Thread: The Case for "Believer's Only" Baptism

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

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.

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.

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

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).

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.

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.).

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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?

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.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

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.

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.

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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.

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

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.

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*?

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

First off I do believe the sign was spiritual to others beside Abraham. It wasn't for everyone who was descended from Abraham.

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.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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.

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!

Originally Posted by tellville

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

Just make sure they don't eat YOU up!

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

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.

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.

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

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.....

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?

The point Paul labors, and I will labor again, in Galatians 3 (please read it again for yourself) is that the promise to Abraham was fulfilled by the New Covenant. It was not set aside by the Old Covenant. In fact, Abraham is said to have embraced the Gospel and, from afar off, received the same benefits we did. This is why, in Romans 4, he is a present and not merely a past example.

The point why Ishmael is a perfect example is because he has a sign in his flesh and could have laid hold of the promise made to Abraham. His inability to do so as an unregenerate person doesn't excuse him for his unbelief and his mockery of his little brother. He trusted in the strength of his flesh and is therefore completely appropriate to use as an example of New Covenant members who are trying to fall back on the flesh and are not embracing Abraham's God in faith.

Your scheme, frankly, would remove the whole obligation both of Ishmael to respond in faith as well as the Judaizers to do the same because, after all, for them circumcision (or baptism for the Judaizers) doesn't signify anything that they have to lay hold of. It doesn't signify anything for them because you tie the significance of the sign to the disposition of the believer and not to the Promise of God.

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

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.

No, there are not two Covenants in Abraham. This is a mis-interpretation of the text. It is an allegory that fits the trust in the flesh and, especially in the case of Galatians, to show how similar the rebellion and pride of Ishmael is to the Judiazers. Nevertheless, Sinai is not the Covenant of Works. In fact, were you to read Paul more carefully in Galatians, it is added to the Abrahamic Promise for a gracious purpose. It had a redemptive purpose. I agree with some theologians that see a CoW aspect to Sinai but to call it a CoW and, by extension, to say that Abraham had two Covenants is a-textual especially since he made the point just a couple of chapters earlier that what was promised to Abraham was not annulled by something that came 400 years later. It would make Paul schizophrenic. This is why he emphasizes that his point is allegorical - Ishmael is an object lesson: his teasing of Isaac is a picture of the Judaizers persecuting the Gentile believers.

Again, if everything you are saying is true about the primary nature of circumcision regarding a bifurcated nature (signifies something different based on the person), then it is missing in both the penultimate treatments of it in Romans and Galatians and it destroys the point Paul labors in Romans 4 where he would introduce a mixed sign that, in part, signifies trust in the flesh.

Greetings:

We now have a 2nd verse that is appealed to by the credo-baptists. And, again, the error in their interpretation can be clearly manifested. They appeal to Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8-10 and the perfection of the New Covenant.

I could, for example, use the CB argument found in Matthew 19 and point out that neither of the passages they are citing here refers to Baptism at all. Baptism is not in view in either Jeremiah 31 or in Hebrews chps. 8-10.

The end of chapter 8 is a quotation from Jer. 31.

Chapter 9 deals with the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law.

Chapter 10 contains dire warnings against those who break the New Covenant. Oops! but we are told, by the Baptists, that the New Covenant is unbreakable - again a rationialization they infer rather than an actual citation from Scripture.

They cannot produce one passage in Scripture that clearly teaches "Believers only." Yet, they joke among themselves about how "Biblical" they are? Curious. The terms "proud" and "arrogant" come to mind.

Anyway, they state that Jer. 31 indicates the full membership of the New Covenant. That the New Covenant is given to the Elect and the Elect only. Thus, they infer from it that Baptism should be given only to those who profess faith in Jesus Christ.

The passage in Jeremiah 31 refers to the Mosaic Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant. No doubt that this is why Paul refers to the Mosaic Ceremonial Laws in Hebrews 9. These laws, given after Sinai, written on the skins of animals by Moses were never meant to be perpetual. Christ, the fulfillment of the Ceremonial Law, has now come, "the Mediator of the New Covenant" and has abrogated the "blood of bulls and goats" in the Ceremonial Law.

Certainly, our credo-baptist friends will not argue that Christ has put away the Moral Law - do they? Are they antinomians? No? So they admit that there are things in the Old Covenant that have transferred over into the New Covenant that are applicable for the Church today? If you deny this, then not only are you teaching contrary to Christ and His Apostles, but the term "Dispensational" really does apply to you. The Ten Commands given through the hand of the Mediator of the Covenant is a rule of life for the Christian.

Membership in the New Covenant is mediated by the promises given in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which is established on better promises, Heb. 8:6.

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance, Heb. 9:15.

Those credo-baptists who enjoy reading John Owen on this subject might want to consider his exposition of this in vol. 6, pgs. 324ff;

The way whereby God did convey or would communicate this inheritance unto any, was by promise...

The intention of Jeremiah and Paul is to show the excellency of the New Covenant above the Mosaic Ceremonial Law. A curious passage, quoted by both, tells us that the credo-baptist interpretation is incorrect:

And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, Heb. 8:11, Geneva Bible.

If this passage is in full force, then we should do away with pastors and teachers. Baptist pastors should be a thing of the past. We should not be "teaching every man his neighbor" because all know the Lord, and need no instruction concerning Him. The many passages that Paul writes concering God giving "pastors, and teachers" should be struck from our Bibles, because such offices are not necessary in the New Covenant.

There is a group of credo-baptists who logically follow the interpretation of this passage - they are called Quakers.

The idea that the promises of the New Covenant are given only to the Elect is nowhere substantiated either in Jer. 31 or Hebrews 8-10. That the promises are effective to the Elect is a truth that does not deny infant baptism.

1 Cor. 7:14

The argument that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer means that we should baptize the unbeliever does not fly in the face of the passage. The unbelieving spouse is not sanctified for his/her own sake, but for the sake of his/her child - Otherwise - the child would be unclean, but now the child is holy.

How can one refuse baptism to a person of whom the Bible says is holy? Again, the credo-baptist follows his own prejudice rather than sound exegesis from the Bible.

Blessings,

-CH

Saving union with Christ is the work of the Holy Spirit,not water baptism
Unless and until the Spirit quickens the child,teen , or adult, they are still children of wrath even as others. There is no middle ground. Dead in Adam, or Alive in Christ. The promise of acts 2 , is the regeneration of the Spirit, not a potential promise that might or might not take place,sometime in the future. In romans 6, or col 2, or 1 Cor 12, Spirit baptism is in view, water baptism to follow the quickening work of the Spirit,the new birth and open confession of Christ.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Saving union with Christ is the work of the Holy Spirit,not water baptism
Unless and until the Spirit quickens the child,teen , or adult, they are still children of wrath even as others. There is no middle ground. Dead in Adam, or Alive in Christ. The promise of acts 2 , is the regeneration of the Spirit, not a potential promise that might or might not take place,sometime in the future. In romans 6, or col 2, or 1 Cor 12, Spirit baptism is in view, water baptism to follow the quickening work of the Spirit,the new birth and open confession of Christ.

Again, you err in calling this a "potential" promise. It really is something hard for the Baptist to understand. Please don't take that as being mean-spirited but it is against your pre-suppositions to see the Promise as not resting on you. The promise does not depend upon the recipient.

Faith is the response of the recipient on the basis of elective grace but the Promise itself is in the person of Christ. There is not "potentiality" in that - merely reality.

I'm really quite weary of this for now and am going to take a break for a while. I may or may not have time to take this up in the morning. The rest of what I write is not aimed at you Anthony. It is a general observation. I would ask all to read it in the spirit of grace which I intend.

I will close for now with the observation I made before. The goal that Baptists attempt to achieve - namely the baptism of the elect - is not achieved.

These lengthy discussions on the nature of circumcision are important only to show how the visible Church really functions. It's quite easy to talk in platitudes about election on a forum. When a flesh and blood person comes up to you and says: "I believe in Jesus and wish to be baptized....", it is fallacious to presume that the person is elect and that, therefore, he ought to be baptized. No, you baptize because of his profession. He is now joined to the Covenant community and all the responsibilities that entails (for him and for the Church).

The passages being used by the Baptists today to demonstrate the incorruptability of the NC are promises declared and reiterated by Paul and the other Apostles in the epistles to the Churches. Paul does not stop and start in Romans 5-8 and have to constantly re-qualify himself when addressing the Church at large. It's not because the entire Church is elect. In fact, there are those that probably fell away in that congregation and, lo, Paul is saying things as if they apply to them. We understand that not all were, indeed, foreknown, called, etc from the foundation of the world but that's the nature of how the Covenant community is addressed. The true believers are encouraged and strengthened, while, for the false, it's like water off a duck's back. But we continue to admonish and encourage all in the visible Church until discipline is necessary.

The problem for me is not so much in affirming the perfect nature of the New Covenant Church for those united to Christ. The WCF is actually stronger in its affirmation of benefits to the elect than the LBCF is. The problem is that Baptists err in believing they have figured out a way to identify the elect in a way that is not even hinted at in the Epistles. They acknowledge they're not baptizing the elect, and, when challenged, refer to the fact that profession is "most likely" the case. Asked for a Scriptural defense of such a claim and none is produced.

Thus, a Baptist can produce all the passages that I see as applicable to the elect and I'll give a hearty AMEN as to the unique and sure benefits that the Elect alone participate in as part of the New Covenant. Yet, where they fall completely down is in their schema on how they think they're nurturing the Elect in their midst. Contrary to their claim, they do not baptize merely the elect and they fail at this at the cost of completely destroying the knowledge of the Covenant itself in their midst. They also must completely jettison all the Old Covenant passages related to the Covenant nurture of their children as those promises and enjoinments relate to children being enjoined according to their Covenant status in Abraham.

The irony here is that they gain nothing over the Paedobaptist Reformed in the end from my perspective. Contrary to their claim, they do not baptize only the elect. They lose their children, they lose the sense of Covenant, and they lose the connection with the Saints of old who laid hold of Christ and the hope they had for their children to do the same.

Pax!

Rich

While at this point I don't agree with you still, I must say that I do appreciate the way you make your points. If all paedo's made their arguments/case in the manner and style that you do I would enjoy these debates much more, and who knows, maybe even learn a little more, rather than feeling as if someone is annoyed with my (our) inability to be as wise and learned as them.

Originally Posted by KMK

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?)

Not in the covenant of Abraham in the sense that they received the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. Remember that Paul described circumcision in Romans 4 as a sign of the faith that Abraham had before he was circumcised, yet God commanded Abraham to circumcise Ishmael right after telling him that Ishmael was not a child of the promise. The giving of the sign is a reminder to the visible Church of God's promise to save, and even signifies that saving work in some visible way. If the child repents and believes he will receive what baptism signifies, just as the believing child in the OT would have received what circumcision signified, which is substantially the same thing (union with Christ by faith, cleansing, regeneration).

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)

We see it as an external ordinance just as we see the baptism of an adult as an external ordinance. Water baptism saves neither a man nor a boy. Furthermore, baptism does not guarantee that a man who professes faith is truly a believer anymore than it guarantees that a child will grow up to believe and get the benefits signified in his baptism. However, both the adult and the child are part of the visible church. And just as many circumcised apostates met their destruction in the OT, so many baptized apostates will meet theirs in the NT age. We have examples of this in scripture.

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*?

Can you explain the some/all dichotomy? I'm not sure I understand the origin of the question. By "some" do you mean "only males"?

Originally Posted by KMK

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?)

If one was not a part of the covenant of Abraham, then how was salvation possible for that person? Did all the women in OT go to hell?

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)

I guess it is possible that God could have kept the system the same and only had a covenant sign for guys only, but he choose not to do so.

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*?

This is more of a question for why the OT had a covenant sign for only guys instead of why girls are included. If it is accepted that female children are a part of the covenant, then one would have to produce an argument against having the sign applied.

CT

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Greetings:



They cannot produce one passage in Scripture that clearly teaches "Believers only." Yet, they joke among themselves about how "Biblical" they are? Curious. The terms "proud" and "arrogant" come to mind.


-CH

Listen.... I started to read your comments and got to this point and just stopped. I have not called anyone any names or accused anyone of being proud or arrogant. I do believe your comments can be answered but don't see any need to since you are so convinced that you have it all figured out and we stupid, arrogant, and sinfully proud Baptists just don't get it.

I have been a member in the RPCNA back in the 80's and have been a member of the PCA for some time now. But I guess my arrogant and proud attitude just gets in my way from seeing the truth.

What ever.....

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

Listen.... I started to read your comments and got to this point and just stopped. I have not called anyone any names or accused anyone of being proud or arrogant. I do believe your comments can be answered but don't see any need to since you are so convinced that you have it all figured out and we stupid, arrogant, and sinfully proud Baptists just don't get it.

I have been a member in the RPCNA back in the 80's and have been a member of the PCA for some time now. But I guess my arrogant and proud attitude just gets in my way from seeing the truth.

What ever.....

Martin - and that's why I have elected to just read this thread and not participate in the debate. Invariably this is where it leads.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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.

I don't think I am ignoring the significance of the Promise to Abraham. I just don't see that your emphasis of the Covenant of Grace is the only promise involved in the Covenant God made with Abraham as I shared with you in my previous posts. And I do believe you would agree with me in that statement. There are different kinds of promises in Abraham. Some are of the nature that promises specific land and rescue from affliction after 400 years. And promises in the word seed that is pluralistic and not singular.

I never thought you were claiming Ishmael had a part in Christ. I just think you are applying the whole of the promises to Abraham to Ishmael in a general context when that is a mistake. I don't think you understand the significance of circumcision. It made one a member of Abraham's household. Without it one was not allowed to dwell as a member of his household. There was no sign that sins were forgiven or that there was true reconciliation to God as there is in baptism. But there were promises... Some spiritual and some physical and sometimes they interlinked and sometimes they didn't.

And I don't think this statement is true either.....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. It is a complete misrepensentation of me or anyone I know of. I am talking about application of the Covenant and the different kinds of promises that interlink and ones that may not. God will judge everyperson for unbellief. So this is kind of a straw man.

Rich you said...
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.

I will also say that the sign didn't signify the same thing for Ishmael that it did for Isaac. And I do think Abraham understood this especially after Genesis 17:21 which was before he circumcised Ishmael as you seem to not understand.


(Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

(Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

(Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.


(Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

(Gen 17:22) And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

(Gen 17:23) And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.


I will address the rest of your post later... I need to take a break right now. So please wait and give me time to finish addressing it so I am not chasing rabbit trails. Thanks Rich.....

Love ya brother, Randy

Oh POOH... I actidentally just deleted my post trying to add a few bible passages. I will respond again later Rich. I had responded to half of your post and took a break after posting it. That is just how it goes sometimes. I will redo it again later.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Again, you err in calling this a "potential" promise. It really is something hard for the Baptist to understand. Please don't take that as being mean-spirited but it is against your pre-suppositions to see the Promise as not resting on you. The promise does not depend upon the recipient.

Faith is the response of the recipient on the basis of elective grace but the Promise itself is in the person of Christ. There is not "potentiality" in that - merely reality.

I'm really quite weary of this for now and am going to take a break for a while. I may or may not have time to take this up in the morning. The rest of what I write is not aimed at you Anthony. It is a general observation. I would ask all to read it in the spirit of grace which I intend.

I will close for now with the observation I made before. The goal that Baptists attempt to achieve - namely the baptism of the elect - is not achieved.

These lengthy discussions on the nature of circumcision are important only to show how the visible Church really functions. It's quite easy to talk in platitudes about election on a forum. When a flesh and blood person comes up to you and says: "I believe in Jesus and wish to be baptized....", it is fallacious to presume that the person is elect and that, therefore, he ought to be baptized. No, you baptize because of his profession. He is now joined to the Covenant community and all the responsibilities that entails (for him and for the Church).

The passages being used by the Baptists today to demonstrate the incorruptability of the NC are promises declared and reiterated by Paul and the other Apostles in the epistles to the Churches. Paul does not stop and start in Romans 5-8 and have to constantly re-qualify himself when addressing the Church at large. It's not because the entire Church is elect. In fact, there are those that probably fell away in that congregation and, lo, Paul is saying things as if they apply to them. We understand that not all were, indeed, foreknown, called, etc from the foundation of the world but that's the nature of how the Covenant community is addressed. The true believers are encouraged and strengthened, while, for the false, it's like water off a duck's back. But we continue to admonish and encourage all in the visible Church until discipline is necessary.

The problem for me is not so much in affirming the perfect nature of the New Covenant Church for those united to Christ. The WCF is actually stronger in its affirmation of benefits to the elect than the LBCF is. The problem is that Baptists err in believing they have figured out a way to identify the elect in a way that is not even hinted at in the Epistles. They acknowledge they're not baptizing the elect, and, when challenged, refer to the fact that profession is "most likely" the case. Asked for a Scriptural defense of such a claim and none is produced.

Thus, a Baptist can produce all the passages that I see as applicable to the elect and I'll give a hearty AMEN as to the unique and sure benefits that the Elect alone participate in as part of the New Covenant. Yet, where they fall completely down is in their schema on how they think they're nurturing the Elect in their midst. Contrary to their claim, they do not baptize merely the elect and they fail at this at the cost of completely destroying the knowledge of the Covenant itself in their midst. They also must completely jettison all the Old Covenant passages related to the Covenant nurture of their children as those promises and enjoinments relate to children being enjoined according to their Covenant status in Abraham.

The irony here is that they gain nothing over the Paedobaptist Reformed in the end from my perspective. Contrary to their claim, they do not baptize only the elect. They lose their children, they lose the sense of Covenant, and they lose the connection with the Saints of old who laid hold of Christ and the hope they had for their children to do the same.

Pax!

Well said.

Robert,

When you say someone is not Biblical, what do you mean? For example, much of Mormon doctrine is not Biblical and totally out to lunch. However, the case that the Baptists on this board and thread seem to be a whole lot more Biblical, and dare I say actually plausible, then much of Mormon doctrine. Just curious.

It seems that the funny Baptist joke has phased you, otherwise you wouldn't be this negatively intense towards the Baptist case. Also, you obviously feel the Baptist case is totally wrong and thus when you see people confident in the Baptist case, or even making satirical jokes on the topic, you feel like you are talking to infants (no pun intended). And that's fine as far as it goes I guess, but it makes it easier to dialogue (and probably in the long run sound convincing) if your a little more charitable. I personally think Rich is a good example for cogent argument done in an intense but not downgrading way.

Personally, I like the intensity, but I have a hard time thinking that the main Baptist contributors on this thread are arrogant and prideful.

it makes it easier to dialogue (and probably in the long run sound convincing) if your a little more charitable. I personally think Rich is a good example for cogent argument done in an intense but not downgrading way.

Personally, I like the intensity, but I have a hard time thinking that the main Baptist contributors on this thread are arrogant and prideful.

Thank you Mark, well said!

Originally Posted by tellville

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

You are a disturbed young man Mark. I would rather have a root canal then spend 5 minutes in these baptismal mosh pits. I just dropped by to look for dead bodies and pick the teeth of their gold fillings.

If what you say is true Mark then I'm going to get you the number of a non-profit group that helps people like you to pay for a frontal lobotomy.

Maybe this horse has some gold fillings ---->

***removed for revisions***

I started to read all the posts in this thread and then gave up - it's a bit long.

Can I recommend that folks listen to this excellent sermon by David Silversides:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...D=122605124549

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

You are a disturbed young man Mark. I would rather have a root canal then spend 5 minutes in these baptismal mosh pits. I just dropped by to look for dead bodies and pick the teeth of their gold fillings.

If what you say is true Mark then I'm going to get you the number of a non-profit group that helps people like you to pay for a frontal lobotomy.

Maybe this horse has some gold fillings ---->

Is that non-profit group perhaps The Church of Bob?

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Is that non-profit group perhaps The Church of Bob?

No. The Church of Bawb's motto is, "Take what you can, give nothing back!" It is all about profit.

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

No. The Church of Bawb's motto is, "Take what you can, give nothing back!" It is all about profit.

I'm sorry. I thought the motto involved beer of some sort.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

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?

First off it really isn't anything new that there would be others who try to come in and spy our our liberty in Christ and oppose us or distort the Gospel. Let me remind you that even Peter was one of these so Paul called upon the Elders and Apostles in Jerusalem to in Acts 15 to deal with this problem. Peter needed to be corrected on what made one a member of the community of Faith in the New Covenantor Covenant of Grace in its final administration.
Pauls bringing up the two covenants is to serve as an eye opener to whom he is writing. It seems Circumcision in these passages is always connected to the law of bondage. And Paul is warning against it. There is no forgiveness in it outside of the promised seed which is by faith alone.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

The point Paul labors, and I will labor again, in Galatians 3 (please read it again for yourself) is that the promise to Abraham was fulfilled by the New Covenant. It was not set aside by the Old Covenant. In fact, Abraham is said to have embraced the Gospel and, from afar off, received the same benefits we did. This is why, in Romans 4, he is a present and not merely a past example.

You seem to think I am not understanding you here when I have affirmed this previously.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

The point why Ishmael is a perfect example is because he has a sign in his flesh and could have laid hold of the promise made to Abraham. His inability to do so as an unregenerate person doesn't excuse him for his unbelief and his mockery of his little brother. He trusted in the strength of his flesh and is therefore completely appropriate to use as an example of New Covenant members who are trying to fall back on the flesh and are not embracing Abraham's God in faith.

The reason he was unable to lay hold of the promise of the Covenant of Grace but lay hold of other promises in the Covenant of Circumcision is because God made it so. God still gave promises to Abraham concerning Ishmael. This was a part of the Covenant Promises also. This in no way takes away his responsiblity to call upon God and repent. Just like it doesn't for everyone in the world. Even if they don't or do recieve any sign.

And Circumcision still does signify something even in a carnal context. The Promises to Ismael or anyone who shared in the household of Abraham were under the Protective eye of God as a people. God separated them for a purpose. To reveal his glory.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Your scheme, frankly, would remove the whole obligation both of Ishmael to respond in faith as well as the Judaizers to do the same because, after all, for them circumcision (or baptism for the Judaizers) doesn't signify anything that they have to lay hold of. It doesn't signify anything for them because you tie the significance of the sign to the disposition of the believer and not to the Promise of God.

Already answered this....

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

No, there are not two Covenants in Abraham. This is a mis-interpretation of the text. It is an allegory that fits the trust in the flesh and, especially in the case of Galatians, to show how similar the rebellion and pride of Ishmael is to the Judiazers. Nevertheless, Sinai is not the Covenant of Works. In fact, were you to read Paul more carefully in Galatians, it is added to the Abrahamic Promise for a gracious purpose. It had a redemptive purpose. I agree with some theologians that see a CoW aspect to Sinai but to call it a CoW and, by extension, to say that Abraham had two Covenants is a-textual especially since he made the point just a couple of chapters earlier that what was promised to Abraham was not annulled by something that came 400 years later. It would make Paul schizophrenic. This is why he emphasizes that his point is allegorical - Ishmael is an object lesson: his teasing of Isaac is a picture of the Judaizers persecuting the Gentile believers.

The text speaks of Hagar and Sarah being the allagory. There are two Covenants in Abraham. The allagory just points to the fact of the two covenants. And the ministry of condemnation does not cancel out the other. I agree. It was added for offences but it didn't save. It did point to the need for the other. And it illuminated the COW.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Again, if everything you are saying is true about the primary nature of circumcision regarding a bifurcated nature (signifies something different based on the person), then it is missing in both the penultimate treatments of it in Romans and Galatians and it destroys the point Paul labors in Romans 4 where he would introduce a mixed sign that, in part, signifies trust in the flesh.

I am not basing it upon the person as you suppose but upon what God said in Genesis chapter 17 and Galatians. And just because a doctrine is only partially stated in one place doesn't destroy the point that the Author is labouring to make. Both Promises Nationally and Spiritually are from God. Not inventions of man. Abraham believed God for these and righteousness was accredited to him because of it. He was justified by faith alone. But the Covenant of circumcision also points to other things than this. Such as the Promises God made to Abraham and his descendants as well as those who where purchased by him and the stranger that came amongst them and tarried. There is such a thing as a Promise that isn't necessarily Spiritual even though it Proceeds from a God who is Spirit. He rains upon the just and the unjust.


Addition to post...

Rich I would love to stay up on this thread but I have some responsiblities to attend to for the next few days. I have some rental property to deal with before a new couple move in and some other things. I will try to keep up with you on it though.

I'm going to reply once more and then agree to disagree amicably. I simply believe you are missing the point completely even as you believe you are not.

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

I don't think I am ignoring the significance of the Promise to Abraham. I just don't see that your emphasis of the Covenant of Grace is the only promise involved in the Covenant God made with Abraham as I shared with you in my previous posts. And I do believe you would agree with me in that statement. There are different kinds of promises in Abraham. Some are of the nature that promises specific land and rescue from affliction after 400 years. And promises in the word seed that is pluralistic and not singular.

I think what you're doing is novel. The way you jump back and forth makes Paul schizophrenic with regard to the true significance of the sign. Paul even applies the broader physical blessings and makes them spiritual in Romans and Galatians to demonstrate that all the significance of circumcision converges on the point he makes regarding what the Promise truly was.

I never thought you were claiming Ishmael had a part in Christ. I just think you are applying the whole of the promises to Abraham to Ishmael in a general context when that is a mistake. I don't think you understand the significance of circumcision. It made one a member of Abraham's household. Without it one was not allowed to dwell as a member of his household. There was no sign that sins were forgiven or that there was true reconciliation to God as there is in baptism. But there were promises... Some spiritual and some physical and sometimes they interlinked and sometimes they didn't.

This is pure assertion. Nowhere in the institution of the sign nor in the OT in general can one find the significance of circumcision hinted at it being acceptable to be a "bare minimum" circumcised person. There is no category for the nominally circumcised. In fact, as soon as Ishmael rebelled he was put away.

And I don't think this statement is true either.....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. It is a complete misrepensentation of me or anyone I know of. I am talking about application of the Covenant and the different kinds of promises that interlink and ones that may not. God will judge everyperson for unbellief. So this is kind of a straw man.

And yet, you keep arguing as if the sign in Ishmael's flesh did not obligate him to anything. You keep implying the significance of the sign did not require faith on his part.

Rich you said...
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.

I will also say that the sign didn't signify the same thing for Ishmael that it did for Isaac. And I do think Abraham understood this especially after Genesis 17:21 which was before he circumcised Ishmael as you seem to not understand.

(Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

(Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

(Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.


(Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

(Gen 17:22) And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

(Gen 17:23) And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

This again, reveals an importing of your pre-suppositions into the text from my perspective. Where does this say, then, that circumcision meant something other than a sign of faith that Ishmael had to lay hold of. You presume to think that Ishmael was required to make fun of his brother and to rebel. You presume to think that because Abraham knew that the Promise would flow through his son Isaac that he must then have understood that Ishmael couldn't believe and have served Isaac in faith. That somehow, because Isaac would receive the blessing that Abraham knew Ishmael (a mere teen) was supposed to rebel against his faith. You imply that Abraham marked Ishmael knowing he hated God. In fact, if circumcision meant something other than the sign of salvation for Ishmael, then why did he not continue to circumcise his offspring as a sign of the type of blessing he was to receive? It logically follows does it not?

In fact, the example of Jonathan, Saul's son repudiates your thesis that, just because one is passed over in terms of Covenant establishment that he must not, therefore, be saved. Jonathan lost the kingdom based on his father's disobedience but he still embraced God in faith in casting his lot with David.

I need to be strong in this point in love Randy. If I was Abraham and I heard somebody accusing me of just treating this precious sign of God's grace for me in such a cavalier way, I would be indignant. Part of me wonders why Baptists want to treat their father, their example in the faith, with such an impious charge. To assume he placed a mark that signified a promise made to him by God upon just any rebel in his household is repugnant. That you try to diminish the significance of the sign and qualify that you're not really doing so doesn't work for me.

I have never argued that the reality that the sign pointed to was acquired by Ishmael simply by his being circumcised but I also categorically reject that Ishmael was circumcised with the knowledge in Abraham's heart that, just because Ishmael was not the line of promise, that he must therefore be an unbeliever. I also categorically reject a secondary meaning that Abraham applied to Ishmael or anyone else in his household. This, in effect, has Abraham thinking while circumcising: "He loves you, He loves you not, He loves you, He loves you not...." No! He circumcised all in hope and let God be God with respect to conversion. The one example, in fact, of a servant in his household displays a vibrant faith in the God of Abraham!

Ishmael should have looked to his circumcision in faith. He should have embraced the faith of his father. That he did not was according to the foreknowledge of God but the REALITY of that sign did not change. Ishmael still rebelled against the grace manifest daily in his household.

And such have all who have ever fallen away from the faith. It is because they are in the household of faith and taste of the benefits of God but then turn their back that they are so roundly condemned.

Pax!

Originally Posted by BobVigneault

You are a disturbed young man Mark. I would rather have a root canal then spend 5 minutes in these baptismal mosh pits. I just dropped by to look for dead bodies and pick the teeth of their gold fillings.

If what you say is true Mark then I'm going to get you the number of a non-profit group that helps people like you to pay for a frontal lobotomy.

Maybe this horse has some gold fillings ---->

Yep, that's me the disturbed one. I am starting to think I might make Baptism my thesis topic (as I can't think of one yet). And I find all these discussions fascinating. It makes me want to do a full Biblical theological study of the issue