in view: antecedent, contemporaneous, and subsequent. The antecedent participle should be translated after doing, after he did, etc. The contemporaneous participle should normally be translated while doing. And the subsequent participle should be translated before doing, before he does, etc. This usage is common.

The antecedent option would translate Col. 2:12a as “you were circumcised after being buried with Him in baptism.” This would make the “circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” causally dependent upon baptism and, therefore, a result of it. This would argue for post-baptismal (whether water or spiritual baptism) regeneration in the case of the Colossian believers. This seems far-fetched in light of our discussion thus far.
The contemporaneous option would translate Col. 2:12a as “you were circumcised while being buried with Him in baptism.” This would argue either for baptismal regeneration or that burial with Christ in baptism is synonymous with and epexegetical of the circumcision made without hands. This should be discarded for the reasons mentioned in connection with the antecedent option above. As we shall see, aorist participles subordinate to aorist main verbs are not always contemporaneous. And equating circumcision and baptism is not warranted from this text as we have noted and will become more evident as our discussion proceeds.
The subsequent option would translate Col. 2:12a as “you were circumcised before being buried with Him in baptism.” This view is best for the following reasons. First, according to Dana and Mantey, aorist participles subordinate to aorist verbs can express subsequent action. Second, the burial referred to in this verse is subsequent to the death of the old man in v. 11, effected by circumcision. Eadie says, “It is plain that the spiritual circumcision is not different from regeneration, or the putting off of the old man and putting on the new.” Though Paul does not use the same terminology as Eadie in this text, “the removal of the body of the flesh” effected by the “circumcision made without hands” does transform the old man into a new man, and thus implies the death of the old man (Col. 2:20; Rom. 6:6-7; Tit. 3:5). Third, this view maintains the death, burial, and resurrection motif of other Pauline texts (Col. 2:12, 20; 3:1, 3; Rom. 6:3-8). Fourth, this view comports with the rest of the verse, which sees faith as the means through which resurrection with Christ is effected (see the discussion below). Fifth, this view does not get one into the difficulties mentioned above in the other views. This argues for a causal relationship between circumcision and burial with Christ in baptism. The burial with Him in baptism was brought about causally subsequent to the circumcision. The subsequent, spiritual concomitant or attendant to spiritual circumcision, therefore, is burial with Christ in baptism. Burial with Christ in baptism came to the Colossians after being “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.”
The application of redemption is a complex of interrelated and interdependent divine redemptive acts. Our text has shown this to be the case thus far with the relationship between heart circumcision and burial with Christ. This leads us, however, to another question. What does Paul mean by burial with Him in baptism? Lightfoot takes the position that Paul is referring to physical, water baptism.

Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life.

Commenting on suntafe,ntej auvtw/| evn tw/| baptismw/| (“having been buried with Him in baptism”), A.S. Peake says:

This refers to the personal experience of the Christian. The rite of baptism, in which the person baptized was first buried beneath the water and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ.

Peake makes a crucial distinction that is necessitated by the flow of our discussion thus far. He does not equate burial with Him in baptism with water baptism, as did Lightfoot. He says, “The rite of baptism [i.e., water baptism], in which the person baptized was first buried beneath the water and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ (emphases added).” Lightfoot links regeneration with emerging from baptismal waters. Peake says that water baptism typifies burial and resurrection with Christ. We have seen that the “circumcision made without hands” is the presupposition of and causal prerequisite to burial with Christ in baptism. On this ground we must reject Lightfoot’s view. The baptism in view here, though typified by water baptism, is not to be equated with it.
Another important and related question also arises at this point. Since the circumcision the Colossians underwent was “without hands,” was the burial in baptism they underwent and their being “raised up with Him” also without hands? In other words, is the baptism Paul refers to here water baptism or that which water baptism signifies – burial and resurrection with Christ or union with Christ in His burial and resurrection? From our discussion thus far, it seems obvious that it must be the latter. Paul is not teaching that burial with Christ in water baptism was immediately preceded by their “circumcision made without hands.” How could he know that? How could he know that they were water baptized immediately upon their regeneration? He could not. However, he could know that all who are circumcised of heart are buried with Christ in spiritual baptism and raised with Him spiritually, typified by their water baptism, effected through faith (see the discussion below). We must agree with Ross, when he says:

It is important to say at this point that in both verse 11 and verse 12 Paul is not speaking of any physical rite or ceremony. The baptism in view in verse 12 is just as spiritual as the circumcision in verse 11. The physical rite of baptism signifies and seals that believers are raised up with Christ by faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead, but water baptism in and of itself does not accomplish this.

Paul could know that the Colossians were buried with Christ causally subsequent to their “circumcision made without hands” because he knew that all regenerate persons immediately express faith and are vitally united to Christ in His burial and resurrection. Murray gives eloquent comment to this:

…there is an invariable concomitance or co-ordination of regeneration and other fruits of grace. …As we shall see later, this is a very significant emphasis and warns us against any view of regeneration which abstracts it from the other elements of the application of redemption.

We must not think of regeneration as something which can be abstracted from the saving exercises which are its effects. …The regenerate person cannot live in sin and be unconverted.

There are numerous other considerations derived from the Scripture which confirm this great truth that regeneration is such a radical, pervasive, and efficacious transformation that it immediately registers itself in the conscious activity of the person concerned in the exercise of faith and repentance and new obedience [emphasis added].

Paul knew that regeneration was logically and causally prior to faith and is its immediate precondition. He knew that those circumcised of heart immediately expressed faith in the Son of God. This is why he tells the Colossians that upon being spiritually circumcised they expressed faith that united them vitally to Christ. This view is further substantiated when we understand the function of the next clause in the text.
The next issue is what to make of the evn w-| kai. clause, translated “in which you…also … (NASB)” of v. 12. Is it to be viewed as a second, parallel clause with the one in v. 11? If so, the Colossians’ completeness in Christ is argued first from their “circumcision made without hands” and second from their being “raised up with Him.” This view seems strained for several reasons. First, a general rule of the Greek language is that clauses and phrases modify the nearest antecedent, unless there is good reason in the text to go further afield. There is no compelling reason to go further than the immediate antecedent evn tw/| baptismw/| (“in baptism”). While some argue that the evn w-| kai. clause of v. 12 is grammatically parallel with the evn w-| kai. clause of v. 11 (that’s the only apparently substantial argument for this view), grammatical (formal) parallels are not necessarily syntactical (functional) parallels. A second reason why this view is strained is because the evn w-| kai. clause of v. 12 continues with language normally connected to what precedes it. Paul continues, evn w-| kai. sunhge,rqhte (“in which you were also raised up with Him”). Paul is completing his thought begun in the beginning of the verse. The fact that Paul often speaks of burial, baptism, and resurrection with Christ together leans us in the direction that this clause is subordinate to evn tw/| baptismw/| (“in baptism”). Just as the Colossians were buried with Christ in baptism, so they were raised with Him in baptism.
The rest of v. 12, then, is subordinate to tw/| baptismw/| (“baptism”). Paul says that in spiritual baptism sunhge,rqhte dia. th/j pi,stewj (“you were also raised up with Him through faith”). The prepositional phrase dia. th/j pi,stewj (“through faith”) indicates the means through which the Colossians were raised with Christ. Meyer says:

Paul is describing the subjective medium, without which the joint awakening, though objectively and historically accomplished in the resurrection of Christ, would not be appropriated individually… The unbeliever has not the blessing of having risen with Christ, because he stands apart from the fellowship of life with Christ, just as also he has not the reconciliation, although the reconciliation of all has been accomplished objectively through Christ’s death.

Clearly, the faith here is that expressed by the Colossians. This is the first mention of human response in the text and this response comes as a result of being circumcised “without hands.” Those who already possess the circumcision “made without hands” experience this complex of spiritual events, being buried and raised with Christ in baptism through faith. This is another reason why Paul cannot be speaking of water baptism in the text. For many who are water baptized do not have faith. But the ones described here exercised faith as a means or instrument through which they were united to Christ in His burial and resurrection. Commenting on Eph. 2:5ff and Col. 2:12, Gaffin says, “being raised with Christ is an experience with which faith is associated in an instrumental fashion.” Being raised with Christ, as with being buried with Him, is causally dependent upon being “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” As the Colossians’ circumcision was without hands, so was their burial and rising with Christ.
The final words of v. 12 are subordinate to dia. th/j pi,stewj (“through faith”). There are two ways to understand the words th/j evnergei,aj tou/ qeou/ (“in the working of God”). The question concerns the function of the genitive tou/ qeou/ (“of God”). Either it is subjective or objective. If subjective, then Paul is saying that their faith is the effect of God’s working in them. God gave them faith. God worked faith in them. If objective, then their faith was in the power exercised by God in the resurrection of Christ. The working of God’s power in the resurrection of Christ, according to this view, is the object of their faith. The final participial clause of v. 12, tou/ evgei,rantoj auvto.n evk nekrw/n (“who raised Him from the dead”), is subordinate to tou/ qeou/ (“of God”). God is the one who raised Christ from the dead by His power. Though it is certainly true that faith is the effect of God’s working in the soul, it is best to understand th/j evnergei,aj tou/ qeou/ (“in the working of God”) here as objective, as the thing believed or the content of their faith. One reason for this view is that “the genitive after pi,stij [“faith”], when not that of the person, is always that of the object.” Also, elsewhere Paul makes the resurrection of Christ effected by God the object of saving faith (cf., Rom. 10:9).
Christians are complete in Christ because they have received a circumcision made without hands – regeneration. Regeneration produces faith that vitally unites souls to Christ in the efficacy of His burial and resurrection. This vital union with Christ in burial and resurrection is a spiritual baptism. Vital union brings believing sinners into the orbit of redemptive privilege and power. Every sinner circumcised in heart immediately expresses saving faith in God’s power in raising Christ from the dead. Burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism cannot be abstracted from its causal prerequisite – regeneration. If one has been buried and raised with Christ in baptism, it is only because one has been circumcised “without hands.” The result of regeneration, faith, is the instrumental cause of union with Christ. And the union with Christ of Col. 2:12 ushers the believer experientially into the complex of redemptive privileges purchased by the Lord Jesus Christ for the elect. In other words, this is the experience of all believers, though not of all those water baptized. All of this may be typified by water baptism, though it is not effected by it. Christians are complete in Christ because of regeneration and its effects in the soul.

Colossians 2:11-12 in The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism

The Scripture index to The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism contains 17 entries for Col. 2:11-12. Space does not permit us to discuss every entry. However, we will examine a few of the uses in light of the exposition above.
Mark Ross, in his chapter “Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals,” says:

It is imperative that we look more closely at this verse in the Greek text. Colossians 2:12 is a continuation of verse 11, which itself is a continuation of the sentence begun in verse 9. Verse 12 is a series of participial phrases, all of which are related to the main verb in verse 11, “you were circumcised.” Thus, in verse 12 Paul is explaining more fully just how it is that the Colossians have been circumcised in this circumcision made without hands. They were circumcised, “having been buried with [Christ] in baptism.” Thus, verse 12 explains how the Colossians were “circumcised.”

Colossians 2:12 in fact contains only two participles. The first, suntafe,ntej (“having been buried with”), is the first word of the verse and is immediately subordinate to the main verb perietmh,qhte (“you were circumcised”). The second is tou/ evgei,rantoj (“who raised [Him from the dead]”) and is immediately subordinate to tou/ qeou/ (“of God”). Though it is remotely related to the main verb, it is not in an immediate, adverbial relationship to it. Ross’ statement makes it appear so but it is not. He oversimplifies the syntax. Further, he claims that the participle suntafe,ntej (“having been buried with”) begins Paul’s explanation of “how the Colossians were ‘circumcised.’” However, we have seen that Paul already explained how the Colossians were circumcised before he got to v. 12. They were “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (v. 11). Verse 12 reveals to us the subsequent, spiritual concomitant of their circumcision, not “how the Colossians were ‘circumcised.’” It tells us when the Colossians were buried and raised with Christ in baptism.
On the next page, Ross says, “The baptism of Colossians 2:12 can only be the reality of the Spirit’s working to regenerate the heart and free the soul from the dominion of sin.” But, as we have seen, v. 12 speaks of a spiritual, vital union with Christ effected through faith. This presupposes regeneration (v. 11). If both verses are describing regeneration, then Paul could be paraphrased as saying, “You were regenerated when you were regenerated.” This would certainly be a cumbersome tautology and does not respect the syntax of the text. The Bible uses other words and phrases to describe regeneration that Paul could have used here (i.e., born from above). However, it is clear from the exposition above that Paul is not speaking about regeneration in v. 12. He is speaking about the fruit of regeneration – union with Christ in burial and resurrection, effected through faith.
Cornelis Venema, in his chapter “Covenant Theology and Baptism,” says:

…it is not surprising to find the apostle Paul treating baptism as the new covenant counterpart to circumcision (Col. 2:11-13). …Baptism now represents the spiritual circumcision “made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh” (Col. 2:11).

Venema offers no exegesis, only assertions. Our exegesis above has made it clear that Col. 2:11-12 does not warrant such statements. The New Covenant counterpart to physical circumcision is spiritual circumcision. Venema’s claim, in essence, is that water baptism represents regeneration. The baptism of Col. 2:12, however, is spiritual baptism that represents vital union with Christ. Regeneration is presupposed and effects burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism through faith. Venema is assuming that baptism has replaced circumcision by this statement. Our exegesis has shown this to be an unwarranted implication of the text.
In a context discussing the household baptisms of the New Testament, Joel Beeke and Ray Lanning say:

Similarly, children of believing parents are addressed as members of churches at Ephesus (Eph. 6:1-4) and Colossae (Col. 3:20). These children were also baptized, as Paul affirms in Colossians 2:11-12, where he calls baptism “the circumcision of Christ.”

This appears to claim that Paul is speaking of water baptism in Col. 2:11-12. If this is what the authors are claiming, it contradicts what we have seen Ross claim later in the book, where he says, “It is important to say at this point that in both verse 11 and verse 12 Paul is not speaking of any physical rite or ceremony. The baptism in view in verse 12 is just as spiritual as the circumcision in verse 11.” Also, we have already seen that all who are spiritually circumcised are spiritually buried and raised with Christ, effected through faith. Beeke and Lanning’s statement would then imply that all the children Paul was addressing were also regenerated. But, of course, they do not advocate that. The main problem with their statement comes in its final sentence. “These children were also baptized, as Paul affirms in Colossians 2:11-12, where he calls baptism ‘the circumcision of Christ.’” They equate circumcision with baptism. But, as we have seen clearly, Paul does not do this.

Pertinent Conclusions

Baptism does not replace circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. We have seen clearly that spiritual circumcision, not baptism, replaces physical circumcision. Baptism in Col. 2:12 (i.e., vital union with Christ) is a result of spiritual circumcision. Burial and resurrection with Christ is not equivalent to but causally subsequent to spiritual circumcision. Physical circumcision has been replaced by spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant. The correspondence between the two, however, is not one-to-one. Paul tells us this by saying that New Covenant circumcision is “a circumcision made without hands.” Though physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision are related they are not equivalent. One is physical and does not affect the heart; the other is spiritual and does not affect the body. Both are indications of covenant membership. But only the circumcision of the heart guarantees one’s eternal destiny, for all the regenerate express faith and “are protected by the power of God through faith” (1 Pet. 1:5).
We must take issue with those who argue from this text that baptism replaces circumcision. The Lutheran scholar Eduard Lohse asserts, “Baptism is called circumcision here… The circumcision of Christ which every member of the community has experienced is nothing other than being baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ.” We have seen, however, that the only replacement motif in this text is between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision. Spiritual circumcision is not equivalent to baptism. Baptism (i.e. union with Christ) is the sphere in which burial and resurrection with Christ occurs, which is effected through faith, and a result of spiritual circumcision.
The Reformed commentator William Hendriksen says:

Evidently Paul in this entire paragraph magnifies Christian baptism as much as he, by clear implication, disapproves of the continuation of the rite of circumcision if viewed as having anything to do with salvation. The definite implication, therefore, is that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. Hence, what is said with reference to circumcision in Rom. 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism. In the Colossian context baptism is specifically a sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him [emphasis Hendriksen’s].

We take issue with Hendriksen’s view on several fronts. First, Paul is not magnifying Christian baptism in this text. He is magnifying Christian circumcision. This is evident by the fact that “you were also circumcised” is the regulating verb to which the rest of vv. 11 and 12 are subordinate. Second, there is not a “definite implication …that baptism has taken the place of circumcision.” Our exegesis has shown us this clearly. Third, it is not true that “what is said with reference to circumcision in Rom. 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism.” This is so because Paul is not arguing for a replacement theology between physical circumcision and water baptism and because the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). Fourth, Paul says nothing in Col. 2:11-12 about baptism being “a sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him.” He does say that the subsequent, spiritual concomitant of spiritual circumcision is spiritual burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism effected through faith. There is no hint of baptism being a sign and seal as argued by Hendriksen. It is of interest to note one of Hendriksen’s footnotes to these statements. Notice the concession he makes.

I am speaking here about a clear implication. The surface contrast is that between literal circumcision and circumcision without hands, namely, the circumcision of the heart, as explained. But the implication also is clear. Hence, the following statement is correct: “Since, then, baptism has come in the place of circumcision (Col. 2:11-13), the children should be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant” (Form for the Baptism of Infants in Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1959, p. 86). When God made his covenant with Abraham the children were included (Gen. 17:1-14). This covenant, in its spiritual aspects, was continued in the present dispensation (Acts 2:38, 29; Rom. 4:9-12; Gal. 3:7, 8, 29). Therefore the children are still included and should still receive the sign, which in the present dispensation, as Paul makes clear in Col. 2:11, 12, is baptism [emphases Hendriksen’s].

Hendriksen’s concession that “The surface contrast is that between literal circumcision and circumcision without hands” surely sheds doubt over his initial claim of “speaking here about a clear implication.” Again, we have seen that Paul is not arguing that water baptism replaces physical circumcision as a sign and seal of the covenant. It does not follow, then, that “the children should be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant.” Paul does not say or imply that the sign of the covenant is baptism. Instead, the sign of the covenant is regeneration. All who are spiritually circumcised are immediately buried and raised with Christ in baptism, effected through faith. Colossians 2:11-12 is about the application of redemption to elect souls and does not imply infant baptism, some of which are not elect. If it implies anything about water baptism, it implies that it ought to be administered to those who have been circumcised of heart and vitally united to Christ through faith as a symbol of these spiritual blessings.
All who are circumcised of heart are buried and raised with Christ through faith immediately subsequent to their heart circumcision. Regeneration cannot be abstracted from its immediate fruits. All regenerate souls are immediately untied to Christ through faith. This is what Col. 2:11-12 clearly teaches. Our exegesis argues for an ordo salutus as follows: regeneration, then union with Christ through faith. And this experience is that of all the regenerate and has nothing to do with the act of water baptism in itself.
This text neither teaches baptismal regeneration nor implies infant baptism. In context, it is displaying the completeness believers have in Christ. It does not apply to unbelievers or to all who are baptized by any mode and by properly recognized ecclesiastical administrators. It has to do with the spiritual realities that come to souls who are Christ’s sheep. It has to do with the application of redemption to elect sinners. It has to do with regeneration, faith, and experiential union with Christ. These are the aspects of completeness in Christ Paul highlights here. We should gain much encouragement from these things. They were revealed to fortify believers against error. They were written to strengthen saints already in Christ. They were not revealed as proof for the subjects of baptism. They were not revealed to teach us that water baptism replaces physical circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. God gave us Col. 2:11-12 to display this fact: When you have Jesus, you have all you need!
]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/318-exegetical-appraisal-colossians-2-11-12.html The 5 Points of a Reformed Baptist Churches http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/317-5-points-reformed-baptist-churches.html Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:23:34 GMT Taken from http://www.prbctoledo.org/beliefs/convictions/ 5 Points of RBC The five points of Reformed Baptist Churches A brief out-line of our distinctive convictions I REFORMATIONAL A. Sola Scriptura B. Solus Christus C. Sola Gratia Taken from http://www.prbctoledo.org/beliefs/convictions/

5 Points of RBC
The five points of Reformed Baptist Churches
A brief out-line of our distinctive convictions

I REFORMATIONAL
A. Sola Scriptura
B. Solus Christus
C. Sola Gratia
D. Sola Fide
E. Soli Deo Gloria

The Bible is the complete, closed and clear authority in all matters of faith.
Our confidence is in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
Grace secured redemption without reference to works.
We are declared righteous by God through faith alone (1).
Goal of creation and redemption is God‘s praise.

II CALVINISTIC
A. Total Depravity
B. Unconditional Election
C. Limited Atonement
D. Irresistible Grace
E. Perseverance of the Saints

The fall of Adam affected the totality of man’s person (2).
Election is not based on foreseen faith or works (3).
Redemption was accomplished by Christ for elect (4) .
Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is efficacious for elect.
God will, by grace, complete what He began in regeneration of the elect.

III PURITAN
A. Godliness in Worship
B. Godliness in Preaching
C. Godliness in Instruction
D. Godliness in Family
E. Godliness in Behavior

Regulative Principle of Worship(5), the Lord’s Day as a Christian Sabbath.
Primacy of preaching. Both exposition and application emphasized.
Confessional and catholic. Publishing what we believe the Bible teaches (6).
Parents are to instruct (catechize) and discipline their children in the Lord.
Maintaining a good conscience before God and man.

IV COVENANTAL
A. Unity of the Bible
B. Christ-centered interpretation
C. Law / Gospel distinction
D. One way of salvation
E. Optimistic view of history

Many parts yet one message.
Jesus’ person, work and kingdom is the theme of the Bible.
Law (7) commands and condemns. Gospel saves (8).
Christ has saved all the elect throughout all the ages.
Jesus Christ is now King ruling over all. He will soon come again.

V BAPTIST
A. Biblical Church Practice
B. Biblical Church Freedom
C. Biblical Church Government
D. Biblical Church Growth
E. Biblical Church Ministry

Ordinances for believers only (9). Church discipline lovingly exercised.
The state is not to intrude into matters of conscience.
Elders and deacons. The local congregation chooses its leaders (10).
Gospel proclamation to the world. Repentance and Faith demanded of all.
Priesthood of all believers (11).



(1) This is an imputed alien righteousness. Justification is perfect, neither waxing nor waning.
(2) We agree with Martin Luther that man‘s “will comes from the devil and from Adam.”
(3) A Calvinistic understanding of Salvation: We reject all man centered understanding of salvation.
“She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Matt. 1:21 cf. John 10:11,14-18,24-29; Acts 20:28; Isa. 53
(5) As opposed to the “Normative principle” which states that what is not forbidden is allowed. Our worship service is built around the Scriptures read, preached and sang.
(6) We hold to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689. Additionally the Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian and Chalcedonian creeds express our understanding of orthodoxy.
(7) We recognize the “Three uses of the law.” First, the law serves as a guide to society in promoting civic righteousness. Secondly, the law convicts sinners and drives them to Christ. Thirdly, the law directs Christians in holy living.
(8) Law and Gospel are in both Old and New Testaments. The gospel is the promises of God to His elect.
(9) Infant baptism is alien to the practice of the New Testament. Likewise, immersion is the proper mode of baptism.
(10) “A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church.” We recognize no greater authority than the local church.
(11) The local church is a spiritual family where relationships are to be open and honest. All matters are handled in charity and patience. Only through every-member participation can individuals grow in grace and love.

Adapted and Developed by Pastor David Charles ]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/317-5-points-reformed-baptist-churches.html Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/316-covenantal-baptists-reformed-historical-understanding-reformed-theology.html Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:55:13 GMT *Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology* Here is a link to Matthew MacMahon’s article What Does It Mean To Be Reformed. http://apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McM...BeReformed.htm This is response to... Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology

Here is a link to Matthew MacMahon’s article What Does It Mean To Be Reformed.
http://apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McM...BeReformed.htm

This is response to all of those who are at conflict over Dr. R. Scott Clark’s comments here. http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009...-brother-john/

Dr. Clark said, "Calling a Baptist “Reformed” is like calling Presbyterians “Baptist” because they believe in believer’s baptism. The Reformed churches do practice the baptism of unbaptized believers but they also baptize the infants of believers. No self-respecting, confessional Baptist should accept me as “Baptist” and Reformed folk should resist labeling anyone who rejects most of Reformed theology as “Reformed.”


This comment got a lot of attention on his blog. Especially since he has a readership that includes many Reformed Baptists. I am one of them.

I would agree with this comment by Rev. Matthew Winzer on the Puritanboard.com,
"I think the last time this was discussed the consensus was that "reformed" before "baptist" is one thing, and "reformed" on its own is another. Reformed Baptists are just that -- Baptists who have become reformed. But they are still distinct from reformed churches."

Just to clarify some things here, I believe everyone is getting up in arms over terms they have endeared themselves to. Let me give you all an example. A Pastor friend of mine wrote a blog defining what a Reformed Baptist was. http://www.prbctoledo.org/beliefs/convictions/ This of course made some Baptists upset because they wanted to be included as Reformed Baptists but they were dispensational (denying Covenant Theology) or had problems with one of the other points that Pastor David Charles included in his definition of what a Reformed Baptist is. These guys generally are New Covenant Theologians or Calvinistic Dispensationalists as John MacArthur. Just as some of the Calvinistic Baptists were offended by Pastor Charles, many Credo Baptists are finding themselves offended at Dr. Clark's insinuation that Baptists are not Reformed Theologians.

The term Reformed Baptist is a rather new one in church history. It was developed around the time that Ernest Reisinger was starting to work with Banner of Truth Trust by bringing good Puritan and Reformed writings back to the American Churches. He was the first ordained Preaching Layman in a Presbyterian Church. He was undecided about his position concerning baptism when he was ordained to preach. But he became a Credo Covenantal Baptist as time went on. It has been thought by some that Ernie's close association with Banner of Truth Trust (A Reformed Publishing Company) and his adherence to the Credo-Baptist position that somehow made the two terms come together.

Historic Baptist theology was being rediscovered during this time. Dispensationalism had taken over much of the church in the mid 1900's. And it is not the Historic Theology of the Reformers. It denies Covenant Theology and formed a new basis of hermeneutics and how others looked at portions of scripture. This dispensational hermeneutic interpreted the Bible in portions claiming that some sections were only meant for the Jews and certain periods of time and other sections were for everyone and others just for the gentiles. Example…Matthew chapter 5 is just for the Jews in the Millennium. This was foreign to Covenant Theology and very unbiblical. Ernie helped in a major way to get the Church back on track by being a representative for Banner of Truth Trust and promoting Covenantal thinking back into the American Church. To the dismay of some, even some Presby's took up with dispensational teaching.

Historically the Puritan Credo Pastors in the 1600's were not known as Reformed but as Particular Baptists. They did hold to a Covenant Theology much like the Reformers but more closely to a Covenant Theology that was taught by John Owen and Samuel Petto. The New is not the Old renewed. It is New. They held to a unity of the Covenant of Grace through out the scriptures but more discontinuity between the particular covenants that God had instituted through Abraham, Moses, etc. These Baptists also adhered to the same soteriology of the Reformers. But they held to a different understanding of who was a Covenant Member in the Covenant of Grace. They believed that only the Elect were Covenant Members in the Covenant of Grace. The Confessional Reformers held that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants were administrations of the Covenant of Grace and that it included both the elect and non-elect per their physical covenantal lineage.

There are Baptists today who call themselves Reformed Baptists because they hold to the 5 points of Calvinism but they are not Covenant Theologians. Some have developed a new theology called New Covenant Theology. It denies the Covenant of Works and may tend to be antinomian in some ways.

The term Reformed (as it has been used in Church history) has been prostituted from the Confessional understanding of what it meant to be Reformed. It has lost some of its defined power because of those who wish to be called reformed when in fact they are not according to Confessional Christians. I am a Reformed Baptist as it is known in Pastor David Charles blog. But more accurately I am a Particular Baptist that holds to the 1689 LBCF.

When Matthew McMahan challenged me on what Reformed meant when I joined the Puritanboard.com, I was slightly offended because he said I wasn't reformed. I just said he wasn't reformed enough. I was ignorant about what he meant in its historical theological understanding. I was thinking of Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Calvin, Bunyan, Owen, and all those during the time of the reformation and thinking that I was following their teachings. But some would say that Luther and Melancthon are not Reformed. I guess it depends on what you are referring to when you say Reformed. I think when a person is defining what Reformed is it matters what a person is referring to in relation to the time period or a system of doctrinal understanding. According to the Presbyterian's and Reformed Confessional Churches those who are reformed are those who are confessional paedo's and have an ecclesiology that lines up with their understanding of how a church organism should be and work. Ok, I can live with that. Especially since it is based upon a historical and theological understanding. But boy, if you are a Baptistic New Covenant or Dispensational Theologian and you want to be called a Reformed Baptist, you are going to far. We all have our pet names and we want to protect them.

Be Encouraged,
R. Martin Snyder ]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/316-covenantal-baptists-reformed-historical-understanding-reformed-theology.html Is the New Covenant really New. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/315-new-covenant-really-new.html Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:55:25 GMT Just a quote from Fred A. Malone quoting John Owen.



Quote:
When we speak of the "new Covenant" we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though that were not before in this place. For it was always the same, as to the substance of it, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and efficacy, unalterable, "everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure." All who contend about these things, the Socianians only excepted, do grant that the covenant of grace, considered absolutely,- that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, - was the only way and means of salvation unto the church, from the first entrance of sin. But for two reasons it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect unto any other things, nor was it so under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it unto Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but was with respect unto other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely under the Old testament it consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scriptures, Acts 2:39; Jer 6:14-16. The apostle indeed says, that the covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, before the giving of the law, Gal 3:17. And so it was, not absolutely in itself, but in the promise and benefits of it. The nomothesia, or full legal establishment of it, whence it became formally a covenant unto the whole church, was future only, and a promise under the old testament... but now, under the new testament, this covenant, with its own seals and appointments, is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship. Wherefore the new covenant promised in the Scripture, and here opposed unto the old, is not the promise of grace, mercy, life and salvation by Christ, absolutely considered but as it had the formal nature of a covenant given unto it, in its establishment of the death of Christ, the procuring cause of all its benefits, and the declaring of it to be the only rule of worship and obedience unto the Church. So that although by the covenant of grace," we oftentimes understand not more but the way of life, grace, mercy, and salvation by Christ yet by "the new covenant" we intend its actual establisment in the death of Christ with that blessed way of worship whcih by it is settle in the church.
John Owen quoted Hebrews 6: 74-75
Quote:
...The promise of the New Covenant, the purer administration of the Covenant of Grace, was part of the Abrahamic Covenant. However the Abrahamic Covenant also contained other elements regarding Abraham's seed that were unique to its administration until the final "Seed" comes (Galatians 3:16,19). ... Each covenant's content must be determined by specific revelation concerning that covenant.

quotes taken from
The Baptism of Disciples Alone
Fred Malone
pp 61,62
]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/315-new-covenant-really-new.html Hymn of praise to Christ by John Calvin http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/288-hymn-praise-christ-john-calvin.html Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:42:33 GMT If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that it is “of him”[1 Cor. 1:30]. If we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, they will be found in his anointing. If we seek strength, it lies in his dominion; if purity, in his conception; if gentleness, it appears in his birth. For by his birth he was made like us in all respects [Heb. 2:17] that he might learn to feel our pain [Heb. 5:2]. If we seek redemption, it lies in his passion; if acquittal, in his condemnation; if remission of the curse, in his cross [Gal. 3:13]; if satisfaction, in his sacrifice; if purification, in his blood; if reconciliation, in his descent into hell; if mortification of the flesh, in his tomb; if newness of life, in his resurrection; if immortality, in heaven; if protection, if security, if abundant supply of all blessings, in his Kingdom; if untroubled expectation of judgment, in the power given him to judge. In short, since rich store of every kind of goods abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other.

John Calvin
Hymn to Christ
A theological guide to Calvin’s Institutes p 240 ]]> PuritanCovenanter http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/288-hymn-praise-christ-john-calvin.html