Baptists? ... Anyone?

Andrew P.C. · #1 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 03:46 PM

Is there a cut between the NT and OT or is there continuity? IF yes, why? If no, why?

I also posted in another thread this statement and question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

As I have been personally studying this issue for over a few days now, there has been something that I've seen in scripture(since this is the first time I've given serious thought to this matter). The OT and NT have continuity. NO WHERE in scripture is there a command to STOP giving the sign of the covenant to the childeren. I won't get into it now, but I'm beginning to see the continuity of the Covenant of Grace through-out the church(OT and NT).

So, the question really is: Where in scripture is the command to STOP GIVING the sign of the covenant to the infant?

Could anyone (a baptist) respond to this?

satz · #2 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

There is certainly not complete discontinuity, but by the very fact that it is called the new covenant implies certain things of the Old are changed or done away with.

Even if you accept the fact that circumcision and baptism are exact parrallels for their respective covenant, it is plainly obvious that the sign has changed. There has been a massive change in the way of administration. Women now partake as well as men.

None of this was an attemp to even try to prove the baptist position. But to simply say there is continuity between testaments does not answer the question either way, imho.

Andrew P.C. · #3 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

There is certainly not complete discontinuity, but by the very fact that it is called the new covenant implies certain things of the Old are changed or done away with.

Even if you accept the fact that circumcision and baptism are exact parrallels for their respective covenant, it is plainly obvious that the sign has changed. There has been a massive change in the way of administration. Women now partake as well as men.

None of this was an attemp to even try to prove the baptist position. But to simply say there is continuity between testaments does not answer the question either way, imho.

Prove the baptist position? Sir, I'm actually trying to get an answer FROM the baptists... you should read the thread of my earlier post. There you will get the context of what I'm saying.

satz · #4 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

There is certainly not complete discontinuity, but by the very fact that it is called the new covenant implies certain things of the Old are changed or done away with.

Even if you accept the fact that circumcision and baptism are exact parrallels for their respective covenant, it is plainly obvious that the sign has changed. There has been a massive change in the way of administration. Women now partake as well as men.

None of this was an attemp to even try to prove the baptist position. But to simply say there is continuity between testaments does not answer the question either way, imho.

Prove the baptist position? Sir, I'm actually trying to get an answer FROM the baptists... you should read the thread of my earlier post. There you will get the context of what I'm saying.

I don't understand you. What I said about proving was directed at my own comments, not yours.

Andrew P.C. · #5 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

There is certainly not complete discontinuity, but by the very fact that it is called the new covenant implies certain things of the Old are changed or done away with.

Even if you accept the fact that circumcision and baptism are exact parrallels for their respective covenant, it is plainly obvious that the sign has changed. There has been a massive change in the way of administration. Women now partake as well as men.

None of this was an attemp to even try to prove the baptist position. But to simply say there is continuity between testaments does not answer the question either way, imho.

Prove the baptist position? Sir, I'm actually trying to get an answer FROM the baptists... you should read the thread of my earlier post. There you will get the context of what I'm saying.

I don't understand you. What I said about proving was directed at my own comments, not yours.

Yeah, communication is awkward on PB. You said "none of this". Maybe you should clarify... sorry for the confusion.

Wannabee · #6 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 07:49 PM

Was the Law fulfilled in Christ? If so, did it continue? Can you explain?
Is the NC better than the old? (see Hebrews)
Do we have a Great High Priest that ends all high priests?
All of these show a degree of continuity and a degree of discontinuity.

Andrew P.C. · #7 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Was the Law fulfilled in Christ? If so, did it continue? Can you explain?
Is the NC better than the old? (see Hebrews)
Do we have a Great High Priest that ends all high priests?
All of these show a degree of continuity and a degree of discontinuity.

There is a continuity in the CoG. I'm not talking about the OT ceremonial laws here. Ceremonial laws do not = CoG. So, I don't understand your post here. =/

satz · #8 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Was the Law fulfilled in Christ? If so, did it continue? Can you explain?
Is the NC better than the old? (see Hebrews)
Do we have a Great High Priest that ends all high priests?
All of these show a degree of continuity and a degree of discontinuity.

There is a continuity in the CoG. I'm not talking about the OT ceremonial laws here. Ceremonial laws do not = CoG. So, I don't understand your post here. =/

I think his point was, which is the same as mine, that while there may be continuity in the CoG, the administration changed between OT and NT. Simply saying that there is continuity between OT and NT does not of itself mean God cannot or would not change the receipients of the sign (if that is what baptism is).

Reformed-Kermit · #9 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Is there a cut between the NT and OT or is there continuity? IF yes, why? If no, why?

I also posted in another thread this statement and question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

As I have been personally studying this issue for over a few days now, there has been something that I've seen in scripture(since this is the first time I've given serious thought to this matter). The OT and NT have continuity. NO WHERE in scripture is there a command to STOP giving the sign of the covenant to the childeren. I won't get into it now, but I'm beginning to see the continuity of the Covenant of Grace through-out the church(OT and NT).

So, the question really is: Where in scripture is the command to STOP GIVING the sign of the covenant to the infant?

Could anyone (a baptist) respond to this?

a divisive chip on your shoulder more than anything...

Andrew P.C. · #10 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reformed-Kermit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Is there a cut between the NT and OT or is there continuity? IF yes, why? If no, why?

I also posted in another thread this statement and question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

As I have been personally studying this issue for over a few days now, there has been something that I've seen in scripture(since this is the first time I've given serious thought to this matter). The OT and NT have continuity. NO WHERE in scripture is there a command to STOP giving the sign of the covenant to the childeren. I won't get into it now, but I'm beginning to see the continuity of the Covenant of Grace through-out the church(OT and NT).

So, the question really is: Where in scripture is the command to STOP GIVING the sign of the covenant to the infant?

Could anyone (a baptist) respond to this?

a divisive chip on your shoulder more than anything...

Huh? Divisive...? How am I being divisive? I'm not even a paedo-baptist...

Mayflower · #11 (**permalink**) 08-28-2007, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Is there a cut between the NT and OT or is there continuity? IF yes, why? If no, why?

I also posted in another thread this statement and question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

As I have been personally studying this issue for over a few days now, there has been something that I've seen in scripture(since this is the first time I've given serious thought to this matter). The OT and NT have continuity. NO WHERE in scripture is there a command to STOP giving the sign of the covenant to the childeren. I won't get into it now, but I'm beginning to see the continuity of the Covenant of Grace through-out the church(OT and NT).

So, the question really is: Where in scripture is the command to STOP GIVING the sign of the covenant to the infant?

Could anyone (a baptist) respond to this?

Dear Andrew,

I would like to give you next articals, maybe it helps:

http://www.baptisttheology.org/docum...aptism_001.pdf
http://www.rbtr.org/newnessofcovenantwhite.pdf
http://www.rbtr.org/secondlcfbaptismmartin.pdf

Andrew P.C. · #12 (**permalink**) 08-28-2007, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayflower

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Is there a cut between the NT and OT or is there continuity? IF yes, why? If no, why?

I also posted in another thread this statement and question:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

As I have been personally studying this issue for over a few days now, there has been something that I've seen in scripture(since this is the first time I've given serious thought to this matter). The OT and NT have continuity. NO WHERE in scripture is there a command to STOP giving the sign of the covenant to the childeren. I won't get into it now, but I'm beginning to see the continuity of the Covenant of Grace through-out the church(OT and NT).

So, the question really is: Where in scripture is the command to STOP GIVING the sign of the covenant to the infant?

Could anyone (a baptist) respond to this?

Dear Andrew,

I would like to give you next articals, maybe it helps:

http://www.baptisttheology.org/docum...aptism_001.pdf
http://www.rbtr.org/newnessofcovenantwhite.pdf
http://www.rbtr.org/secondlcfbaptismmartin.pdf

I will take the time to read them, but, that doesn't answer my question.

Thank you for the articles.

Mayflower · #13 (**permalink**) 08-28-2007, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayflower

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew P.C.

Is there a cut between the NT and OT or is there continuity? IF yes, why? If no, why?

I also posted in another thread this statement and question:

Could anyone (a baptist) respond to this?

Dear Andrew,

I would like to give you next articals, maybe it helps:

http://www.baptisttheology.org/docum...aptism_001.pdf
http://www.rbtr.org/newnessofcovenantwhite.pdf
http://www.rbtr.org/secondlcfbaptismmartin.pdf

I will take the time to read them, but, that doesn't answer my question.

Thank you for the articles.

You ask : Is there a cut between the NT and OT or is there continuity? IF yes, why? If no, why?
These articels deals with the nature of the covenant, with the similarities and differences'. which als has an influences on the way how you view the covenant community with it's continuiny and discontuiny.