Thank you, Bruce. I see what you are saying about infant baptism and true baptism. I appreciate the right spirit in which it was presented as well.

__________________
William Price
Attending Mills Road Baptist Church, Houston, Texas

http://www.commandmentsandjudgment.com

The Reformed Voice Radio Broadcast

LBCF 1689

Hello AJ,
You posted the following;

You are correct that I have a different view of the decree/administration. More so in reference to the NT.
I do not agree that only in heaven can the Jer.31/Hebs8 passage be true. I believe that is true for all who savingly believe right now.
AJ, when you say this;
I see scripture as teaching that Spirit baptism is the seal. Credo baptism as an outward confession before men of the inward reality.
Any false professor who partipates in baptism, that very false baptism will be one more time he or she has taken God's name in vain.
In MT . 7 Jesus tells such persons depart from me, I never at anytime knew you. He does not say, I only knew you in an outward administration, but then you became a covenant breaker.
Your position has two aspects of the covenant of grace, savingly and inward,,, non savingly and outward. My position has only one, what you would call the invisible church. False professors who assemble with the church, are not of it.1Jn 2:19.
I can explain more if you like.did I understand your question correctly?

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

Is the revision of this text available anywhere, save from the author?

__________________
Robert K. "Kelly" Brumbelow
In Inquirer's class at Grace Presbyterian (PCA) Cedartown, GA
Cedartown, Georgia

Dear Lord and Father of mankind, Forgive our foolish ways;
Reclothe us in our rightful mind, In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise. - John Greenleaf Whittier 1807-1892

Hello brother. I didn't say that only in heaven will the Jer. 31/Heb. 8 passage be true. The New Covenant has been inaugurated and is presently being realized as the gospel is brought to the Gentile nations/families previously unreached by the gospel (Acts 3:25; Gal. 3:8). But only in heaven will it be consummated.

I already indicated that there are unbelievers in the adminstration of the New Covenant (Matt 22; John 15; Rom. 11; 1 Cor. 5, 10-11; Heb. 3-4, 6, 10; Rev. 2-3), and there will be unbelievers in the visible church until the New Covenant is consummated. I don't see how 1 John 2:19 somehow denies this.

Anyway, Mr. Wieland is presently dealing with the mode of baptism, and asking the Baptist posters to interact with the arguments (i.e., meaning of the baptizo and its cognates, and the Biblical usage of those terms) he presented from Mr. Bass' book. It would be better to discuss the proper recipients for a later time.

Blessings!

__________________
Albert, The Republic of the Philippines
Pasig United Covenant Reformed Church (a Reformed church plant)
United Covenant Reformed Churches in the Philippines (UCRCP)
Three Forms of Unity and Westminster Confession of Faith

Psalm 27:1a (AV) The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?
“Perseverance is the badge of true saints. The Christian life is not a beginning only in the ways of God, but also a continuance in the same as long as life lasts.” -

Hello Anthony!

I am sorry for taking so long in responding to you as well. After preaching in Aurora, OH last Sunday (Aug 9) I have driven over the past few days 1,500 miles back to Colorado Springs, and I will be here until Aug 26th (then back to Pittsburgh).

I was not so much offended as I was surprised by your comment. Would you consider John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ a "long drawn out" argument for Limited Atonement? Or, John Gill's The Cause of God and Truth on the matter of Election as "long and drawn out"? When a man seeks to be comprehensive in his presentation of a subject, then it does take much time and writing to cover the subject completely. I was also a little bit hurt, because I tried to deal with Mr. Bass' presentation as succinctly as possible. If any offense was taken, then I forgive you, and there is peace between us.

After reading your post I think the major difference between the two of us is this idea that New Covenant baptism somehow illustrates the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Rom 6 and Col 2 passages that are used by credo-baptists to prove their idea these passages are not addressing the mode of baptism either by sprinkling or dipping.

I think it important enough to write this again: The Rom 6 and Col 2 passages are not addressing the mode of water baptism either by sprinkling or dipping.

I believe that the argument which Mr. Bass uses is that the Rom and Col passages are referring to the baptism by the Spirit of God. This baptism irreversably unites us to Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

You have to remember that in the Original Post Mr. Bass pointed out that the word baptidzo here does not mean "to dip," but to merge, or unite, in a permament fashion. The word closely resembles our English word "immerse" which indicates a union with something without disuniting it. Thus, "dipping" does not adequately define the word, because "dipping" is a "putting in and taking out." Whereas baptidzo indicates a putting in, but not a taking out - we are baptidzo into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We are united to Christ, but we are never taken out of that union.

Now, you mentioned Jonah. Is there any reference in the Bible that Jonah's experience reflected baptism by the Holy Spirit uniting us to Christ? I understand Jesus' use of Jonah's experience as prophetic of what was about to happen to him. But, where is it linked to the baptism of the Spirit? If I were to look at the circumstances more closely, then I do not see a dipping here: Jonah was saved from the water by a large fish which swallowed him whole. As he travelled about in this fish he was not dipped in the water, but spared from drowning in it. He was also spat out by this fish onto dry land. I am mystified how all of this can relate to water baptism at all?

Blessings,

Rob

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
Never be afraid to do something new. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, but professionals built the Titanic.

A professor at RTS Charlotte a few years ago when discussing these passages said to our class, "To any baptist that may be in the room, there is not a DROP of water in either of these passages."

__________________
Chris
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte (PRC)
Student, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
SC

...hope is nothing but the nourishment and strength of faith.
~ Calvin's Institutes III.ii.43

Hello Rob,
Here is where I find an inconsistency with many who put forth the Padeo understanding of these sections. From your last post you wrote:
Now I agree with this as we have already established. I am looking at where you and MR.Bass say,
and again
Obviously then these statements would then speak of the elect alone.Anyone" irreversably united to Christ," and those who are" never taken out of that union" are the sheep.
I do not see either passage as pointing to ,or a sign of what "might" be signified. To say that the sprinkled infant is now in anyway "united" to Christ even in some type of outward administration in light of MR.Bass writing does not follow.
The idea of a breakable NT.covenant does not fit they shall all know me
I am aware that I have to account for 1Cor 10:1-11 all were baptized unto Moses, all drank of that spiritual drink,as well as the warning of Hebrews 3-4,and 10.
I have been listening to many sermons on these passages, particullarly from David Silversides on sermonaudio. He makes a strong presentation and does not shy away from any issue related to this topic.
However, when I listen to sermonaudio on Romans 6 the padeo presentations almost sound as if they were speaking of baptismal regeneration when addressing the text. { I do not think anyone here would defend that position!] I think I will try and save those sermons on a flash drive so I can point you to some of them. I do not want to name some of those pastors here online, as I will have some opportunity to discuss these matters face to face with them first and make sure I am not mis-understanding what they say.
I had earlier on in one of my first posts thanked you for posting what you did. I just raised a caution about trusting in the length of some explanations is all. I am not saying that someone should not seek to be comprehensive, just that they should not mix the apples and the oranges.
Jesus spoke of Jonah as a sign. I believe it figures in to the whole discussion of the death ,burial, and ressurection.
I see it in the same way Noah's flood or the exodus is viewed. My previous post addressed this. We are preserved from death in Union with Christ as in Romans 6. by Spirit baptism. Water baptism is the proper outward confession of the inward reality of Spirit baptism in a believer.

Greetings Anthony:

There is much in your above post that I am in agreement with concerning baptism.

First, you are still reading into the Rom and Col passages the idea of water baptism. The idea of water baptism is not in those texts. If you would like to prove that water baptism can be found in the texts, then I am all ears.

I can see why you would think that paedo's are touching upon baptismal regeneration - the concept that one is instantly regenerated when one is water baptized. We are not looking at the passages as illustrative of water baptism, but of the Spirit of God working regeneration in the elect, or, in the colorful words of the Apostle - baptism by the Spirit.

Here is an obsticle for your view of water baptism as being present in these passages: If Paul has in mind water baptism, then he would be talking about baptismal regeneration, because both would then be spoken about in the passages.

Paedo-baptists categorically reject the idea that water baptism is being mentioned in the passages. What Paul is writing about is our being baptidzo or united to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ through the work of the Spirit of God. He is using the term baptidzo in a figurative sense in order to bring about a truth: That we are eternally baptidzo merged, immersed, united to Jesus Christ by the working of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

In my humble opinion it is unbiblical to claim that water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ when all of Scripture tells us that it symbolizes the work of the Spirit of God in the heart of man. The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is already celebrated in the Lord's Supper and on the first day of every week - the day when Christ rose from the dead. Why do we need baptism to celebrate something that we already celebrate?

Here is another idea that is tripping you up. You wrote:

Water baptism is not an "outward confession of the inward reality." It is not a public (outward) confession of faith. I am talking with another credo-baptist on this very issue, and I cannot seem to get it out of his head. Here are some questions for you:

If a baptism is done privately, and in the middle of the night, like Paul did with the Phillippian jailor, is it a legitimate baptism?

Neither the 1689 nor the Westminster Standards ever argue that baptism is an "outward confession of an inner reality." Where do you find this teaching?

Most baptism (if not all these days) are performed privately in a church. How is this considered an outward confession?

Baptism is not a confession of faith. It is a sacrament of initiation into the New Covenant given to believers and their children. Baptism carries all of the significance of circumcision in the Old Testament except that the outward ordinance was changed. All of the inner realities found in circumcision are found in baptism. Since this is the case, and we find no law in the New Testament forbidding infants baptism, the regulation that allowed Abraham (a believer) and his household access to the New Covenant is still in force.

Blessings,

Rob

Hi,

Yes, it does say household there and not just infants. So I assume you would have no problem baptizing a child of believing parents of any age? Let's say, 14, 18, 24...

__________________
Trey Etheridge
Pastor
Grace Church
Searcy, AR

Hi everyone:

I want to thank you all for your valuable posts. I´ve bee unable to thank each one of them separately because I don´t have the "thank" button yet. And especially to you, Rob, for the amazing effort you´ve put in this thread, and which has made me rethink many issues which I though I had resolved long ago, again. I do value long explanation, and if it´s true that they can mean a lack of arguments, they can also mean an excess of them (and much more more frequently this latter, btw), so it´s wrong to judge a work by its extension. The reason why I delayed in responding is that many things in my life had changed in the last week (like a change of country, for example, from Mexico to USA, though not as a wetback, thankfully), so that´s why I haven´t had the time to sit here and write.

As I said in my first comment, I have considered myself 51% credo, till now, and that because one has to choose. There´s no third option in this debate (well, a third option would be to baptize children and then rebaptize them when adults; but will someone here propose this?). I find excellent arguments and also some perplexing questions for both sides. For example, in support of credo, I can´t help finding a relation between baptism and confession of faith, and a relation between baptism and salvation (not magically, of course), but 1 Pet 3 clearly says that "baptism now SAVES you", and the Nicean Creed says: Credo in una baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. In NT times, when someone had faith and repentance to be saved, the first step was to be baptized. It didn´t exist the modern practice of "just close your eyes and make a saving prayer". It was "repent and be baptized" (Acts. 2). So if paedos say that children are saved through baptism, they are admitting that some can be saved without faith, and they would have problems explaining how their baptism is not an opere operato rite, while if they say that children are not saved on the moment of their baptism, then why when they come to be saved later, if it happens, they don´t have to follow the regular practice of "repent and be baptized"? Yes, you can say this refers to adults only, but for their children the procedure is different. And could be, but the problem is that there is no direct Biblical warrant for that. And if the NT was written during the 50 or 60 years after Pentecost, it is obvious that thousands of children of believers were baptized in that time, and still there is not one mention of it in any of the 27 books, nor in any of the second century writings, either. This is puzzling, at the least. Other inconsistencies would be, for example, if baptism is the exact equivalent of circumcision, and not a "free" antytipe, so to say, then why baptizing girls? I´m not saying this is an unsolvable question, but just something that could be raised as a sort of objection. Or, better still, as Houston E. just said, what about the grown up children of new believers? Are they still in the covenant and should be baptized, even if they don´t seem to profess any faith? If not, what is the proper age to demark the line? Another objection could be that in nearly every instance of baptism in the NT, and in all the theologic references to it, it seems that water baptism shpould theorically match the Holy Spirit baptism or happen afterwards, in any case. To separate them can be perhaps something not far from the modern Pentecostal idea that you are first saved and somewhere later you receive the baptism of the Spirit.

Calvin says regarding the sacraments: "All the energy of operation belongs to the Spirit, and the sacraments are mere instruments which without his agency are vain and useless, but with it, are fraught with surprising efficacy". This implies that to baptize infants one has to assume that the Spirit is operating a regeneration in the baby, or otherwise we are wasting our time in a "vain and useless" rite. But the problem is that there is a more than significant number of those babies who will later show no signs of regeneration at all, even until death. Ishmael and Esau were members of the covenant family, and still they were out of the covenant. Again, I´m not saying that this are absolute arguments, but simply issues to think about. I think all this questions are legitimate to throw up.

On the other side, there are also some inconsistencies on the credo camp. For example, I cannot see how can you manage to hold a strict covenant theology, and practice credo baptism at the same time. Maybe this is why there is such a strong tendency on the Baptist side not only to be more "New Covenant" in scope, but also to tend toward premillenialism and even dispensationalism sometimes. There is also a greater tendency to separatism and radical evangelism (by this I understand the adopting of a certain "too broad" attitude and methods to attract more people). Of course this is not what always happens, but just a certain tendency. I say this after studying baptist history and sociology for not less than 10-12 years. Obviously, in the arminian baptist side things are much worse.

Finally, I´ll confess that in this last week my numbers changed, and I thank all the good posters here for their part in it. Now I would consider myself a 51% Paedo and 49% Credo. In other words, a Presbyterian with abiding doubts regarding baptism. The principal reasons for my change are:

a) I realized that 95% of the theologians I have always most admired are Presbyterians. It´s not that we should be moved only by human authorities, but such an excelent company summed on one same camp is less likely to be wrong than I.
b) The difficulty in dealing with convenant theology and credo-baptism at the same time forced me to make a decision to favor the first one.
c) I joined Grace OPC in San Antonio, and being in agreement with them in this issue is the best, in order to walk together in perfect unity and peace.
d) The arguments presented in this thread helped a lot, of course, too.
e) Reading some papers of one of my greatest heroes in theology, WGT Shedd (the guy in my avatar, for if someone didn´t know), I was finally convinced. One passage was especially powerful for that purpose, namely the following: "They (infants) are church members by reason of their birth from believing parents; and it has been truly said, that the question that confronts them at the period of discretion is not, Will you join the visible church? but, Will you go out of it? Church membership by birth from believers is an appointment of God under both the old and the new economies; in the Jewish and the Christian church... A citizen of the state must be presumed to be such, until the contrary appears by his renunciation of citizenship, and self-expatriation. Until he takes this course, he must be regarded as a citizen. So a baptized child, in adult years, may renounce his baptism and church membership, become an infidel, and join the synagoge of Satan; but until he does this he must be regarded as a member of the church of Christ... The possible exceptions to the general fact that baptism is the sign of regeneration are not more numerous in the case of baptized infants, than of baptized convents."
f) Finally, I understood that there is indeed a contradiction between saying that the children are members of the church in the Baptist side, and refusing to baptize them. Either you deny their membership, as the LBCF seems to do, or you accept to baptize them, as the Bible commands in the case of all members. I prefer the second option now, in consistency with covenant theology, though for years it seemed easy to me to believe that they are not members until they profess so.

And regarding the MODE of baptism, I find no problem in remaining in a 50-50 position, as I´ve been always. First, the counter arguments you gave about the verb louo (I don´t use the w, because although it looks like the omega, it sounds as u in English, not as o) weren´t convincing enough, and next time I have a time to sit and write I´ll try to explain why (unless in this week I become a thorough-going sprinkler, which doesn´t seem improbable now! I hope at least, however, that one of these weeks I won´t become a Romanist or a JW! Hehe, just joking). Finally, I wonder if this debate on the MODE is not the equivalent of discussing if the wine of the Supper should be served in crystal or silver glasses! The important thing is the Spirit working in the sacraments, and naturally the reverence and discernent with which we receive them, not the minute way of practicing them, like if we were still under the ceremonial law. You can be sure that if the mode were of utmost importance, there would be a Leviticus-kind book in the NT. There is good historical evidence, for example, that the Roman church by the end of the 1st century used regular, leavened bread for the Supper, instead of matzoh.

I´ve been accused multiple times of being taken by every wind of doctrine, because I´ve changed so many times my opinions on different theological issues. But that´s because I´m constantly growing, and this will require for anyone constant adjustments, even after many years of being believers. At least I can assure you that each and every change has been to draw me nearer to the classical reformed theology. Otherwise I would be a stubborn. Now my signature and bio reflect the changes suffered last week in life and doctrine.

Your servant in Christ (and sorry for the long post),

__________________
Ricardo Stern
Someone who has to learn everyday to think less and less of himself.
Grace OPC, San Antonio, TX
A penitent man is necessarily virtuous; but a virtuous man is not necessarily penitent. Sorrow for sin produces morality; but morality does not produce sorrow for sin.- W. G. T. Shedd

I have not been able to contribute much on the board lately. I am not going to be able to contribute much for the next few days but I did want to point to a blog entry I made tonight. It deals with Covenant heads and Covenant Children. I also have other things on my blog that might address some of the things mentioned in this thread.

Covenant Head and Covenant Children - The PuritanBoard

Sorry for the hit and run but that is all I can do at this time.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

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

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

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

Rob, I just wanted to point out a Greek grammatical error in your post. I don't know if the error was caused by the author or by the way you worded your synopsis, but there is a slight problem. It's nothing that really damages the argument, but it's sloppy nonetheless.

First, εις never takes the dative case, only the accusative. I think the author meant εν, and I'm interpreting the slash mark to mean "when εν is used in a μεν clause." Second, μεν is simply a contrastive particle often used in conjunction with δε to show two alternatives (the μεν clause is the first and the δε the second). So, there is no reason at all that μεν would affect the meaning of the preposition. Now, I would agree with the author that in the statements made by John the Baptist (most of the examples), the instrumental sense makes more sense, but it has nothing to do with the presence of μεν.

For example, in John 11:6 we read τοτε μεν εμεινεν εν ω ην τοπω δυο ημερας, translated woodenly "Then he remained in the place in which he was for two days." Also Acts 12:5 - ο μεν ουν Πετρος ετηρειτο εν τη φυλακη. "So Peter was being kept in the prison."

Third, some of the examples given don't even match when εις is corrected to εν. Luke 3:16 contains a μεν clause that uses a dative without a governing preposition. The corresponding δε clause uses the εν preposition, and the meaning is presumably parallel, but as I've pointed out, the μεν is irrelevant to determining the semantic value of the case. Acts 1:5 and 11:16 are the same. John 1:26 does not contain a μεν.

So, I'm not making any judgments as to whether you or the author are at fault, but I figured either way, it would be best to let you know so you can clean it up. You've spent so much time on it, I figure you'd want to make it as perfect as you can.

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

Hi Rob,
You asked the following:
Yes, It is done in obediance to Christ, aND OUTWARD AND PUBLIC.

I find it in the bible in all the baptism passages- who can forbid water to thses who have received the Holy Spirit as we have?
Actually I find just the opposite. Col 2 is the main Nt passage used trying to link water baptism to circumsicion.
You are one of the few Padeos I have seen own Romans 6 as speaking of Spirit baptism of the elect and saving union with Christ.
For proof download from sermonaudio all such sermons and make a list of who says what. I think you will see very quickly what i am saying to you.
When you sprinkle an infant it is not. But with believers baptism they openly confess faith in Jesus.
your theology makes you say this- but clearly this is not consistent with what you say you beleve Romans 6 teaches,
ONly Spirit Baptism places anyone in the New Covenant, more later on.

Hi:

CharlieJ:

It is probably my miscopying that is the problem. Since I am in Colorado Springs right now - I will have to check on it later.

Puritan Covenanter:

Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness. He was of the true spiritual seed of Christ. Yet, God commanded him to give the sign of this spiritual covenant to the children of Abraham. These children could be of the true spiritual Seed of the Covenant - such as Isaac and Jacob. Or, they could not be of the true spiritual Seed of the Covenant - such as Ishmael and Esau. The command to place the sign of the Covenant upon the 8 day old infants was not a matter of their own personal faith - but the faith of the parent.

In the presentation that you made - what do I see?

I see a presentation on the true seed of Abraham. A teaching that only those who actually and truly believe on the Lord Jesus Christ can be counted among the elect. This is a teaching that no Calvinist Presbyterian would ever deny.

In the presentation that you made - what do I not see?

I do not see a command in the New Covenant forbidding the children of the seed of Abraham the sign of the Covenant. I see many commands in the New Covenant that state the ceremonial laws of Moses have been fulfilled, and are now not to be practiced:

The covenant that Jeremiah is talking about is the Mosaic Covenant. This is confirmed by the Apostle Paul in Hebrews 8-10:

Who can doubt that Paul is talking about the Mosaic Covenant? Especially when one continues to read all the way through chapter 10 of Hebrews? The New Testament has given us clear commands regarding the ceremonial laws of Moses.

The inclusion of the children of the seed of Abraham was not a matter concerning the Mosaic ceremonial laws. It was given to Abraham hundreds of years before Moses was placed in a basket in the Nile river. Where is the clear command in the New Covenant that forbids the children of the seed of Abraham the Covenant sign?

It has always been the teaching of the Old Testament that those who have the same faith as Abraham are accounted among the true seed of Israel. This is especially noteworthy in the life of Ruth (a Moabitess) especially in the light of Deuteronomy 23:3. The faith of Ruth made her of the seed of Abraham, and not that of Moab.

The New Covenant has disanulled many things in the Old Covenant. The New Covenant has also sustained many things in the Old Covenant - like the Ten Commands for example. The Old Covenant teaches the same thing that the New Covenant does in regards to the seed of Abraham. There is no clear command in the New Covenant that denies the children of the seed of Abraham the New Covenant sign.

With that in mind I find the arguments of the credo-baptists excluding children from the New Covenant sign to be lacking. The practice of including children of believers in the Old Covenant has continued into the New Covenant without interruption.

The question might be asked: Where is the clear command to include children in the New Covenant? If the command was given to Abraham in the Old Covenant, and there is no abrogation of it in the New, then the command stands in the New Covenant. We find many helps in the New Testament concerning the families of believers receiving the sign of the Covenant based upon the profession of faith of one, or more, of the parent(s). The passages are so famous that I will simply refer to them by verse number and answer the objections (which seem specious) by the credo-baptist:

Acts 2:38-40 - What about those who are "afar off" asks the credo-baptist? Yes, the promises are given to them that believe and to their children. The context of Peter's statement is proof enough of this.

1 Cor 14:11 - What about the unbelieving spouse should we baptize him/her? Asks the credo-baptist. Yes, the unbelieving spouse is elligable for baptism is he/she wants. The question is concerning the child of a believing parent. If such a child is considered by God to be "holy" or a "saint" then how can you refuse such a child baptism? Covenant theology requires the child of a believing parent to be baptized.

Blessings,

Rob

Hi:

Being in Colorado I do not have all of my Reformed commentaries with me, but I do have a few:

John Murray on Rom 6:

It is only by the work of the Spirit of God that water baptism becomes effectual to the true seed of Abraham. If that is what you are reading in the words of the paedo-baptists, then there is nothing wrong with that. As Calvin on Romans 6 points out:

And, finally, Charles Hodge on Romans 6:

Maybe I should have been more concise: The mode of water baptism is not being taught in these passages. The effects of the baptism by the Spirit is being taught.

Blessings,

Rob

First off Paul does mention circumcision in the book of Galatians. It has been abrogated.

It doesn't avail to anything.
Concerning your comment on Acts you are forgetting to mention that there is a Promise to all. The promise of for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is for all those menitioned in the context that they are called. So yes, the promise is for children if they repent. They may be elect and in Covenant with God and partakers of the promises of the Covenant if they Repent and are baptized.


Concerning your Corinthians passage I have a blog about that here.
Sanctification in 1 Corinthians 7:14 - The PuritanBoard

It answers your question.


You seem to have missed the main point of the post I presented. Who is the Covenant head of the New Covenant and who are his offspring?

Christ is the Covenant Head and His Covenant offspring are the elect. His covenant Children are his offspring by his work and regeneration. They are his offspring. They are His Covenant Children.

Reread the post a bit more carefully.

Your brother,
Randy

Randy, point of clarification. The promise of Acts 2:39 has nothing to do with children who come to faith in childhood; or for that matter the age of those who are "far off" when they finally come to faith. The emphasis is on "as many as the Lord shall call to Himself." It is a gross misinterpretation of the text to suggest that Peter was speaking of covenant blessings apart from personal faith in Christ (Randy, not that you were suggesting that). The promise of Acts 2:38, 39 is on the basis of repentance and faith -- in response to the effectual call of God. Any other interpretation collapses under it's own weight.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

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

Randy and Bill:

I think that we all -paedos and credos- would perfectly agree that the blessings of the covenant are related with faith and repentance and nothing apart from it. But what the paedos understand is that the covenant consists on electing the children of elect parents, and producing in them, when the proper time arrives (and sometimes even from the beginning) the fruits of that election, that is, faith and repentance, and all the rest: regeneration, sanctification, etc. (Or, from God´s perspective if you prefer, the covenant consists on making elect saints born to elect parents). It could be discussed if this is the true meaning of Acts 2 and other passages -I now tend to believe it is, but not that this is the presbyterian interpretation. Now, you both say that only children who repent and baptize will be saved, and I agree, except when we are talking of children before the age of discernment. Actually, one of the motives that pushed me still more into the paedo side, after being in the oposite position for 15 years, was that I heard a pastor of a Reformed Baptist church telling a 3 year old boy that he would go to hell if he didn´t repent and be baptized by his own decision, even if he died at that age! If we take Isaiah 7 as a prophecy of Christ (and that´s what we should do of course), we know that even He couldn´t discern between good and evil when He was an infant (only because His divine nature so consented, naturally), so asking a three year old boy to discern more than what Christ did at his age sounds like a little too much. And besides, the words of that pastor contradict the LBCF as well (which is probably less consistent with the consequences of the Baptist view than the pastor). I believe more what W. Shedd says (paraphrasing): "For infants dying in the age before discernent, their baptism will be always a sure sign of their regeneration". Yes, it happens that children baptized in infancy backslide when grown up, but also adults baptized after a confession of faith often do so.

When a grown up baptized child comes to have faith and repentace, he is confirming his baptism and thus it becomes as valid as if it was performed after conversion. If he says: "I would baptize now if I weren´t baptized", then he is obeying God´s command just as the one who goes to be baptized. What matters is the disposition of the heart and the objective value of the sign of the covenant before God, not so much the "experience" of the rite. I, for example, was baptized as an adult, and I can tell you that the "experience" of my baptism in itself was far short from mystical. I didn´t "experienced" the death and resurrection of Christ through the rite, but rather through the path of the cross that began some time after the rite. And if someone says that my baptism wasn´t right because I didn´t "feel" anything (maybe due to the fact that I wasn´t prepared enough), then I would have had to baptize once again in each step of my growing process (which will end moments before my death). So confirming one´s baptism when conscious of its meaning, even if made in a moment of little or no conscience at all, is to make it valid. When a baptized child confirms his faith, he is not precisely entering into salvation, but simply confirming that he wants to be where he always was, and viceversa: when he backslides he is not "just" another sinner, but is a member of the church who renounces the privileges he had by birth, making the sign of the covenant applied to him a void sign, which is perhaps the first of the sins in his new chosen path.

I´m I understanding correctly the doctrine, you paedo guys?

A very interesting (and difficult) issue that the paedos have had always in front is whether to accept the baptism of heretics, if it is made with the trinitarian formula.

In Christ

Ricardo,

I'm not saying that the Acts 2 passage negates the paedo argument. My point is that that it is an exegetical stretch to use that passage to support anything else other than it's plain meaning, which is, the repentance of those whom God has called. It is a soteriological passage. If I were a paedo I would not point to this passage as a proof-text.

Bill:

To make sure I´m understanding your point:

Would you paraphrase Peter´s words as: "If you repent and are baptized, then you would be saved, and the promise is that everyone who does this same thing, for example your children and those that are affar off, will be equally saved like you"?

Just asking in order to understand better what you mean by a "soteriological" passage.

Thank you.

Ricardo,

Here is the passage:

While faith is never mentioned by name, we know that it is indispensable from repentance. We also know that water baptism does not save, but the passage is saying to be baptized by water, independent from spiritual baptism, which is implied at the end of verse 38, "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." In this case baptism would be the first step of obedience after believing the Gospel. The "promise" of verse 39, is two fold: 1. the forgiveness of sins ~and~ 2. the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise cannot possibly be separated from repentance and faith; two things that require cognition. Therefore, the promise is for those who display repentance. These are the same as those that the Lord calls to Himself in verse 39.

Greetings men:

I assume that since you are not commenting on the OP, that you are then in full agreement with it?

Have you forgotten that there is no Biblical evidence for dipping in the whole Bible? That the very Greek word which specifically means bapto"to dip" is never used by the Holy Spirit to indicate baptism?

I mean no offense on this, but if you can only answer part of the presentation, then you have not answered paedo-baptism.

Randy:

Circumcision as it is a physical rite in the Church has been abrogated, but what circumcision meant has not been abrogated:

For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Are you going to deny this very truth of the Scriptures - a truth which was taught in the Old Testament?

Romans 4:11 completly contradicts the credo-baptist position:

And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.

Ph 3:3 puts this beyond doubt:

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

When Paul talks negatively about circumcision he is speaking about the physical rite which can do nothing to regenerate the soul. When he is talking positively about circumcision he is speaking about the Spirit of God circumcising the heart:

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, Col 2:11.

If you, Randy, or anyone here, is not circumcised by the circumcision made without hands, then you are not a true believer in Christ. What is the circumcision made without hands but the Spirit of God regenerating the heart.

But the physical rite of circumcision was not given only to those who believe (like Abraham), but also to the children of Abraham 8 days old.

In the same fashion the rite of water baptism does not avail anyone unless it is united to baptism by the Spirit of God:

Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, Acts 11:16.

The New Covenant has changed the rite of entrance into the Church of God, but it has not changed the meaning nor the recipients of it. You will have to do better than simply pointing out that faith is necessary for the rite of water baptism to be effective.

You will have to provide a clear command from the Scriptures that the children of believers are not to be given water baptism.

Acts 2:38,39 - you are not looking at the pronouns correctly:

Peter said to them - "them" refers to the crowd that he is currently addressing:

The promise is to you, and to your children...

The word "you" in verse 39 refers to "them" in verse 38, so, then, what do we do with the word "your" that preceed the word "children" here? Does the word "your" refer to the children of those who respond positively to the Gospel call? We find Peter speaking to the Jews concerning the faith of Abraham, and we could paraphrase it this way:

For the promise is to Abraham, and to the children of Abraham, and to those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

As the promises were given to Abraham when he believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness, and these promises were mediated to his infant children. Therefore, the promises are given to all who believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and these promises are mediated to the children of believers both near and afar off.

Abraham had to believe God before he was given the Covenant sign of circumcision, and his children (both elect and reprobate) were also given the sign of the Covenant.

You have to believe God before you are given the Covenant sign of baptism, and your children (both elect and reprobate) are also given the sign of the Covenant as well.

If all Peter meant was that one had to believe the promises in order to receive baptism, then adding the phrase "your children" would make no sense. Because, "your children" would either be included in "you" or in "all who are afar off."

1 Corinthians 7:14

The point that Paul is making here is the status of a believer's child in a mixed marriage. The unbelieving spouse is "sanctified" by the believer "else were your children unclean, but now they are holy."

I have read the blog post, but I do not see anything in Mr. Conner's argument that would forbid either the unbelieving spouse or the child water baptism. Here are some points concerning his statement:

1) He notes that there are two different Greek words to describe the unbeliving spouse (hengiastai), and the child of a believer (hagia). I am not sure that Strong's here is helpful (my Greek notes are back in Pittsburgh), but he does note that they are two different words. He identifies (hengiastai) as #37 (hagiazo) probably in a plural aorist tense, and deriving the meaning as "to make holy." (that would be consistent in an aorist tense). The word concerning the child is #40 (hagia) which means "to be holy." The differences in the meanings are obvious. If Paul wanted to refer to the unbelieving spouse in the same fashion as the child, then there is no rule in Greek for him to use two different words. In fact, since word order is not important in Greek, it would demand Paul to use one word to mean the same thing - if that was what he meant to write.

The difference is clear even in the English: "sanctified" means "to make holy" while "holy" means that one is holy.

Mr. Conner does not see that Paul is using two different words to describe two different people, and, thus, they should be treated differently:

We insist on it because the Bible insists upon it. Since we are to baptize disciples, and if an unbelieving spouse desires to be baptized (if he/she has never been baptized), then I would explain very carefully what the rite means, and so baptize him/her if he/she so desires.

2) Matthew Poole, writing in the 1600's, addresses this argument well:

Jesus Christ is the Covenant Head of the Church. That does not disanull that families have covenant heads as well:

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body, Ep 5:23.

Blessings,

Rob

Robert, no. I just got caught up in a rabbit trail. Sorry about that. I return the thread to it's rightful owner and exit stage left.

I would be interested in reading your objections to the OP.

Blessings brother!

Rob

Rob,

If I am not mistaken you know full well what I think of circumcision of the heart as we have discussed Colossians 2:11,12 on this board many times in relation to baptism.

I have a few blogs about it.

An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12 - The PuritanBoard

And you still are not addressing the Covenant Children of Christ.

We have discussed the the Abrahamic Covenant and that it has two sides of it with promises, blessings, and cursing. It has a civil as well as spiritual side. And the sign in Romans 4 placed as a seal was a testimony of Abraham's faith and belief in those promises both civil and spiritual, Isaac and Ismael. In the case of Ishmael they were civil promises made to Abraham and not spiritual. The New Covenant in Christ is not civil but spiritual. His children are born from above and in the Everlasting Covenant which Esau was not included in the promises made to Abraham as his Covenant Head. All who are in union with Christ are in the Eternal Covenant of Grace. That wasn't so for the Abrahamic Covenant nor the Mosaic.

As for 1 Corinthians and the languages I will leave you with Gill to comtemplate.

Concerning a forbidding of infant baptism due to the issue that it is not mentioned as forbidden, I would refer you to examine Gospel Worship by Jeremiah Burroughs. Your argument of "the Scriptures there is no clear command from the Scriptures that the children of believers are not to be given water baptism, falls completely short by his discussion of Aaron's two sons when God took them for adding something to Woship that he commanded.

I do not see that the mode tears any argument down concerning who should be baptized. I also do not think that circumcision and baptism are identical signs. They are different Covenant signs.

They both might represent life and death but one also signifies the death burial and resurrection of Christ and being place in union with him by faith which is preceded by the circumcision made without hands. One precedes the other as Rich Barcellos points out in his exegetical article on Colossians 2:11,12.

Also here is Nehemiah Coxe on Circumcision and baptism.

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? - The PuritanBoard
If you want me to address the Acts passage more I will later. I find your answer falling short. I believe you are adding to the word of God with your paraphrase. Sorry if that bothers you but that is how I understand it. And yes, I know that places you in a bad situation if you are. It also places me in a bad situation if I am not seeing it correctly.

Robert,

I'm on my iPhone, so I can't do justice to the entirety of your OP. I will share some thoughts on your criticism of a credo defense solely predicated on the use of baptizo. IMHO it is a weak argument to defend credo baptism based solely on mode. Confessional Baptists in general, and Reformed Baptists specifically, base their credo position on the spiritual aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant and its maturation under the New Covenant. In short, credo baptism is best defended within a covenantal context rather than an etymological context. Time doesn't allow me the luxury of unpacking the big picture, but better men than I (Connor, Malone, and Waldron) have written extensively on it.

Blessings.

P.S. Don't underestimate the credo position; thinking that it rises or stands based on mode. While Baptists believe mode is clearly taught in scripture, it is notthe impetus or foundation for credo baptism. As I said in my previous post, credo baptism is covenantally based.

Rob,
I just got online tonight here in central nebraska. Thanks for posting these three quotes as I also do not have access to my commentaries.
Lets look at what you posted,then I would like to show you what I have been speaking about in this thread.
Rob, I thought we agreed that water baptism was not in view in Romans 6, yet these three men speak of it in these portions you post!

Calvin , in part says this-
Rob he is speaking of water baptism;
1] the effect of water baptism, by which we are initiated into his faith
2] then he ascerts- "for it is beyond any question" that we put on Christ in baptism
Rob- this is exactly what I am talking about. We do not put on anything. The Spirit of God places us in Union with Christ, savingly.

He goes on to say this:
That we may? Maybe one day? Where in Romans 6 does it suggest "that we may"? It is actual, not potential in Romans 6, or the passage makes no sense. You cannot mortify sin in the power of the flesh, chapters 7 and 8 are going to explain this.
I have been given to understand that the language used here is Indicitives[who we are in Christ] followed by imperitives[ in light of who we are in Christ,now live accordingly] Am I mistaken with this?

Look at Calvins words in this section you posted;
Paul is not saying when, at some future time. He is saying all who are justified as in 5:1-21 are inthat condition already.

This is where the padeo position jumps back and forth and hides behind the language of- sign and thing signified.

The credo position accepts the language as it is.

Hodge is also speaking of water baptism. If you look back at our interaction I think you will see what I am pointing out. If you are home for another week, download some padeo sermons on this and see if what i said is not so.
Everyone sounds like those men in Acts 19, John's disciples- we have not even heard if there be any Holy Spirit.
Now when pressed for and explanation they of course will give the proper biblical response ,that of course the Spirit is essential here, but more often then not, they speak of water first.
Then go off on outward administration/visible church explanations. they have to, or they would be credos.
Your answers to me earlier in the thread, do not seem consistent with these three quotes you offered. I have mostly Padeo commentaries in my Library, so I have read these things before and have learned to translate them into credo-eze Through the posts of many padeos in here I can see how they come to what they do logically. the system works, I am not sure it is the biblical pattern I see in the NT.
I do not see where we in the NT. get to go back and be OT.saints in effect.
There is a continuity-and yet a discontinuity from OTto Nt.

Greetings:

It looks like I am a little behind here.

Randy:

I happened to have my copy of Gospel Worship by Burroughs, and so I was able to read what he wrote. You left out a significant portion at the end of your quotation:

Burroughs has satisfied himself that the sons of Aaron should have known better based on Ex 29:43. Moses' answer to Aaron satisfied Aaron. Thus, it is clear that Aaron was aware that his son's performed an unlawful deed.

On page 13 Burroughs begins an explication of the Regulative Principle of Worship:

There are matters indifferent concerning the Worship of God that are to be regulated by the prudence of men within the context of the general principles of Scripture - such as where, what time, and how long worship should last. But the Sacraments of the Lord do not fall within such bounds.

As far as Gill is concerned:

I do not see how the sanctification of a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever in any way, shape, or form blocks the baptism of the child in such a marriage. I believe that is the very point that Paul is responding to: What is the status of a child in a mixed marriage? The answer that he gives is that they are holy or saints.

You wrote:

I do not believe that circumcision and baptism are identical signs either. I do believe that they both point to the same spiritual meaning - the circumcision of the heart, or, the baptism of the Spirit. Circumcision of the heart was performed by the Spirit of God: That was Paul's clear meaning in Romans 2:29. Baptism of the Spirit is performed by the Spirit of God as well: That is Paul's clear meaning in Romans 6.

Though the outward signs are different - the spiritual meaning of both is equivalent.

I just read Nehemiah Cox' arguments on the blog you provided, thanks!

He is wrong in saying that "Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience."

Circumcision was given to Abraham almost 600 years before the Covenant of Moses. It was given after Abraham professed faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, during Old Testament times, it was an ordinance of the Gospel intended to convey to the Jews that their hearts needed to be circumcised, Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4.

Since I mentioned that I was paraphrasing the the Acts 2 passage I do not have any fear concerning the way I did so. As God knows I was trying to illustrate a point:

Abraham believed God, therefore, the believer was given the covenant sign as well as his children.

You (when you come to faith in Christ) are given the covenant sign as well as your covenant children:

The promise is to you (believers) and to your children (the children of believers) and to all who are afar off (believers and their children) as many as the Lord God shall call (all those who hear the Gospel call that Peter just gave as well as their children).

I think I have answered your post. If I missed something, then let me know.

Iconoclast:

Water Baptism is not in view in these passages. What these learned men are saying is that Spirit Baptism makes Water Baptism legitimate. If one is not Baptized by the Spirit of God, then you can pour water on that person all day long, and it will not cleanse the soul.

Water Baptism when it is united with Spirit Baptism. That is what Hodge is saying:

The reference is not to the mode of baptism (the rite of water baptism) but to its effect. Our baptism unites us to Christ...

The Sacrament is a physical sign of the work of the Spirit of God uniting us to Jesus Christ. It only becomes effective when it is confirmed by our Spiritual Baptism (being born again, or, having our hearts circumcised).

The very point that these men are making is that only when the Spirit of God unites us to Christ, then does our water baptism become effective.

On this you have misread Calvin as well:

Christ destroys sin in his people - Calvin writes - this starts at what water baptism symbolizes - union with Christ. What Calvin means by "the effect of baptism" is Spirit Baptism - which is only given to his people. When Spirit Baptism is given to the elect, then Water Baptism becomes legitimate.

I will have to look at the Greek when I get back to Pittsburgh, sorry.

The problem with the credo position here is that this is the major verse that you use to defend your mode of Baptism. Romans 6 is not talking about the mode of Baptism - it is talking about the effects of Baptism which is union with Christ. From this effect water Baptism becomes legitimate, but there is no mention in Romans 6 of water Baptism.

From the credo position it has to refer to water baptism because that is where you get your dipping theology: "buried with him in baptism..."

I will point you to the middle part of post #21 in answer to the credo assertion that Water baptism is mentioned here.

Since you and I both agree that water baptism is not mentioned here, then how does this prove the mode of baptism as dipping?

1) Especially when Christ died on the cross - if we are "baptized into his death" then how does dipping illustrate his death on the cross?

2) Especially when Christ was not buried in a hole in the ground - if we are "buried with him in baptism" then how does dipping illustrate Christ being placed in a cave.

I submit to you that the Romans 6 and Colossians passages do not teach that water baptism represents to us the "death, burial, and resurrection" of Jesus Christ, but is teaching us that we need to be united, immersed, (baptidzo) to Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

Rob

Thank you, Rob.

I still don´t have the "thank" button!

I´m understanding more and more clearly the paedo position, and I like it!

I still believe that you underestimate a little the arguments of the credo, especially those about the mode. It´s not only Rom. 6 in which it is based. My first post here showed another way to point (I´m not saying definitely prove) to immersion as a posibility, based on the verb louo.

At the end, I reduce the strongholds of credo-baptism to the civil issue which seems to be the main difference between both economies. The privileges of the new covenant are more directly related with personal faith than the benefits and privileges of the Mosaic covenant (though not necessarily the Abrahamic). The land, the civil justice benefits, the general economic welfare and military victories of the people of God applied then to all equally, believers and unbelievers, while in the NC it seems more like the benefits of it apply only to those on the faith, and it seems like the NT church is intended to be more "pure", like an assembly of saved men only. And yes, the church is not the tares and wheats field. It is the WORLD in the parable. The church is "the children of the kingdom". However, I have recently understood that the supposed difference between the church under the old economy and that under the new is merely an illusion, because in theory also Israel should be a perfectly pure and spiritual people like the NT church, and that´s why after commanding the execution of transgressors of the law, we are told that this is how "evil should be cast out from Israel". The circumcised children were expected to have faith, and the fact that a majority of them usually failed in this has nothing to do with a "failure" in the rite. The rite should be applied to all anyway, because it represented what Israel should have been, and not what she actually was. The same in the Christian Church. Infant baptism represents what the Church should be, not what she sometimes comes to be. And certainly what she should be is a covenant institution in which saved parents and their holy offspring enjoy the privileges thereof, until the lack of faith of any of these persons of the covenant makes necessary to remove their "citizenship" and take the "evil out of Israel", not by execution as in the old times, but by excomunication.

Thanks

Como esta, hermano?

Just a quick comment. I disagree with your assertion here.

It's not the case that the land applied to all of God's people equally whether believer or not. God Himself said that the the unbelieving inhabitants of the land (which Israel was to possess) were spewed out of the land because they had defiled it, and God would do to the Israelites just as He did to the unbelieving people of the land if His people would defile the same (Lev. 18:24; Num. 35:34). He warned the Israelites that they would surely perish in the land which they were entering to possess and that He would wipe them off the face of the earth if they would worship other gods and serve them (Deut. 5:32ff., 6:13-15, 8:19-20, 11:16-17, 28:15ff.). Paul explains that God destroyed most of His people in the wilderness (i.e., the first generation of the Israelites who came out of Egypt) because of their idolatry, sexual immorality and grumbling (1 Cor. 10:1ff). In fact, according to the author of Hebrews, the first generation (except Joshua and Caleb) did not enter the land (at all!) because of unbelief (Heb. 3). God's wrath upon the iniquity of His people and His punishment against them were also made manifest during the days of the judges, the kings and the prophets. Note for instance the story of the exile.

The NT writers are clear that these happened as examples to us so that we may not imitate their [the Israelites'] example of disobedience and apostasy (1 Cor. 10:6). From the beginning, God has demanded repentance and faith, and obedience from His people (Deut. 10:16, 30:6).

Heb. 4:1-2 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

And besides, the land promise ultimately looked forward to the redeemed kosmos (Rom. 4:13). The patriarch Abraham looked for a city that foundations whose builder and architect is God (Heb. 11:8-16). Paul as well notes that Christ is ultimately the seed of Abraham and therefore those who are in Christ whether Jew or Gentile are the true heirs of the Abrahamic promise (Gal. 3:16, 29). Believers are the true seed of Abraham.

You need one more post, and the "thanks" button will appear.

Blessings!

Dear Albert:

You are completely right, and actually that is exactly what I intended to say. In the quote you take from me it really seems like I´m saying the contrary, but later I say that this is an illusion. Let me try to explain myself better this time.

What I was saying is that the classic credo-baptist argument (in which I believed for many years, until very recently), finds a difference between the Old and the New covenants in the points I mention, but I recently understood that this was a mere illusion, and the reasons I give, which you helped me expand (thank you), are that also in the Old dispensation Israel was suposed to be a body of believers and that those who failed were to be cast out, just like the church under the new dispensation. So our disagreement is also an illusion, probably caused by poor expression on my part. But nevertheless it is there in my last comment the key of my real intention. Let me quote myself:

You see? I´m saying the same that you, but in a poorer form.

Gracias

A review of the book mentioned in the original post can be found at:

What About Baptism? Martin Marprelate

__________________
Steve Clevenger, Pastor
Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
Warrenton, VA
www.covenantword.org
http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com

I believe my address to you concerning the Burrough's quote sufficiently addressed your question below. I do not see that your addition helped your argument in anyway as we differ on what baptism and circumcision mean and signify. I will explain more and repeat myself probably.

I still believe the Jeremiah Burrough's quote sufficiently answered this. Specifically.

I will have to note that I do not see a clear command in scripture to baptize children either. And I do not see that the two (baptism and circumcision) represent the same things as I have noted earlier. Two different Covenants. Two different Covenant heads. One is set up with promises concerning the seed and posterity. The Abrahamic is fulfilled in Christ (the seed). There are also different Covenant Children as I noted before. The first sign is a sign and seal of the righteousness of Abraham in his believing God, not necessarily the same for everyone of his physical posterity. That sign and seal had promises both with the elect and those who were not elect descendants of Abraham. Those promises were civil as well as spriitual and not necessarily interralated. We see that in Genesis 17 when we look at both Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was never included in the Everlasting Covenant of Grace. The second (Baptism) is a sign of being in Union with Christ. It is His spiritual children who are the focus in this Covenant. He is the Covenant head and it is His children who are participants of the sign signifying their Union in His death burial and resurrection through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.


So you believe that the unelect can be referred to as holy or saints in the same way that believers are? I have noted that. At least that is how I am understanding you. And we will definitely disagree on this point. I do not believe that God considers reprobates to be saints or holy in the same way that a believer is considered to be sanctified and holy. They are not.

I believe that Paul is responding to the sanctity of the Marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 and pointing out that the marriage is right even if there are unbelievers in it and because it is right the spousal relations are considered to be right as well as the relationship with the children in contrast to the Old Covenant where God told the Isrealites to put away their foreign wives and children. God considers the relationships to be clean and the marriage sanctified as where in the old they were not clean or considered to be right. (See reference to Ezra 9 and 10:2,3)

The unbelieving are not sanctified as a believer is in his union with Christ as baptism signifies. This passage is clearly not indicating that nor implying it. This passage is an indication that marriage is considered sanctified by God even if it is made up between a believer and an unbeliever. There is no mention of union with Christ or baptism in this passage. In fact I believe the opposite is true. There is encouragement for the believer to seek for the unbeliever's coming to Christ. There is a pronouncement of something considered to be clean and right in the eyes of the Lord just like Peter taking and eating unclean meat in his housetop experience. The New Covenant is different than the old in some respects. This is true concerning marriage and ceremonial laws. What was once an unclean practice is now considered to be clean or sanctified by God.


I think I have addressed some of this above. Concerning the last statement Coxe is referring to the truth. There are differences even in Abraham as I have noted above. Plus, Coxe was only referring to what St. Paul said in Galatians. Paul did say, "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." Galatians 5:3

I still think your interpretation and reading of Acts 2 is lacking but maybe we should stick to just a few items at a time.

It´s interesting to see how both credo and paedo use the example of Ishmael as supporting them. Credos take it as: "You see? Circumcision cannot be the same that baptism, because even unbelievers received the former, whereas baptism is the sign of regeneration", and Paedos say: You see? It is appropriate to apply the sign of the covenant even if it later comes to happen that the kid was not a legitimate member of it."

I recently changed from the first to the second position, because I understood (and this is exactly what my last exchange with Albert in this thread was about) that circumsicion was also supposed to represent regeneration (circumsition of the heart), just as much as baptism in the NT. Among all the passages Albert cited in proof of this, I could add one you yourself just provided, R. Martin: "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." Galatians 5:3

This means that circumsicion was never seen a a sign that "you are descendant of a righteous man", but as a sign that "you are a debtor to God because He was pleased to make you born in the covenant family; therefore you have to obey His law, have a pure heart, and keep to all that is required to continue in the covenant". Those who failed to do this were never lawfully entitled even to the civil benfefits you mention, and were usually excluded from the assembly sooner or later (or at least commanded to be so). I, too, believed for a number of years that the civil benefits were promised to all equally, and that circumsicion represented this, in oposition to the NT assembly and its sign --baptism--, which was composed only of the truly regenerate members. My standpoint changed when I understood that circumcision was intended for exactly the same purpose, and that carnal, unfaithful Israelites were never part of the covenant it represented --not even the civil one, as I just said, and still they were entitled to receive the mark on the foreskin. If they became righteous when grown up, the sign would be valid, otherwise not.

Well now, I will partially disagree with some of this assesment. If we look at Ishmael the promises still came true. The tighter restrictions concerning Covenant obligations came in the Mosaic Covenant. Abraham believed God and God fulfilled his promises concerning Ishmael. As I noted above he was excluded from the spiritual Everlasting Covenant mentioned in Genesis 17.

And to add to this I will reference Paul in Galatians.

Abraham had elements of the Covenant of Works and The Covenant of Grace in the Covenant that he is head of. In our Covenant Head (Christ) his children with whom he is united with are covered and have the Covenant of Grace only to look too. He fulfilled the Covenant of Works on their behalf.


I really appeciate Gill on Romans 4:11.

For your edification, here it is.

Greetings:

PuritanCovenanter wrote:

Are you quoting from Burroughs? Or, is this your point?

In Covenant Theology it is an error to say that there are "two Covenant heads." That is Dispensationalism (with a capital "D"). There is only one Covenant head - Jesus Christ. Abraham was the "covenant head" of his family, and so was Ishmael, Issac, and Jacob, but when speaking of the "Everlasting Covenant" then there is only one Covenant head in both the Old Covenant and the New.

Abraham believed in Jesus Christ - though Abraham knew Jesus only as God.

Concerning your quote from Gill:

I like Gill. However, he tends to overthink his points. He wrote:

If circumcision was only for the Abrahamic Covenant, then why was it carried into the Mosaic, and Davidic as well? I would argue that Circumcision was carried into the New Covenant also, and was replaced by Baptism. Thus, we find the Apostles making reference to the spiritual import of Circumcision (see previous post).

Gill's argument that Circumcision did not replace Baptism because there is an overlap in time is specious to say the best. The animal sacrifices continued in the Temple of Jerusalem until it was destroyed in 70 AD. Does that mean that the Sacrifice of Christ is of none effect? There is a time overlap. This hermeneutic of "time overlap" is nowhere found in the Scriptures. It is an invention by Gill to invalidate the idea that baptism takes the place of circumcison.

You are certainly free to believe this view of "time overlap" but it will not convince me unless you can prove such Biblically.

Blessings,

Rob

Hey buddy,

Rob, just let me say that I really appreciate ya discussing this with me. I sense that you are trying to learn what I am saying. I don't think you grasp what I believe very well and hope I can illumine you as to what this Particular Baptist believes. I think I have a pretty good handle on what Presbyterians and Covenant Paedo's believe. After discussing this with you a few times I think you would have a better understanding of what I believe. But I might be mistaken. Especially since you don't seem to understand what I think concerning 1 Corinthians 7 and sanctification and also concerning the topic of Covenant heads.

BTW, here is a link where Rev Winzer and I discuss our distinctions concerning the Covenants administering the CofW and CofG. It is a little older and I might rephrase some of the things I said but it stands.
Works within the Mosaic Covenant?

Now,
You still didn't answer my question on sanctification and 1 Corinthians 7 that I presented in my last post.

To answer your question concerning the Burroughs quote....
Yes, those were my thoughts in the last post. My first response was just to the point that I believed that Burroughs in the portion I quoted did answer your point quite to the point. Your addition did nothing for the argument in my estimation as I explained.

Concerning my point of two Covenant heads.... When you accused me of Dispensationalism did you mean with a Capital "D" as in dispensational like Darby and Scoffield. They would be a Capital "D" in my opinion. That is the problem when you start accusing others of dispensationalism with a Capital "D". Others will here you saying something that you might not mean. I understand what you are saying when you accuse me of dispensationalism, I think. But I believe you are wrong to emphasise it so heavily as you do when you are addressing it towards me. Even Westministerians believe that dispensations is a good word. And I will work from Chapter 7 now to show you what I mean by different Covenant heads and how the Covenants were administered with continuity and discontinuity. ie. your dispensational accusation towards me. It might hold water and it might not.


You obviously must believe in different Covenant Heads. Even two of them at the very least which you accuse me of being a Dispensationalist with. There are Two Adam's. One is head of those represented under the Covenant of Works. The other Adam is the Lord from Heaven who is head of the Covenant of Grace. And there is only one Covenant of Grace not two as you seem to be accusing me of. I completely agree with the Westminster on that.

At the same time a Covenant is made with someone concerning those placed under him and in his lineage and relationship. Everyone who was to dwell with Abraham had to abide in the Covenant of Circumsion in order to dwell with his family and clan. If they were not circumcised they were not under the leadership of Abraham and were cut off from his heritance and heritage. I do not believe that Christ is the Head of everyone who was included in the Covenant of Circumcision as Ishmael was not included in the Everlasting Covenant. He is head of the Covenant of Grace. But the Abrahamic Covenant was not solely the Covenant of Grace as many might assume. I also do not believe that circumcision was a sign of the Covenant of Grace although it was administered through it. It was what I would call a mixed Covenant. It also had elements of the Covenant of Works involved with it. ie. cutting off. In the pure Covenant of Grace one can not be cut off once they are in union with Christ. Also their were other promises that involved Abraham's posterity that didn't have elements pertaining to the Covenant of Grace. There were promises made concerning Ishmael that were given to Abraham even though it was plainly stated that Ishmael would not be included in the Everlasting Covenant.

As a side note, not everyone who was included in the Covenant of Grace was included in the Covenant of Circumcision during the time of Abraham. I have discussed that elsewhere on the board. A few of the Patriarchs alive during Abraham's time, King Mel, and some in his Kingdom were not included in the Covenant of Circumcision. Some have debated whether Lot was circumcised. My point in saying this is to point out that circumcision is not necessarily purely the sign of the Covenant of Grace.


The two Covenants that proceeded down into the Mosaic from Abraham that I referenced from Galatians contained both elements from of the Covenant of Grace and Works. It is not dispensational as in the Capital "D" you mention to think this way, but is very scriptural and written from the pen of Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I do believe the Abrahamic and Mosaic are subserviant to the CofG and CofW.

I understand that the Abrahamic and Mosaic administer both the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. But in relationship the promises that were made to Abraham and the place that he was put in relationship to those under him made him a head of the Covenant concerning the promises that were made to him concerning his posterity and clan. And as I mentioned there are elements in that Covenant that do not pertain to the Covenant of Grace. They were promises made by Covenant that made him the fountain head of reception to some of those promises as they were fulfilled by God toward him.

It is the same way with the Mosaic Covenant. There are elements in the Mosaic that were not specifically related to the Covenant of Grace. There were elements of the Covenant of Works in it that were administered by it also.

Here is something that I would reference concerning Mosaic from Witsius.
I believe the Mosaic is subservient to both the Covenants of Grace and Works. The Mosaic and Abrahamic administer the the Covenants for the elect and those who are not in a nationalist civil mode of relationship. So I am not being dispensational as you want to accuse me of. I am actually being very biblical and relying of some pretty big shoulders in my understanding. Nehemiah Coxe would be one of my biggest influences on this also.

I do not believe that circumcision was carried into the New Covenant because the New Covenant sign is representative of our Union with Chist's death, burial, and resurrection and our being in union with him in those. The only instances I see of men performing those things such as circumcision and sacrifices were to win the Jews and get them to see Christ. While I agree that the sacrifices were carried on into the New Covenant Era as well as circumcision I would have to say that both were to be forsaken by Christians as a means of salvation. In fact Paul says that circumcision avails nothing. It is gone with the Old. Paul doesn't make the argument that Galatians have been baptized and that is the New Covenant Circumcision. They are two different things entirely. In fact the author of Hebrews condemned the Old testament worship was as unbelief. Paul does warn the Galatians not to turn back to those weak and beggarly things.

I still have to conclude that there are different Covenants that perform different things concerning promise and purpose in continuity and discontinuity. We are just arguing concerning the things that continue and those that don't. We are trying to discuss and distinguish the things that are New and those that are done away and dead because of what they are tied to. You tried to accuse me of being incorrect that circumcision was not tied to bondage of the law and that is wan't abrogated. Well I showed you that Paul did say that circumcision was abrogated and that it was tied to the law. You still have neglected to acknowledge that. You want to make the unholy unregenerate sound like they are holy the same way a regenerate person is who is in union with Christ. And you have neglected me on this.
You have accused me of being dispensational with a BIG "D" which I believe is an unfair accusation. Others will read that in a wrong light I believe. All that I am affirming is what I see the Confession affirming along with those of my Confession of Faith. It is not dispsensational with a BIG "D".

Rob, I like you. I have always enjoyed your challenges. I might be a half breed to you and not worthy of the name Covenanter. But that is who I am. I believe you would do better to try to understand what I think instead of making sweeping BIG "D" accusations. Name calling never advanced anyone in a discussion. And I believe you have improperly labelled me. Yes, I do believe in dispensations as does the Westminster. Maybe we differ on how much the terminology comes into play but I am no dispensationalist like those who are known by that name in theological terms today.

Be Encouraged brother,
Randy

Hello!

John Gill's comments on Rom. 4:11 and his outright denial of the fact that baptism has come in place of circumcision do not do justice to the transition which took place during the time of the apostles. B.B. Warfield offers a more convincing explanation in his Polemics of Infant Baptism.

In short, the Gentiles were not circumcised precisely because they have been baptized. The Jews who were also required to be baptized and were indeed baptized continued circumcision as a matter of custom.

It is argued that:

Actually, Paul does. The thing signified (i.e., the circumcision of the heart) by baptism is the same as that of circumcision (Col. 2:11-12; cf. Rom. 2:28-29) as Warfield also shows in the quotation above. Paul says (Gal. 3:26-29),

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

What does baptism have to do with Abraham to whom the covenant sign of circumcision was given? If baptism is not the sacramental equivalent of circumcision, then Paul's argument does not make sense.

In a recent thread, Rev. Buchanan gives a concise explanation of the paedobaptist view of 1 Cor. 7:14. He notes that (all emphasis his):

Thus the argument that says that the baptism of the children of the believing spouse would require the baptism of the unbelieving spouse is nowhere supported by the text. And further, even the children of validly married pagans are in fact "legitimate."

If anything, 1 Cor. 7:14 is an implicit proof for the inclusion of children of believers in the church.

His argument does make sense if baptism is not the sacramental equivalent of circumcision. First off did you notice that Everyone who is baptized puts on Christ.

And this is set up in relation to what Paul says about Circumcision.


This is not true in the Covenant of Circumcision. From the beginning in Genesis 17 Jehovah told Abraham that Ishmael was not included in the Everlasting Covenant but he was included in covenant promises that pertained to Abraham in his physical posterity. I explained that above. Circumcision is not an exact replacement of baptism. Different Covenant head, different Covenant ties, and different circumcisions. One is of the heart the other is from the place physical posterity comes from. We enter into Baptism and are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God. In Baptism we have Gospel obedience. In Circumcision Paul ascribes bondage to the law. Two different things. As noted above by Paul those who have been Baptized have put on Christ. Those who are tied to a Covenant of circumcision of posterity are tied to the law. They are different.

Concerning Bruce's response to someone else concerning Sanctification and 1 Corinthians 7:14, it doesn't do it justice nor does it answer my last post and question to Rob.


The Covenant Head's offspring are the ones who should have the sign placed upon them. Christ's covenant Children are Spirtual. They are born from above and are in union with him. They are his offspring (Isaiah 8:18, 53:10, Hebrews 2:13) as noted in the above post.

The signs are not identical nor are the recipients.