Baptism based on Genesis 17?

Andrew P.C. · #1 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 08:30 PM

I was searching around trying to find some writings on Infant Baptism when I came across this:

Quote:

A Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, et. al.

Question 1. Are Infants of believers included in the Covenant of Grace?

Answer: Yes, children are included in the Covenant of Grace, and the visible church.[1]

1. Genesis 17:1-14; Matthew 19:14; 1 Corinthians 7:14

Now we read in Genesis 17:1-14

Quote:

1Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him,
"I am God Almighty;
Walk before Me, and be blameless.
2"I will establish My covenant between Me and you,
And I will multiply you exceedingly."
3Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying,
4"As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you,
And you will be the father of a multitude of nations.
5"No longer shall your name be called Abram,
But your name shall be Abraham;
For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

6"I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you.

7"I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

8"I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

9God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.

10"This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.

11"And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.

12"And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.

13"A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14"But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

Now, if you conclude that this is so for the NC, let me then ask you how you would interpret Galatians 3:

Quote:

7Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

Quote:

9So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

Quote:

14in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Quote:

16Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

I'm still having trouble with the language presbys use, so, if you could help in defining your terms as well, that would be great.

Exagorazo · #2 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 08:45 PM

Given what Paul says in Galatians, was it wrong (or incorrect) of God to require the circumcision of all the male descendants of Abraham?

Andrew P.C. · #3 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

Given what Paul says in Galatians, was it wrong (or incorrect) of God to require the circumcision of all the male descendants of Abraham?

No. From a baptistic perspective, this is where we define the line between OC and NC. We teach that the NC, as hebrews puts it, is a "better covenant" and a "better ministry"; "not like the covenant which [God] made with their fathers".

Exagorazo · #4 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 09:05 PM

OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I really don't see how your original post ties together.

Could you make yourself a little more clear as to your argument? I know and understand the passages you supplied, but not what you want to know about them.

Andrew P.C. · #5 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I really don't see how your original post ties together.

Could you make yourself a little more clear as to your argument? I know and understand the passages you supplied, but not what you want to know about them.

My question is(not argument, since I'm trying to understand) how is an infant made part of the COG? What are the promises to the infant?

I'm having trouble understanding this concept. =/

Exagorazo · #6 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I really don't see how your original post ties together.

Could you make yourself a little more clear as to your argument? I know and understand the passages you supplied, but not what you want to know about them.

My question is(not argument, since I'm trying to understand) how is an infant made part of the COG? What are the promises to the infant?

I'm having trouble understanding this concept. =/

Ah, I see.

In a sort of oddly shaped nutshell, an infant is part of the CoG by virtue of their believing parent/s (1 Cor 7:14). The promises made are identical to those made to believing adults, provided they continue in the covenant.

Andrew P.C. · #7 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

OK, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I really don't see how your original post ties together.

Could you make yourself a little more clear as to your argument? I know and understand the passages you supplied, but not what you want to know about them.

My question is(not argument, since I'm trying to understand) how is an infant made part of the COG? What are the promises to the infant?

I'm having trouble understanding this concept. =/

Ah, I see.

In a sort of oddly shaped nutshell, an infant is part of the CoG by virtue of their believing parent/s (1 Cor 7:14). The promises made are identical to those made to believing adults, provided they continue in the covenant.

So, the elect parent has eternal life through Christ, yet, the son/daughter has it until they apostasize?

Exagorazo · #8 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 10:06 PM

No, they are visible members of the new covenant and show by their apostasy that they were never elect. You're getting your categories mixed.

Andrew P.C. · #9 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

No, they are visible members of the new covenant and show by their apostasy that they were never elect. You're getting your categories mixed.

Hmm, so, the CoG is not salvific?

Exagorazo · #10 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

No, they are visible members of the new covenant and show by their apostasy that they were never elect. You're getting your categories mixed.

Hmm, so, the CoG is not salvific?

Eh? That statement makes no sense.

If you are asking whether or not people can be members of the covenant and not be saved, then I'll answer that question. Since the fall, there have been members of the CoG that have not been saved, correct.

Southern Presbyterian · #11 (**permalink**) 08-22-2007, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

No, they are visible members of the new covenant and show by their apostasy that they were never elect. You're getting your categories mixed.

Hmm, so, the CoG is not salvific?

Read Romans 9.

Quote:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel (read: covenant community) belong to Israel.
Romans 9:6 ESV

Parenthesis mine.

elnwood · #12 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exagorazo

No, they are visible members of the new covenant and show by their apostasy that they were never elect. You're getting your categories mixed.

Hmm, so, the CoG is not salvific?

Eh? That statement makes no sense.

If you are asking whether or not people can be members of the covenant and not be saved, then I'll answer that question. Since the fall, there have been members of the CoG that have not been saved, correct.

How is it a covenant of grace if you can fall out of it? Is not grace unmerited favor? Then why is it conditional? It seems to be a misnomer.

If it is conditioned on obedience, then how is it different from a covenant of works?

Semper Fidelis · #13 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 08:27 AM

Andrew,

To answer your question in part, let me post my reply that I gave to a brother recently regarding those that participate visibly in the Church but not in the substance of Christ:

A brother sent me this e-mail:

Quote:

Hi Rich,

My question is related to our assurance of salvation I need your help to cross out or check some tougths I have

When Jesus was talking about the vine and the branches, what did he meant by the branch that is withered and throwed to the fire? are they his fellow people who did not believe or christians or something else?

In revelation Jesus talked about a church that was spit-out because of lukewarmness in service, what does this mean? was it just a figure of speech? or something else.

Thanks again

My response:

Quote:

These are good questions that require a fairly detailed response but I'll try to give you a simple one.

Within the Church, there are those that are united to Christ by their faith in Him and then there are those that never place their trust in Christ. As we have been studying, we have come to understand that it is the Father's initiation in us that causes us the see and respond to the things of the Gospel and, because He caused us to be made alive, we see the Gospel and trust in faith. Thus the faith of those united the Christ is sure. It is a Gospel trust and is the fruit of a heart that has been transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit that is within us cries out Abba, Father and demonstrates to us that we are His adopted children in Christ. Remember, when Paul, in Romans 7, was talking about the struggle that we have with remaining sin as we do the things we don't want to do? It is the evidence of life within us that we struggle with these things.

There are those, though, that even though they come near to Christ every Sunday and hear of His goodness never embrace Him in faith. They might have made a profession of faith and they might attend Church but they are not really bearing fruit. They do not really rest upon Christ and His finished work. It is not that they aren't "earning" Him but that they are not trusting in Him. In fact, those that seem to seek Christ the hardest through the works they do to be accepted (Roman Catholics, Mormons, etc) are furthest from Him. Why? Because they are not producing those works on His strength but trying to approach God by saying: "See how much I work for you?" But the Gospel is what Christ has done for us and some people just cannot accept that.

So, in the end, there are members of the visible Church - it is both a mix of those who have true faith in Christ gifted to them by the Father and those still walking according to the flesh. Those that *seem* like they believe but are still trusting in themselves.

Thus, when you see warnings like the passages up above, they are real warnings to the real Church. Those in Christ hear the warnings and cling to Him and are empowered by Him to accomplish His ends for them. Those who don't believe hear the same warnings and say: "I'll do that on my own strength" and in so doing stand apart from Christ and eventually dry up, become lukewarm, or any other number of analogies used by Christ.

Thus, from a visible standpoint (that is, what we see) all are in the visible Church but God preserves those who have faith in Him and ensures they accomplish His ends. Those who have no faith are eventually cast out and revealed to be the false brethren who Christ says: "I never knew you...."

I hope that helps.

Blessings!

Rich

dannyhyde · #14 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 09:47 AM

Hello Andrew,

Here are two paragraphs from my book, Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize... (Grandville: Reformed Fellowship, 2006), 26–27:

When we say that baptism is a sign of already-being-saved we forget what is so amazing about the story of Abraham. In Romans 4:11 we are told that Abraham’s circumcision was a seal of the righteousness that comes by faith. Abraham was a believer already. As Genesis 15:6 says, “He believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” So he was circumcised after he believed. But what did God then command Abraham to do in Genesis 17? He was commanded to administer the sign of circumcision to his seed. As the story unfolds, Abraham takes his son Ishmael, all those born in his household and household servants, and circumcises them. Later, after Isaac is born, Abraham circumcises him although he is only eight days old and has given absolutely no indication that he believed already. Abraham, then, was circumcising people before they professed faith in the LORD. Circumcision was still a sign of the righteousness that comes by faith, but since there is not a simultaneous relationship, the sign could be given first, then latter in Isaac’s life the blessing of the sign, righteousness by faith, could come. We, as Abraham’s children (Gal. 3:7), need to follow Abraham’s example. Although we may not understand how a baby can be baptized now and come to faith later, this is how God has worked throughout history. He did it then and he can do it now – he does do it now!

Thus God’s covenant sign of baptism is to be given to the children of believers because it has replaced circumcision. The same “seed” or descendants of Abraham that were circumcised in the Old Testament are the same “seed” that are now baptized. As we have seen above in the equating of circumcision and baptism: “The essence of the sign was never abolished. The form was.” This means that God’s grace is the same throughout the covenants, although the sign is different: circumcision then, baptism now.

Calvibaptist · #15 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 09:48 AM

It is interesting, Rich, that a Baptist who knows his Bible would answer that email in exactly the same way, even with our differing views of who is really in the New Covenant.

Semper Fidelis · #16 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 05:04 PM

Doug,

That's exactly right. In fact, I gave that answer to a Baptist brother. When I was listening to Gene talking about Hebrews 8 last night and criticizing Paul on who were members of the New Covenant I realized that, if I asked them (and plan to), they would have to admit they're not really talking about the whole Church.

That is, their discussions of Hebrews 8 became a discussion of the invisible - the ideal: "We insist we don't know who is in the New Covenant personally but we do want to insist that they are elect."

The point to my answer above is that both groups exist within the visible Church.

- Paedobaptists want to start training those that they find in the visible Church from the earliest moments in their lives and say they're in the New Covenant to extend to them all the means of Grace for their conversion and sanctification.

- Credobaptists start training their kids right away too, from the earliest moments, see them in the visible Church and extend some of the means of Grace to them for their conversion or sanctification. They just won't say they're in the NC (or even members) until they intellectually assent to it.

My 5 year old is being home-schooled right now. He can read a little bit. In my mind, the Baptist view would say he's a student only after he can read a book without help.

Andrew P.C. · #17 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Doug,

That's exactly right. In fact, I gave that answer to a Baptist brother. When I was listening to Gene talking about Hebrews 8 last night and criticizing Paul on who were members of the New Covenant I realized that, if I asked them (and plan to), they would have to admit they're not really talking about the whole Church.

That is, their discussions of Hebrews 8 became a discussion of the invisible - the ideal: "We insist we don't know who is in the New Covenant personally but we do want to insist that they are elect."

The point to my answer above is that both groups exist within the visible Church.

- Paedobaptists want to start training those that they find in the visible Church from the earliest moments in their lives and say they're in the New Covenant to extend to them all the means of Grace for their conversion and sanctification.

- Credobaptists start training their kids right away too, from the earliest moments, see them in the visible Church and extend some of the means of Grace to them for their conversion or sanctification. They just won't say they're in the NC (or even members) until they intellectually assent to it.

My 5 year old is being home-schooled right now. He can read a little bit. In my mind, the Baptist view would say he's a student only after he can read a book without help.

Rich,

Even though I don't have kids I can tell you that as a baptist, I would say that childeren are a student the minute they are born. I could argue from the womb since they can hear voices but that's for those scientific type...

Semper Fidelis · #18 (**permalink**) 08-23-2007, 08:50 PM

Andrew,

But that is what a disciple is in some respects, which is why I used the analogy.

AV1611 · #19 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 06:47 AM

May I suggest a listen to http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...SID=5607203511 and http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...SID=6130619374