I thought I would never hear myself say these words but I believe I have or am slipping into the Paedo-Baptist camp. Many of you thought that this might happen since I already became a Presbyterian in Polity and lately accepted Pouring as a mode for Baptism. I guess I was holding to my last visage of cradle faith, that of credobaptism. A sermon or two from our pastor and a few good articles from Dr. Scott Clark and extra study from internet articles have lead me down this path. Things that are really undeniable... I will try to summarize what I accept and see through Covenant Eyes....
Circumcision and Baptism are signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace which is the New Covenant which the Abrahamic Covenant was the New Covenant and not the Old Covenant.
The Old Covenant was indeed the Mosaic Covenant, Not the Abrahamic Covenant.
The Abrahamic Covenant IS the Covenant of Promise, the Covenant of Grace, An Everlasting Covenant, abet Foreseeing of the promise of Christ as we Look back to the promise of Christ.
The Mosaic Covenant was Types and Shadows (Ceremonial Aspects) that was to point us to Christ. It was all Typological, The Rituals, The Priesthood, The Kingship of David and were intended to be temporary, to be fulfilled by the reality: Christ. The Mosaic Covenant was also a republication of the Covenant of Works.
When the New Testament Speaks of the Old Covenant it is only referring to the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant.
When the New Testament Speaks of the New Covenant it puts it in the same category of Faithful Abraham and of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Dr. Scott Clark said it best with "Don't miss the fundamental identification of all New Covenant believers with Abraham. "It is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." In other words, genetics means nothing -- never has-- ultimately. What matters is true faith, and specifically faith that inherits or receives the promise of justification sola gratia, sola fide, the same promise given to Abraham. Thus we are blessed "along with Abraham."
Does Abraham here appear as an "Old Covenant" figure? No. Keep going in Gal 3. In v. 10 Paul contrasts "those who rely on works of the law" with (v. 11) “The righteous shall live by faith.” How does the blessing of Abraham come to anyone? In v. 14, it is "in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham" comes to "the Gentiles....."
Here comes the clincher. In v. 15 Paul appeals to the way covenants were made in the ancient world. No one annuls a "man-made" covenant "or adds to it once it has been ratified." This is significant because "the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, “And to seeds,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your seed,” who is Christ." In other words, whoever has faith in Christ has the promise, because Christ is the promise. Abraham had faith in Christ. Abraham was a Christian. Abraham is not identified with Moses, who is typically identified with the law, rather he is identified with the gospel.
In v. 17 Paul makes the point even clearer. The Mosaic covenant, the Old Covenant, came 430 years after the promise to Abraham. It was a codicil to the covenant. It didn't change the fundamental character of the covenant of grace God made with Abraham and to his children. Why was the Mosaic, Old Covenant given? In v. 19 Paul says that it was given "because of transgressions," i.e., it was given as a schoolmaster to drive sinners to Christ. For the rest of the chapter he elaborates on how the Old Covenant was temporary and the covenant of grace is not. Indeed, he wrote a whole the better part of an entire chapter on this very theme in Gal 4. Those who think that the Old, Mosaic, Covenant is the "real thing" are looking in the wrong direction. There are two women, Hagar and Sarah, who represent (Gal 4:24-31) two covenants. Sarah (Abraham and Isaac) represents the covenant of grace and Hagar (and Ishmael) represent the Jerusalem from below.
Again, going back to Rom 4 just briefly, how does Paul speak of Abraham? He is the "father of all who believe" (4:11), both Jew and Gentile. Abraham was justified by faith and so are we. We are under the same promises, the same grace that he was. Thus our Lord said, "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced" (John 8:56).
Abraham was a member of the very same covenant of grace of which we are members. He was a member of the covenant of grace under a different, typological administration, but it was the same covenant of grace."
The New Covenant is build on better promises then the Old Covenant which was the Mosaic Covenant.
Circumcision was given to Abraham and his seed in Genesis 17:7 for reasons I might not fully understand... Circumcision was the sign of the covenant of grace which existed in the Abrahamic Covenant as the Internal and External Aspects of the Covenant of Grace. Unbelieving Jews still received the sign of the Covenant by having parents who were part of the Covenant.
The External and Internal Aspects of the Covenant of Grace is the same as the Visible and Invisible Aspects of the New Covenant which is the Covenant of Grace.
Accordingly the Promise has carried over with the same Promise in Acts 2:38, 39 which Peter says "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children."
Wait, that is the language of Genesis 17:7... The Promise is to you and to your children.
Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant Epoch. Which even in Baptist circles are still given to unbelievers (It is unavoidable this side of glory) So the Visible Church is made of believers and unbelievers in the same way as in the Abrahamic Covenant.
The Invisible Church is made up of only those who are internally in the covenant of God, the Elect. It was true in Abraham's Day and it is true today.
But there has always been unbelievers externally in covenant with God without a heart change. They will have a greater account to give since they have had greater access to the gospel.
Paul certainly makes this distinction in Rom 2:28 between those who are in the covenant of grace "outwardly" and those who are in the covenant of grace "outwardly" and inwardly, i.e., by grace alone through faith alone.
It is undeniable that unbelievers are in the church today and there will always be Ishmael's in the New Covenant. If there were Esaus and Ishmaels in the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace and there was a Hymenaeus and an Alexander (and Ananias and Sapphira). Then is the New Covenant so utterly different from the covenant of grace as it was under Abraham?
In my Baptistic Understanding I was misviewing the Visible and Invisible aspects of the Church which is the same as the Internal and External aspects of the Church in the Old Testament. And I was overreaching with a over-realized eschatology of the Church in Consummation when the Visible and Invisible Church becomes one and the same with only true believers.
I will end this post with a last comment, a quote from Dr. Scott Clark about those who are externally in covenant without a heart change..
" It's possible for those who participate in the administration of the covenant of grace, in the New Covenant, to "taste of the powers of the age to come." Sure they do. They're baptized (1 Cor 10) and they come to the Lord's Table. They're in the congregation. They hear the gospel. They sing the psalms and when they leave, they "profane the blood of the covenant." They've walked between the pieces, as it were, they've gone through the covenant cutting ritual by coming to the Lord's Table. They've received baptism and come under its promises but also its jeopardy."
So they will be held in greater account then those outside of the covenant.
__________________
Michael Daniels
Reformed, RPCNA
Denton, Maryland
[i][b]As For Me And My House, We Will Serve The Lord[/i][/b]
[SIZE="1"][I][FONT="Century Gothic"]Unum Deum in Trinitate: Pater, Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus [RIGHT]Sola scriptura - Sola gratia - Sola fide - Solus Christus - Soli Deo gloria - Solum psalterium - Lex talionis[/RIGHT][/FONT][/I][/SIZE]
So, when are you going to change your signature? I am curious, why the "ack?" Is it such a terrible thing that you are now joining the ranks of the truly saved? After all, one is only saved by being an infant who is baptized, and we should look to our baptism as the only proper means of assurance in the faith. Is your leg off yet? I'm pulling pretty hard.
As for the Ack, I was being alittle goofy with the title...
Thanks for the leg pull... I will not lean FV by the Grace of God...
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins
So, when are you going to change your signature? I am curious, why the "ack?" Is it such a terrible thing that you are now joining the ranks of the truly saved? After all, one is only saved by being an infant who is baptized, and we should look to our baptism as the only proper means of assurance in the faith. Is your leg off yet? I'm pulling pretty hard.
I remember someone here had an avatar that said "Come to the dark side - we've got cookies." (And yes, we do have cookies, and yes, we will share them.)
__________________
Kevin
Far East
Deacon, Int'l Church
I went to a Presby bible study last tuesday night. They got thier brain wave machine out and tried to get me. Luckily I had tinfoil under my hat and I was able to escape unharmed. Other than that I had a good time.
Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley, Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly.
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann. www.wildernessroadbaptist.org
I thought I would never hear myself say these words but I believe I have or am slipping into the Paedo-Baptist camp. Many of you thought that this might happen since I already became a Presbyterian in Polity and lately accepted Pouring as a mode for Baptism. I guess I was holding to my last visage of cradle faith, that of credobaptism. A sermon or two from our pastor and a few good articles from Dr. Scott Clark and extra study from internet articles have lead me down this path. Things that are really undeniable... I will try to summarize what I accept and see through Covenant Eyes....
Circumcision and Baptism are signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace which is the New Covenant which the Abrahamic Covenant was the New Covenant and not the Old Covenant.
The Old Covenant was indeed the Mosaic Covenant, Not the Abrahamic Covenant.
The Abrahamic Covenant IS the Covenant of Promise, the Covenant of Grace, An Everlasting Covenant, abet Foreseeing of the promise of Christ as we Look back to the promise of Christ.
The Mosaic Covenant was Types and Shadows (Ceremonial Aspects) that was to point us to Christ. It was all Typological, The Rituals, The Priesthood, The Kingship of David and were intended to be temporary, to be fulfilled by the reality: Christ. The Mosaic Covenant was also a republication of the Covenant of Works.
When the New Testament Speaks of the Old Covenant it is only referring to the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant.
When the New Testament Speaks of the New Covenant it puts it in the same category of Faithful Abraham and of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Dr. Scott Clark said it best with "Don't miss the fundamental identification of all New Covenant believers with Abraham. "It is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." In other words, genetics means nothing -- never has-- ultimately. What matters is true faith, and specifically faith that inherits or receives the promise of justification sola gratia, sola fide, the same promise given to Abraham. Thus we are blessed "along with Abraham."
Does Abraham here appear as an "Old Covenant" figure? No. Keep going in Gal 3. In v. 10 Paul contrasts "those who rely on works of the law" with (v. 11) “The righteous shall live by faith.” How does the blessing of Abraham come to anyone? In v. 14, it is "in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham" comes to "the Gentiles....."
Here comes the clincher. In v. 15 Paul appeals to the way covenants were made in the ancient world. No one annuls a "man-made" covenant "or adds to it once it has been ratified." This is significant because "the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, “And to seeds,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your seed,” who is Christ." In other words, whoever has faith in Christ has the promise, because Christ is the promise. Abraham had faith in Christ. Abraham was a Christian. Abraham is not identified with Moses, who is typically identified with the law, rather he is identified with the gospel.
In v. 17 Paul makes the point even clearer. The Mosaic covenant, the Old Covenant, came 430 years after the promise to Abraham. It was a codicil to the covenant. It didn't change the fundamental character of the covenant of grace God made with Abraham and to his children. Why was the Mosaic, Old Covenant given? In v. 19 Paul says that it was given "because of transgressions," i.e., it was given as a schoolmaster to drive sinners to Christ. For the rest of the chapter he elaborates on how the Old Covenant was temporary and the covenant of grace is not. Indeed, he wrote a whole the better part of an entire chapter on this very theme in Gal 4. Those who think that the Old, Mosaic, Covenant is the "real thing" are looking in the wrong direction. There are two women, Hagar and Sarah, who represent (Gal 4:24-31) two covenants. Sarah (Abraham and Isaac) represents the covenant of grace and Hagar (and Ishmael) represent the Jerusalem from below.
Again, going back to Rom 4 just briefly, how does Paul speak of Abraham? He is the "father of all who believe" (4:11), both Jew and Gentile. Abraham was justified by faith and so are we. We are under the same promises, the same grace that he was. Thus our Lord said, "Abraham saw my day and rejoiced" (John 8:56).
Abraham was a member of the very same covenant of grace of which we are members. He was a member of the covenant of grace under a different, typological administration, but it was the same covenant of grace."
The New Covenant is build on better promises then the Old Covenant which was the Mosaic Covenant.
Circumcision was given to Abraham and his seed in Genesis 17:7 for reasons I might not fully understand... Circumcision was the sign of the covenant of grace which existed in the Abrahamic Covenant as the Internal and External Aspects of the Covenant of Grace. Unbelieving Jews still received the sign of the Covenant by having parents who were part of the Covenant.
The External and Internal Aspects of the Covenant of Grace is the same as the Visible and Invisible Aspects of the New Covenant which is the Covenant of Grace.
Accordingly the Promise has carried over with the same Promise in Acts 2:38, 39 which Peter says "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children."
Wait, that is the language of Genesis 17:7... The Promise is to you and to your children.
Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant Epoch. Which even in Baptist circles are still given to unbelievers (It is unavoidable this side of glory) So the Visible Church is made of believers and unbelievers in the same way as in the Abrahamic Covenant.
The Invisible Church is made up of only those who are internally in the covenant of God, the Elect. It was true in Abraham's Day and it is true today.
But there has always been unbelievers externally in covenant with God without a heart change. They will have a greater account to give since they have had greater access to the gospel.
Paul certainly makes this distinction in Rom 2:28 between those who are in the covenant of grace "outwardly" and those who are in the covenant of grace "outwardly" and inwardly, i.e., by grace alone through faith alone.
It is undeniable that unbelievers are in the church today and there will always be Ishmael's in the New Covenant. If there were Esaus and Ishmaels in the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace and there was a Hymenaeus and an Alexander (and Ananias and Sapphira). Then is the New Covenant so utterly different from the covenant of grace as it was under Abraham?
In my Baptistic Understanding I was misviewing the Visible and Invisible aspects of the Church which is the same as the Internal and External aspects of the Church in the Old Testament. And I was overreaching with a over-realized eschatology of the Church in Consummation when the Visible and Invisible Church becomes one and the same with only true believers.
I will end this post with a last comment, a quote from Dr. Scott Clark about those who are externally in covenant without a heart change..
" It's possible for those who participate in the administration of the covenant of grace, in the New Covenant, to "taste of the powers of the age to come." Sure they do. They're baptized (1 Cor 10) and they come to the Lord's Table. They're in the congregation. They hear the gospel. They sing the psalms and when they leave, they "profane the blood of the covenant." They've walked between the pieces, as it were, they've gone through the covenant cutting ritual by coming to the Lord's Table. They've received baptism and come under its promises but also its jeopardy."
So they will be held in greater account then those outside of the covenant.
Duh...
(When are you going to PM me back?)
__________________
[B]Nse'
Seattle, WA
Reformed Church
I have set the Lord always before me; Because He is at my right hand I shall not be moved
No disrespect, but you know I have always believed it was only a matter of time before you shed any pretense of being a Baptist. That's not a criticism or a pot shot. It's just an observation of where you've been going over the past few years.
__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland
__________________ Ivan Schoen, Pastor Maranatha Baptist Church
Poplar Grove, Illinois USA http://maranatha-sbc.org/ "When a denomination begins to consider doctrine divisive, theology troublesome, and convictions inconvenient, consider that denomination on its way to a well-deserved death." Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Come join us, Bill, the grass is greener over here.
Incidentally, we had an adult baptism yesterday at our church (we sprinkle, of course), and both the elder and the pastor who spoke said, this is a "believer's baptism". IOW, when an adult comes to the faith, and they haven't been previously baptised, we call it believer's baptism. I had never heard that term used in the Presbyterian church before, but I really don't have a problem with it.
__________________ J Baldwin
Keowee Presbyterian Church, PCA
Pickens, SC “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10:27
I USED to be a Baptist-in-Crisis. Please note the past tense. I am now quite at peace with credobaptism. I am an oak. I cannot be moved. Give it your best shot!
Last edited by North Jersey Baptist; 03-24-2008 at 01:45 PM.
Reason: spelling
Language is everything brother Ivan. In fact, let's think this through.
The paedo-baptist is confident that primitive baptism was paedo in mode and understanding. Some where the church changed this mode to credo baptism in mode and understanding.
Coram Deo has proudly announced that he is slipping into paedo. We of course could use the synonym for 'slipping' and call it 'sliding'.
So, here is how we may phrase this current phenomenon based on Coram Deo's testimony.
They look back to an ancient baptism and the slide toward it, therefore:
Many on the board are BACK-SLIDING into a paedo-baptistic understanding.
Quod erat demonstrandum
__________________
Bob Vigneault (Bawb Vēēn-yo)
I just know there's got to be a pony in here somewhere!
Dear Coram Deo,
Same thing happend to me! I went to a grace brethren seminary (think john mc arthure). It started, oddly enough, with reading presuppositional apologetic writers who happened to be presbyterians (Bahnsen, Van Til, Frame).
And as I studied the doctrine of the covenants, it became more clear.
One thing a reformed pastor told me--and this was a big hang-up, because the confessions and baptismal orders in the Psalter and catechisms can sound "Catholic" to a Baptist, was not to confuse being in covenant with God and being justified before God.
My wife is still getting there and it's been what--5 yrs? But both our daughters are baptized. And looking at my kids from a covenantal perspective really gives me great impetus to teach them the way of the Lord.
My 3 yr old knows almost 50 Q's from the Catechism for Younger Children. Praise God!
So, jump in--the water's fine!
__________________
sincerely,
mark
member 1st Christian Reformed Church (don't freak out on me, now)
Grand Haven, MI www.vanallsblog.blogspot.com
Question: How do you know which eye of John Murray's was the glass eye?
Answer: It was the one with the most compassion.
The Following User Says Thank You to mark For This Useful Post:
Ack, I am slipping into Paedobaptism.... 
I am curious, why the "ack?" Is it such a terrible thing that you are now joining the ranks of the truly saved? After all, one is only saved by being an infant who is baptized, and we should look to our baptism as the only proper means of assurance in the faith. Is your leg off yet? I'm pulling pretty hard.
