Dr. Mike Renihan recommended a portion of his book (Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes) to me while we were discussing Genesis 17:7,8 in an earlier thread. So I asked him if I could type it out so we could use it for reference. So here is a link to it.



John Tombes on Genesis 17:7 - The PuritanBoard

__________________

R. Martin Snyder

1689erPuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)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?

Nice, thank you.

__________________
J. M. - Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering."
The Brothers Karamazov

Syllogisms

Major Premise: God is love.
Minor Premise: I love spinach.
Conclusion: God is spinach.

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

Man,
That is a bad syllogism.

No worse than Tombes' IMO.

At least in his syllogism he relates testimony of Scripture and infant baptism in both premises. You jump from love is God to love of spinach to making spinach God in the conclusion.

You can't be serious.

Please....

This is not about syllogisms. It is about what he sees in Genesis 17 and what the Covenants are.

I left the intro to the Exegetical Arguments on so that it would explain the method of arguing that he did in his historical context. Don't make this about the syllogisms. There are two of them. Make it about the exegesis.

__________________
Dan Pemberton
Vacaville, CA

Member, First Baptist Church San Luis Obispo
Formerly ABUSA (We left, so I guess that makes us American Baptists Unleashed!)

Stephen Marshall's Sermon on the Baptising of Infants:

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

One more thing. I left the same spelling and grammar he used in the quotes by John Tombes. Just read it a few times. I had to.

This really doesn't interact with John Tombes. But thanks for the quote.

I have love in both premises. There is no greater "jump" in my syllogism than his. But, of course, you are correct.

I am not serious. If I believed God was spinach, I wouldn't have been given membership here at the PB. I merely use this absurd syllogism to point out that the so-called locigal constructs of syllogistic reasoning are not always so cut and dried as we like to think.

I was a credo-baptist for about 28 years. Even as a credo I found this kind of argument from silence to be a stretch.

How so?

Which John Tombes quote are you sighting to deal with?

"Domestique and Civill promises were many; of the multiplying the seed of Abraham, the birth of Isaac; of the coming of Christ our of Isaac; the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and deliverance thence; of possessing the Land of Canaan, Gen 15.13,18. Gen. 17.7, 8.15,16. Act. 7.4,5,6,7,8. and many other places. (18)"

"For Tombes, circumcision sealed an earthly promise and identified Abraham’s seed as set apart to God for God’s purpose."

"That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ismael, God had said, that his covnenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac."

The quoted portion of Marshall's sermon deals directly with these allegations.

Thanks Rev. Winzer. I think your quote misses the full point and that Tombes explains it well enough in his understanding of the various aspects of the Covenant made with Abraham.

Tombes fails to account for the very point made by Marshall, which is that proselytes were circumcised who had no share in temporal privileges.

Actually, He does mention them.

I do believe their circumcision did permit them to remain with Abraham which was a blessing in and of itself. It was civil.

The argument of Marshall shows that Gentile proselytes had no interest in the temporal privileges which belonged to Israel as a nation. Why were they circumcised? They were taking God to be their God. Why were their infants circumcised? Not for temporal advantage, but in order to show their covenant interest in God. Tombes' antipaedobaptist thesis is sufficiently answered.

That's interesting to me, because when I was a dispensationalist I would have agreed completely with the premise that Gentile proselytes had no interest in the temporal privileges which belonged to Israel. But I also had no concept of covenant as I understand it today since I've turned my attention to CT.

__________________
Ryan Barnhart - Pastor of OGBC
Husband to a beautiful wife, Father to two beautiful girls
"But by the grace of God I am what I am." I Corinthians 15:10

"I confess to you, that if I can but live and die serving the Lord Jesus, it will make no difference to me whether I am eaten by Cannibals or by worms. And in the Great Day my Resurrection body will rise as fair as yours in the likeness of our risen Redeemer." - John Paton