I think

Romans 4:16 - Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

and

Romans 9:6-8 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

and

Galatians 3:7-9 - Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

should be sufficient. Notice that these passages deal with the blessings and promises of the Abrahamic covenant which the sign of the covenant (circumcision or baptism) would signify and seal. Notice that they are not passed down to physical descendants of anyone. Notice that they are given to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

__________________

Are you saying that circumcision was only given to those who were of the faith of Abraham?

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

The reason we don't recognize your argument is the same reason that we haven't beaten our swords into plowshares, and we still separate wolves from lambs in the zoo. Its the same reason that there are still tares among the wheat, and bad fish caught up in the net with the good fish. Old Testament prophecies about the coming kingdom are all both already and not yet fulfilled; this is OT 101, and even Baptists understand it; it's a pattern that all orthodox believers understand. The reason we don't take this argument seriously is because you've yet to give us a good reason why the already/not yet principle of the kingdom applies everywhere else but here. Not to mention the other occurences of "New Covenant" prophecy that specifically include children.

Don't assume that we're ignoring the argument. In fact, if you'll go back far enough in the archives, you'll find me beating all of these paedo's over the head with this passage too. I used it all the time. There's nothing wrong with what you say about the passage. The problem is the when of the passage.

Oh, you caught us! That's right, we paedobaptists don't really believe the bible anyway. We just blindly follow our creeds and confessions

__________________
Philip A - Member, High Desert United Reformed Church, Apple Valley, CA.

"Reason also is choice" - Milton, Paradise Lost
"And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:XXXII.
"where there is text, there is hope" - Richard A. Muller

Adam,
The New Testament tells parents to disciple their children. (Eph. 6:4)
The New Testament tells the church to baptize disciples. (Matt 28:19)

It really is all that easy. We'd never need to talk about the covenant, sacraments, means of grace, and sign and substance if there weren't people questioning the doctrine.

Why in the world would any parent (particularly a Jewish parent in the time of the New Testament) not think of their children an disciples? If this seems strange, veiled, or difficult to us, it's because we're two thousand years removed from that time and culture. The baggage of all of these cultural assumptions we bring to the argument is huge. The reason for all the deep theological studies, lengthly debates, and entire books, is to get us to see the situation in some way other than a modern American evangelical would by default.

No, I am saying that the New Testament sign of baptism was only given to those who believe. This is the advancing of God's plan through the New Covenant.

Actually, Philip, I was the one being accused of not using my Bible. That is why I made the comment. I was told that we credos just blindly follow our prejudice without having Scriptural support.

Honestly, sometimes in this discussion I feel like I am debating an Arminian who keeps trying to score a point by quoting John 3:16 as if I'd never read that before. I'm sure you feel that way as well. We all have our biblical reasons for our views. I certainly don't think you or anyone else blindly follows creeds or confessions.

You know what I mean

It's like the term "classical music". Sure, it can (and does technically) mean the classical era of music, but in everyday conversation when I say I listen to "classical music" people assume everything from Bach to John Williams. Just as when somebody says they believe in "Believers Baptism" in everyday conversation it is assumed to be the credobaptist position as opposed to the padeobaptist position.

But I appreciate your attempt at clarity.

__________________
Mark Maney
Edmonton Chinese Baptist Church
Master of Theological Studies
Master of Arts (Cross Cultural)
Trinity Western University, ACTS Seminaries
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

It absolutely is a new covenant. No question about it. But the question is, new in comparison to what? We don't have to look very far to find out: "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke". Just to be clear, that's the Sinai covenant. Paul's whole point in arguing for justification by faith apart from the works of the law is to point out the discontinuity between Moses and Abraham, and the continuity between Abraham and the New Covenant. "This is what I mean: the law (Mosaic Covenant), which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant (Abrahamic) previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void."

So yes, we're under a New Covenant, and thank God for that. No sacrifices, no levitical law - yup, sounds like something new to me! But despite all of that newness, there are still some things that are the same. God putting the law in our minds and in our hearts and forgiving our iniquity are certainly not new; it was that way under Moses, and it was that way under Abraham. What else about the "New Covenant" is the same as under Moses and Abraham? "Their children shall be as they were of old." (Jer 30:20)

So you'd better agree with me, or you're a dispensationalist....

But this is precisely the point a lot of the New Testament epistles were making. Jewish believers were wondering why all the Jews (who supposedly were already in the covenant) were not disciples. What happened to the passing down of blessings through physical birth? Paul, in many of his letters stresses to those out of a Jewish background that the promises are not passed down to physical descendants, but to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

These parents did assume their children were automatically in the covenant. Paul corrected their assumptions by bringing faith into the argument.

I understand that the command was to circumcise *every* man child. But that means that only *some* children were actually circumcised. You say that "the children of slaves were to be circumcised." But surely you mean *some* of the children of slaves were to be circumcised.

I am still left in the dark as to how you get from *some* infants in the OT received the sign and *every* infant in the NT receives the sign. Once again, I am not attacking anyone, I am simply wanting to understand the Paedo's POV.

Then why does Mr. Weiland write:

I would agree that *some* of the children in the OT *received an external sign.*

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I think to clarify, you are asking how some (male) becomes every (male and female).

Hey Ken,

I provided a short answer to this question earlier in the thread. I'll quote it here:

Jer 31 has been brought up repeatedly, the question is, is Jer 31 completely fulfilled now? If so, we should only baptize the elect, (know of anyone whom we are 100% sure is one of the elect?), and since not all professors of faith are elect, we shouldn't baptize any at all. We should also remove Sunday School or any classes in church (Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.)

If Jer 31 is not completely fulfilled now, then I don't see how this passage has anything to do with whether infants of believers should be baptized or not.

__________________
Polo
Layman, Chinese Evangelical Church/Independent
San Diego

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. (Romans 11:36)

Josh

Pastor Doug lists why I cannot stop being a Credo, and why it seems plainly stated to me that baptism is indeed only for confessing believers.

__________________
Adam - Pennsylvania - Baptist

http://www.myspace.com/aleavelle

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/p...5655012&ref=nf

Actually all groups have some discontinuity. It just depends at what level. That is one reason why theonomy is argued about so much.

Just a few points...

Circumcision was done away with, for Paul said it availed to nothing now in Galatians.


When circumcision is spoken about it never is said to be replaced by Baptism or that would have been expounded on I am sure. Paul was very thorough in Galatians.

God wrote through Paul, "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation" (Gal 6:15 ). Nor does He say this because is baptism the replacement for circumcision. Paul never makes this argument in Galatians (or anywhere else!) and at the meeting at Jerusalem to discuss circumcision, bapism is not so much as mentioned. Why didn't the Apostles simply say, "The Gentiles Christians don't need to be circumcised because they've already been baptized"? Because baptism and circumcision are two very different things. Circumcision was for the physical descendants of Abraham; baptism is for the spiritual descendants- those who are of faith (Gal 3:7 ).

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I am sorry but you are making no sense to me.

That's real insightful, except that Acts 2 is often brought up (as well as Genesis 17 when talking about whom circumcision (and now baptism) should have been applied to. Since Genesis 17 wasn't fulfilled at the time, why bring it into the discussion of baptism? Since Acts 2 has an "already/not yet" aspect to it, why use it to discuss baptism?

The reason is that the question involves who is actually in the covenant. Who is the covenant made with? Dispensationalists point to Jeremiah 17 and say, "See, physical Israel is who the New Covenant is made with so there has to be a fulfillment of land promises to them." We all rightly point out that Paul says that physical Israel was never in view, but Spiritual Israel, those who are of faith. Why do paedos suddenly want to then ignore that passage when dealing with the sign of the covenant when they slobber all over it when arguing against Dispies?

BTW, I did not see anyone discuss my point that, according to Galatians 3, all the promises to the seed are found in Christ and that, therefore, the blessings (and the sign) are only to those found in Christ.

If someone made this statement to Abraham, what would he have said? He would probably make mention of Ishmael.

Since one has always been able to be in the covenant and then show themselves to be unregenerate, how is this a counter to the old way?

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

CT, you're going to have to clarify this-

What Paul said in Galatians 3 wasn't anything new, unless you're a dispensationalist (which it seems like you may still be, at least a little bit, according to your profile info). Therefore, if your interpretation is true, then it was wrong for believers in the Old Testament to circumcise their children, because many of them didn't have the blessings of Christ (see Hermonta's statement about Abraham, who gave his son Ishmael the sign of God's covenant even after being told that Ishmael wasn't going to make the covenant with him.).

Perhaps no one answered it before because we assume around here that dispensationalism isn't an acceptable Reformed hermeneutic. If salvation in the OT is the same as in the NT, then Paul's discussion of spiritual blessings and who gets them has nothing to do with water baptism. It's nothing more than a rebuke of those who think they are entitled to something because of a sacrament.

Again, this argument wins me over completely!

He would indeed, because God had just told him that Ishmael was very firmly out of His covenant.
'And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. "'
Gen 17:18-19 (NKJV)

Can I make a request that EVERYONE stop calling ANYONE dispensational please?

Exactly, that's why I asked for clarification. What's the point?

When people quit acting like salvation sola gratia, solo christo, sola fide is something that Paul introduced in the New Testament to get people not to baptize their infants, I'll stop calling them dispensationalists.

David, I asked everyone stop this (it was several others) and the only qualifier I would place on ignoring that request was if the person it is being said to was CLEARLY dispensational in word and deed. We certainly don't want to call someone dispensational who says they are not! It's no different than those who call us all replacement theologians.

Of course that is the question. Let me ask you then: Are you in the new covenant? Are you 100% sure you are one of the elect? If so, how? If no, then why were you baptized given that you use the "we are not sure if infant are in the New Covenant or not" argument to deny them the covenant sign?

I am going to fall back to Randy's argument that baptism and circumcision are two different things. This stuff about knowing or not knowing who the elect are seems dangerous to me. I don't see either side claiming this though I do see it too often used as a way to discredit one side or another.

The statement that I responded to, implied that the people were in shock because people had the covenant sign and were not "acting right". My Abraham comment was meant to say that such things should not be a complete shock to the system. Such actions have happened since the beginning of the covenant.

CT

Sorry David. As is usual in the Baptism Forum things move so rapidly that I don't have the time to keep up. By the time I get on again there will probably be another 40 replies that I will have to sort through and my question will never get answered.

Is this, then, the Paedo view:

OT male infants were required to be physically circumcised as a sign of Abraham's covenant. Even though only *some* of the OT infants were physically circumcised, the Bible teaches that *all* infants were spiritually circumcised when Isreal passed through the Red Sea. Therefore, *all* infants of at least one beleiving parent must be physically baptized.

If that is not the Paedo view, please correct me as I truly desire to understand what it is.

Ah, ok. My daughter has the covenant sign and doesn't "act" like it, so I am not shocked by it sadly.

Yeah, they are different. One gets you wet and one gets you bloody.

CT

lol

I think you're on the right track. But I wasn't meaning to say that all of the Israelites were spiritually circumcised, which would mean that they were regenerated. Paul and Peter just use huge redemptive-historical events from the Old Testament to give us a better understanding of what water baptism symbolizes (passing through the Red Sea being the escape from slavery and the passing through the flood by Noah and his family being a picture of escaping judgment). I was just trying to show that Baptism isn't entirely new to the New Testament. Infants were included in both of these groups that the apostles used to help describe water baptism. The main point I'm trying to show is that the differentiation between the sign and the thing signified has always existed, first with circumcision and even now with Baptism. Not everyone who is baptized has the benefits that baptism signifies, just like not everyone who was circumcised had the benefits that circumcision signified (which were basically the same as baptism, unless, again, you're dispensational). I have to go to work but if you have any more questions I'll try to answer them when I return.

Just to make a point we credo's do believe physical circumcision is a shadow and is fulfiled in the one made without hands. It proceeds faith. Faith and repentance lead us as Children of Abraham to the sign of the New Covenant which is Baptism.

Circumcision was placed upon Abrahams decendents for two purposes. One was National and the other was spiritual. Not all shared in the spiritual as exhibited in Ishmael. Stephen makes a statement concerning the Covenant of Circumcision in Acts. Nehemiah Coxe shows us in his book 'CT From Adam to Christ', that not all who partook in the Covenant of Grace where necessarily circumcised during or after Abrahams encounter with God. And not all who were in the Covenant of Circumcision were necessarily in the Covenant of Grace. Although it was a sign to Abraham's righteousness it wasn't necessarily meant to be a sign of righteousness for his decendents like baptism is a sign signifying one is forgiven of sin and found in Christ.

One more thing the 1 Corinthians 10 passage is not about New Covenant baptism but about wickedness and God's displeasure in it. It is mentioned as an example so that we do not become like those who displeased God.

Geoff,

I acknowledged that the passage clearly demonstrates that Baptism is a sign of Union with Christ. Did you miss that part?

Really? So everyone who is baptized is united to Christ? Is that your argument?

Who "buries in Baptism" in the passage Geoff? You are making an improper inference to the text. The parallel is found in Romans is our union with Christ in His death and resurrection. It does not refer to mode but is part of our being foreknown, elected, called, ....

I was answering your post. You led with a facile quote that essentially quoted a text about the elect and a quote from Spurgeon that essentially read: "Golly! How could anybody be so stupid as to think babies are included in this?" I responded with a challenge to you to exegete the passage. You have thus far not done so. Let's not get into contests about Godliness here. Love rejoices with the Truth. I have answered you forthrightly, providing an interpretation of the passage. You have not demonstrated how a passage about the elect either excludes or includes infants nor how it, in the context, refers to mode. I know how you're inferring it but your inference does not make it so.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I'll bite without prejudicing your position.

Let me logically follow your premises:

1. The New Covenant consists of the elect alone (those who are of the faith of Abraham)
2. The sign of the New Covenant (baptism) should thus be placed on those who have the faith of Abraham (the elect)

Am I good so far? Let me continue:

3. The elect are known by God alone.

Conclusion: Nobody should be baptized.

Now, you wish to modify. At this point you are going to shift the argument subtlely. You realize that you cannot baptize on the basis of election because you know that the Church consists of false and true professors. Even Judas received Christian baptism (under the authority of Christ nonetheless!).

Thus, you will argue that professors ought to be baptized.

Question: Does profession=regeneration?

If not, then what does the nature of the New Covenant being made with the Elect alone have to do with the decision on who you baptize?

Since you state that this has not been interacted with, I will do so.

If you read Galatians 3, you will note that the very point that Paul is making, with respect to the Abrahamic Promise, is that the Law never annulled that promise. In fact, Abraham's Promise is clearly signified as fulfilled by Christ in Galatians and Romans. This is why Abraham is said to have believed the Gospel.

When you say: "Notice how they are not passed down to physical descendants of anyone...."

Really? Isaac, Israel, Moses, David, Elijah, .... Were they not physical descendants of Abraham? You seem to think that spiritual descendancy excludes that physical descendancy can occur. Why were the Proverbs written if there was not some expectation for parents to train children in the hopes that they would follow in the faith? Why do children of believers become believers in far greater numbers? Ought we not see a somewhat random spread of new believers among the heathen and the Churched if election is so indeterminate? When polled, 80% of Baptists on this board acknowledged that 100% of the kids of Reformed Baptists in their Churches eventually get baptized.

Now, you won't get an argument from me that physical descendancy is not a guarantee of faith. Read Galatians 3 again, though. The example Paul uses is of Abraham and his promise. He points out the fact that the Law, which the Judaizers are trying to identify with, is not the promise but the Gospel is. The Gentiles have received the inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed. His promise preceded and was not (nor could not) be revoked by the Law that came 400 years later.

Thus, Romans 4 makes the point that we are heirs to the promise of Abraham. He received the same Promise that we do. He received a sign in his flesh that signifies the same Promise we've been given. This is why he's a present example for us and not merely some figure that started some sort of "physical only" plan. In fact, to denigrate circumcision to that level is extremely impious in light of Galatians 3 and Romans 4.

And who was he commanded to place that sign upon?

His children. Not because they were elect but because of a command and a Promise. A Promise not of election but of salvation to those who had faith.

Ishmael is therefore a picture of unbelieving Judaizers and the persecution of those of faith because He was circumcised with a sign of the Gospel and he rejected the Promise in his flesh and chose to rely on the flesh instead of believing in faith.

The sign didn't signify the same thing for his children necessarily. But it was a sign of a covenant that had national promises also that were not necessarily spiritual promises. Some of the promises to Abraham and his seed (not the seed which is Christ) were outside of the Everlasting Covenant as Abraham and Ishmael found out. Baptism in the New Testament is a picture of one who is buried in Christ and forgiven of sin. That is not necessarily so with the Covenant of Circumcision.