I respectfully disagree. That is something you're reading into Romans 4 but is not in the passage itself. You have to understand that, from my perspective, I see your pre-suppositions as forcing you to make Paul say much more than he does in Romans 4. My Confessional understanding of the passage is different and doesn't require me to read anything into it at all. In Romans 4, the passage says that circumcision is a sign of the faith that Abraham had while still uncircumcised. In the context of the passage, all the baggage about it being a National and physical symbol is completely a-contextual. In fact, Romans 4 is laboring the fact that Abraham had nothing to boast in as far as the flesh goes, which is why he is introduced as our example. By importing the rest into the passage you would completely wreck the point that Paul is making. He would be better served to leave circumcision out of the example as it is fleshly in your understanding.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

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?

Just for the record, I am not a dispensationalist. I used to be, but reject the main tenets of dispensationalism, such as a differentiation between Israel and the Church, discontinuity between the covenants, different salvation in OT/NT (which they don't hold any more), and rapture of church.

Someone calling me a dispensationalist is like me calling everyone else unregenerate because they used to be.

So, Abraham disobeyed God by giving Ishmael a covenant sign? God told Abraham to circumcise all his children (even the ones that were not in covenant with him) and he obeyed. It was not wrong because it was obedience.

Of course salvation in the OT is the same as in the NT. Dispies were ridiculous for arguing anything different. My question did not concern "spiritual blessings." My question concerned who was in the covenant, which is what the verses I quoted referred to. The covenant sign, in this case baptism, should only be given to those who are in the covenant.

Baptists use some of the same requirements (profession of faith) to administer the covenant sign of baptism that you use to administer the covenant sign of communion. Why do you not allow unbelievers to partake of communion if it is a covenant sign? How do you know that every one who is partaking of communion is truly elect? We believe that the requirement for a profession of faith is involved in the covenant sign of baptism as well as the covenant sign of communion.

This is not dispensational. It is covenantal.

__________________

Apply the same logic to fencing the table in communion. No one should take communion because we don't know who is really regenerate. But we (and you) take their profession (and evidence of fruit) to be enough to apply the covenant sign of communion to them. We do the same with Baptism and, therefore, believe that we are baptizing fewer people who are not in covenant with God than you are.

At this point, I am going to back out of the discussion because it is going nowhere, as usual. But I will continue to read and learn

BTW, this thread is one of the reasons why I enjoy this board so much. I have been on other boards where the discussion was anything but deep. That is not the case here.

I think you are not understanding my point. I agree with you concerning the fact that it was a sign and seal to Abraham concerning his righteousness. That I totally agree with. I am just not convinced it meant the same thing for everyone who was circumcised after him. Case in point it didn't mean the same thing for Ishmael or anyone who was not a member of the Covenant of Grace after him. Plus I don't see Romans 4 being a complete exegesis of what circumcision was. There is no mention of those who would be cut off if they did not receive this sign of the Covenant of Circumcision who where his decendants.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"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?

This would only apply if I believed that the command to elders was to distribute the Lord's Supper to the elect alone. That is your assertion but it is not mine in the Confession.

Further, if you notice what you have done, you have really changed the grounds for Baptism at this point. You're not baptizing on the basis of election but on the basis that "...we are baptizing fewer people who are not in covenant with God than you are...."

Really? How do you know? As I noted earlier, almost all Baptists responded that 100% of the kids in their Churches eventually get baptized.

How do you know that a single person, beside yourself, is in the Covenant?

Where is the Scripture passage that states: "The New Covenant is with the elect, therefore baptize on profession because the goal is to baptize fewer people who are not in covenant with God...." This logic seems right to you but it is extra-Biblical reasoning at that point.

I'm really not trying to be mean. This is meant to challenge you guys to think this thing through a bit. The point I'm making is that the argument on the perfection of the New Covenant doesn't really get you anywhere in the Baptism question because, in the end, you're forced to turn to some other method to determine who to baptize. Profession does not equal election and there is no argument in the Word that says that baptism of adult professors is performed on the basis that they are more likely elect. The basis is that they desire to be disciples.

I do understand you and I disagree. Paul didn't say that circumcision was a sign just to Abraham. And, again, it would not fit the context of Romans 4 to introduce a sign that was only spiritual to Abraham but then physical to everyone else after him. It also doesn't do justice either to the nature of Covenants made. It's like saying that the Covenant of Works meant one thing to Adam but didn't mean the same thing to us.

I'm not trying to be pugilistic for the sake of it but we profoundly disagree on this point on the nature of the sign. Remember, Paul has every right to provide the fullest revelation of what a thing signified. You cannot go back to earlier passages in the OT and try to use that as a basis to de-Spiritualize the Gospel significance of the sign. Even if you do, the OT is pregnant with the idea that circumcision is not fundamentally something that is primarily physical and National.

First off I do believe the sign was spiritual to others beside Abraham. It wasn't for everyone who was descended from Abraham. I also believe the COW is found in Abraham as there is a curse in it of being cut off. That is different for the New Covenant Member according to Jeremiah 31. The Everlasting Covenant promised in Isaac is the Covenant of Grace. The signification of righteousness passes on to one and not to the other.

And I don't think you are being pugilistic. I think we are discussing this so we can understand each other. Note that Romans 4 speaks of those who are not of the circumcision who will be and are children of Abraham. The significance moves to what justifies... faith. That is what Romans 4 is discussing. Nothing more and nothing less.

Plus I don't see Romans 4 being a complete exegesis of what circumcision was. There is no mention of those who would be cut off if they did not receive this sign of the Covenant of Circumcision who where his decendants.

Time for a beer and hit on the old bowl.

When the Abrahamic promise is introduced, it is introduced as Promise. I think where you and I see things differently is that you are conflating Circumcision with Sinai. I believe this is a profound error. God's promise to Abraham was unequivocal and eternal - He promised to accomplish it Himself and He did so through His Son. Paul labors the point, in repudiation of the Judaizers, that the Law was added but never annulled the Promise.

Right, I don't disagree. Nevertheless, in the context, Abraham is introduced as a defeater to the notion that anyone has anything to boast of in the flesh - including circumcision itself which is revealed as a sign of the promise by Paul.

That's not the point, though. It is the revelation of the prime significance of the sacrament. I'm not arguing that we ought to ignore other passages about such things but we cannot overthrow the point that Paul makes concerning the nature of the Promise. I think part of the problem I've seen, again, is that people conflate Abraham's circumcision with Sinai. If you keep them distinct, as Galatians 3 does then you can more clearly see how Paul is condemning the Judaizers misapprehension of the thing. This is why circumcision means nothing if you're a Judaizer but it means everything if you're Abraham!

RBAY (Right back at ya')

What I hear you saying is this: the Paedo view is that even though only *some* infants received the external sign, *all* were part of the covenant of Abraham. (Where is this taught in the Bible, BTW?)

And from this the paedo view is that it naturally follows that *all* infants should receive the external sign of *something*. (Not sure if the paedo sees that something as an external or inward covenant)

But, if this is the Paedo view, (and if I am missing something please show me what it is) then why wouldn't it be OK to only baptize *some* infants in the NT? Why must it be *all*?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/

Let me say one more thing with respect to this and then I need to jet to lunch and then to teach a class.

In the way you say this, you seem to think that a sign changes its significance based on the recipient. This is the key difference between our understanding of baptism as well. The reason our Confession sees Baptism and Circumcision as essentially (that is in their substance) to point to the same thing is that the significance of the Sacraments is in the Promise and NOT the recipient.

Let me re-state that in case it is not clear. What most need to get over is the idea that if two men get circumcized and one is reprobate and the other elect that circumcision signifies something different for the one and not the other. The person's faith, or lack thereof, did not add or subtract from the significance but, rather, one laid hold of the promise while the other did not.

The significance, then, is not inside of us but outside of us - for baptism and circumcision.

Somebody asked me once: "But what did circumcision signify for the Pharisee?" Read Galatians 3 again after I've said this.

Circumcision signified to the Pharisee that those who put their faith in the Gospel will be saved. That Gospel was obscured but some laide hold of it and some didn't. What it didn't ever signify (which is what Paul is laboring in Galatians 3) is that those who obey the Law will be saved and those that don't will be cursed. This understanding of the Law is condemned as missing the entire point of the sign.

Thus, I maintain, that God ordained the sign of circumcision. The significance was, fundamentally, something extra nos and, therefore, the significance was the same for everyone who received it.

Let me ask you a question Rich. In Genesis 17 does God establish his Everlasting Covenant with Ishmael whom Abraham petitioned God for? Does God make promises to Abraham (outside of this everlasting Covenant that is in Isaac) within the covenant of circumcision that allowed Ismael to live with Abraham and be blessed that didn't pertain to the Everlasting Covenant that Ismael was not a part of? I didn't mix Sinia with Abraham. I was mentioning Genesis 17:14 concerning being cut off as opposed to an unconditional covenant which we find in the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant. By circumcision one was permitted to dwell with Abraham even if he was not a descedant of his. Circumcision had promises of land and inhabitation of the land that were not necessarily spiritual. The promises of inhabitation of the land and prosperity did not necessarily grant any spiritual inclusion except that God was God over the people, unrighteous and righteous alike. Baptism is no where spoken of like this. It is always spoken of in a way that points to the forgiveness of sin and union with Christ.

I think you need to read Galatians 3, 4 and 5 together to get a more complete picture. Ishmael is called sinai. Was he not a part of the Covenant of Circumcision?

I am tired and it is late here now. Be Encouraged Brother.....

In an earlier post I said I thought there were the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works in Abraham. It appears I might be correct.

(Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

(Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

(Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

This may not be correct though since it mentions Sinai and not the pre fall covenant. But there are two covenants in Abraham.

I love these Baptism threads. I eat up every one!

__________________
Mark Maney
Kwanglim Korean Methodist Church - 1689'er Baptist Pastor (read profile for more info)
Master of Theological Studies emphasis Biblical Studies
Trinity Western University, ACTS Seminaries
Surrey, BC. (Vancouver), Canada

Just make sure they don't eat YOU up!

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

Again, you are ignoring, though, the significance of the Promise. You're conflating God's elective decree and God's knowledge of Ishmael's future with Abraham's Promise. I'm not arguing that Ishmael was ever united to Christ in circumcision. That may be what you think I'm saying but I am not. Union with Christ, in circumcision and baptism, was effected by the elective purposes of God. It was invisible to Abraham for all intents and purposes. You act as if Abraham knew, when Ishmael was circumcised, that God intended to cut Him off eternally. You act as if Abraham understood that this sign was intended to be bifurcated. I completely disagree. God never instituted a sign to say that "...it's OK if you don't believe in me, this is just a physical thing after all..." That idea is completely repugnant to the entire OT that anyone circumcised would just blow off belief.

Thus, Ishmael, when circumcised received the sign that signified the exact same thing, outside of himself, that it signified to Isaac: that God would save all who believed upon Him. God never twisted Ishmael's arm and caused him to reject the promise. We know that God passed over Him but that doesn't mean that somehow Ishmael never had a responsibility to believe. That he can be used as an allegory for unbelieving Israel proves this very point.

Again, you think the sign changes on the basis of unbelief. I'm not even sure how an Old Covenant believer was supposed to lay hold of the Promise according to the schema you've presented. Was he supposed to respond in faith or was he to wonder if he was one of those guys whose circumcision just represented a physical blessing but nothing more. I'm curious, as well, where you build such a National covenant schema from the text of Scripture because God repeatedly condemns for unbelief and never gives a pass to the circumcised as just being bound nationally.

Middle of the day here. Hope you have a good sleep.

I have read them carefully and, thus, I'm quite aware of how you are mishandling them here. Yes, Ishmael is called Sinai in this text. Interesting, isn't it, that Judaizers INSIDE THE VISIBLE CHURCH, BAPTIZED INTO THE CHURCH are compared to Ishmael! How can that be? How can those who are in the New Covenant Church, troubling the other believers be compared to a man you say had no status in the community of faith?