Paedobaptism & the Covenants of God

danmpem · #1 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 12:31 AM

This is from the "a non-argumentative question for paedobaptists" thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

how can we make an assumption that baptism should be administered in the same way as circumcision when girls are now baptised?

We must look at the history of Redemption, and how it becomes more expansive to answer your question.

The Covenant of Grace has gone through an ever-widening scope until the consummation in Christ when the whole world is in God's redemptive focus.

Abraham (man) --> Jacob (family) --> Moses (nation) --> David (kingdom) --> Christ (world)

So yes, under Christ even females are brought into the covenant sign because the scope was widened to include all types of people from every nation.

But to suggest that children would no longer be included would be to suggest that the covenant did not expand, but in fact the scope was restricted further in the NT than in the OT.

I didn't understand the last paragraph. Could you expand on that further?

Also, how is the kingdom of David different from the nation of Moses? At the beginning of David's reign, wasn't he only king of Judah? And then, I think it was later he was king of all Israel. He was also called "king of Jerusalem". Is there any relevance between the three distinct titles and the covenant with David?

Thanks!

Contra_Mundum · #2 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 07:11 AM

If David and the kingdom marks any clear, symbolic progress, I would say it was in this: that he took a fragmented and divided nation, and unified them. It also appears that his kingdom is marked by a rather significant influx of former aliens. So, there is the symbol of calling the world in to join God's people, still confined to a tiny spot on the larger map. The difference being in Messiah's age, that the whole map is now designated as his.

danmpem · #3 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 01:12 PM

Thank you, Rev. Buchanan. That helped put a lot into perspective. I guess I'm still having a little trouble connecting all of that with baptism in the New Covenant. I can picture a credo making the case that they do the covenants more justice in that nowadays people who profess to be believers in Christ are baptized, instead of baptizing children who may or may not be believers. How could I approach this based on the information you just gave me?

Contra_Mundum · #4 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 01:40 PM

Who gets attached or "taken in" to God's people? Individuals and their families--at least that was the way it was during every age preceding this one. Which seems to be the point in question these days.

Demand an explanation for why this should be different now, or why, as the kingdom starts to expand territorially (btw, I'm speaking as an amillienialist here) there should be a different "claim" of ownership by the King? A "lesser" claim of ownership?

Everything that is mine is actually God's. This includes MY children. Did we get to this point following the pattern, only to have God now say: "I don't lay claim to those possessions of yours." If he says that "Well, now God claims everything," I reply, "Sure, and he always has." And yet he marked out the people and place which were decisively his. He separated those who would identify themselves with him, those whom he would publicly acknowledge.

God takes us, and everything we are and have, and disowns our children at the same time? I don't think so. He may put them out later on: temporarily for discipline, or permanently as a just punishment.

You could put it this way: From here (the Resurrection) on out, the difference is Christ and his kingdom on the offensive. Henceforth, man's situation is that he is encountering God's claims everywhere and always--not just in nature, but especially in the full gospel proclamation. He either runs away, or he gets swallowed up; he either submits going in, or he gets taken inside unhumbled. If he finds himself "inside" without a wedding garment he is getting thrown outside. God's kingdom is gobbling up everything. And he's keeping the fat, and spitting out the bones.

The other notion is that He is too "dainty" (in this polluted world!) to engulf any but the elect. Its up to us to keep his plate clean. I can't accept that responsibility. The purified church is an eschatological fact, not an earthly, this-worldly one. I don't have a functioning "elector-detector." And I don't think he ever asked us to "bone" his plate. He invited US to HIS meal. And we are responsible for disciplining that which we can see.

armourbearer · #5 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 07:59 PM

Bruce has explained it well. In essence, grace superabounds in the NT, but in the case of infants who are excluded from covenant privileges it is apparent that grace has been restricted and sin much more abounds.

danmpem · #6 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Who gets attached or "taken in" to God's people? Individuals and their families--at least that was the way it was during every age preceding this one. Which seems to be the point in question these days.

Demand an explanation for why this should be different now, or why, as the kingdom starts to expand territorially (btw, I'm speaking as an amillienialist here) there should be a different "claim" of ownership by the King? A "lesser" claim of ownership?

Everything that is mine is actually God's. This includes MY children. Did we get to this point following the pattern, only to have God now say: "I don't lay claim to those possessions of yours." If he says that "Well, now God claims everything," I reply, "Sure, and he always has." And yet he marked out the people and place which were decisively his. He separated those who would identify themselves with him, those whom he would publicly acknowledge.

God takes us, and everything we are and have, and disowns our children at the same time? I don't think so. He may put them out later on: temporarily for discipline, or permanently as a just punishment.

You could put it this way: From here (the Resurrection) on out, the difference is Christ and his kingdom on the offensive. Henceforth, man's situation is that he is encountering God's claims everywhere and always--not just in nature, but especially in the full gospel proclamation. He either runs away, or he gets swallowed up; he either submits going in, or he gets taken inside unhumbled. If he finds himself "inside" without a wedding garment he is getting thrown outside. God's kingdom is gobbling up everything. And he's keeping the fat, and spitting out the bones.

The other notion is that He is too "dainty" (in this polluted world!) to engulf any but the elect. Its up to us to keep his plate clean. I can't accept that responsibility. The purified church is an eschatological fact, not an earthly, this-worldly one. I don't have a functioning "elector-detector." And I don't think he ever asked us to "bone" his plate. He invited US to HIS meal. And we are responsible for disciplining that which we can see.

I am going to go sit on that for while. Thank you so much, Bruce. This has help me understand a LOT.