Synopsis: What About Baptism?

Laudante · #81 (**permalink**) 08-27-2009, 11:17 PM

Martin (I hope this is a first name, otherwise, please correct me):

I did like your last post. I don´t think anyone would believe you are a BIG "D" guy. I´m sure you wouldn´t be here in that case, to begin with, so the accusation was out of place, as you say.

I would just like to add some thoughts on the issue of the covenants.

First, the covenant of works is not particularly related with the law of Moses, nor it is outside of it, but maybe in a slightly different sense of how you explained it. I believe that the covenant of works which was established on the creation of man, is still open until this very day. Let me try to explain myself before beginning to receive tomatoes in my face.

The covenant of Works means that any human being is "entitled" according to divine justice, to be saved by his or her own works, inasmuch as he or she can keep THE WHOLE LAW. This was true in Adam´s time just as much as today. Moses says, and Paul confirms it, that everyone who would theorically keep the whole moral law can be saved (and we can infer that it would be apart from the atoning sacrifice of Christ). So the covenant of Works is, and has ever been, extant. But at the same time, it is only theoretical, since no man has the actual ability of doing that. Only in Christ it was fulfilled, for He merited not only his own "salvation", if you allow me to speak like that, but also ours. The only difference in the covenant of Works since it was opened in Adam until Moses is an increasing of the demands of it. In Adam´s time, the only action required to be "saved by works" was to avoid eating a given fruit. In Moses´ time those requirements were enlarged significantly. So the law of Moses is, in one sense, the requirement of the THEORICAL covenant of works, for the man who would THEORICALLY dare to try it, but for those who despair of saving themselves by works and invoke the covenant of grace, the law also fulfills an important role. It becomes the rule of conduct for them, not in order to be saved, but to please God. That is, those under the covenant of grace are also called to do works, as I think we all agree.

So in a strict sense, the covenant of works is still open, but in real terms, God has never confirmed a real covenant with aybody under works (except Christ, as I said), not even with Adam, since he broke it. So every real covenant, including of course the Abrahamic and the Mosaic, if it can be called a covenant at all between man and God, was the covenant of Grace. The circumcision was meant to represent that covenant of grace, not any covenant of works. When Paul relates the circumsicion with the law, seemingly in a sense of works, I believe he intended to express that those who wanted to continue circumcision in NT times were bound to continue with all the ceremonial law as well. And this is because, exactly as in the case of the Sabbath, in the circumcision rite there were both a ceremonial and a moral parts involved. The ceremonial pertained to the outward sign, while the moral to the inward meaning. In the Sabbath, the ceremonial part was the exact day to be observed, while the moral part was the observation itself. So in the NT the ceremonial part was done away, but the moral part was kept, changing the day in the case of the Fourth Commandment, and the mode of applying the sign of the covenant in the case of circumcision. But just like we have to do on Sunday what the Jews did on Saturday (according to the Bible, not to rabbinic tradition), we have also to do in baptism what the Jews did on circumcision. But if someone wants to keep the old shadowy form of the Jewish Sabbath or the Jewish circumcision, he is bound to do all the other ceremonial requirement of the OT, and this is precisely what Paul is saying.

So in short, it is difficult to say that circumcision has to do with any covenant of works, IMHO, especially considering that it was instituted upon Abraham´s faith, not for any works he could have done, or as a sign that he should try to save himself by works. Circumcision was a sign of God´s election and grace upon Abraham and his spititual offspring. His offspring according to the flesh was entitled to the rite simply because they were also called and supposed to be of the same faith of their father, that is, their spiritual offspring as well. The failure of some individuals to keep up to that level was not a failure of the covenant at all. You mention that someone could be cut off from this abrahamic covenant, and that this was a clear difference with the covenant of grace. But I rather tend to believe that those who were to be cut off never really belonged to the Abrahamic covenant at all, even if they seemed to for a while, just like the false members of the Christian church are there but not belong to her. And there are plenty of false members, unfortunately, both among paedo and credo baptists, just as there were among the natural progeny of Abraham. But they never belonged to any covenant with God, in the first place. They were, however, on the covenant family, and rightfully, until they showed the contrary. The same happens with the children of believers under the NT.

A.J. · #82 (**permalink**) 08-27-2009, 11:54 PM

Mr. Snyder,

No one said that the signs are identical. The cutting off of the foreskin of the flesh (circumcision) is clearly different from the washing with water in the Name of the Trinity (baptism). What is identical is the thing signified by both. Both represent the circumcision of the heart (Col. 2:11-12; Rom. 2:28-29). A good argument can only be made against paedobaptism if the spiritual reality signfied by baptism is in substance different from that of circumcision.

I did notice Gal. 3:27.

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

What do you do with Simon the magician (Acts 8:9ff.) if as you say that "[e]veryone who is baptized puts on Christ"? Gal. 3:27 is extremely problematic for a position which denies sacramental union (cf. WCF 28:2).

Paul explains (Gal. 3:16-18),

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

So the law given 450 years later does not annul (ESV) the promise (Gen. 17:7). A case for antipaedobaptism therefore must not only show that God has indeed abrogated His command (Gen. 17:9-14) to include infants in His covenant community. It must also modify the implications of the promise. The promise necessitated the covenantal inclusion of infants. And Paul says in explicit terms that the promise is not (has not been) annuled (cf. Acts 2:38-39; 16:31)!

You rightly note that the elect are Christ's offspring (seed). In fact, this is the confessional Reformed position (LC Q&A 31). There is no disagreement on that. But saying that the elect are Christ's seed is different from saying that only those who profess that they are indeed elect should be baptized. You are arguing from what is to what ought to be.

Blessings,

**PuritanCovenanter** · #83 (**permalink**) 08-28-2009, 12:32 AM

AJ.

We are going to disagree on Acts 2 pertaining to the Promise and it's beneficiaries. Those who are given the promises in Acts 2 are set in time present and forward. You, your children, those far off and as many as the Lord shall call. The promise has a specific. Repent and be baptized.... In order you, your children, those afar off, and as many as the Lord shall call, all must do something in order to receive something. The inclusion is the same for everyone. It is not a grandfather clause. It seems there must be some cognizant ability in this passage by all. It matters not about physical lineage or heritage any longer. We discussed this earlier in the thread. I do not see your conclusion that the promise necessitated the covental inclusion of infants. I believe you are assuming it by your presuppositions.

The Covenant of Grace included in the Abrahamic Covenant pertained to the Seed as Paul mentions in Galatians. That is Christ. You are correct. The law cannot disannul that it was to be a fulfillment and it was fulfilled. The CofW in the CofAbraham can not disannul the CofG. Christ came in the Flesh. Baptism signify's more than circumcision does. You are putting way to much emphasis on circumcision and its meaning and you are flattening out the Covenants too much in my estimation to make them be equal and have the same meanings and representations.

Concerning Simon. I can only say that even the Apostle's warned others to examine themselves. He really shouldn't be considered in the argument of infant Baptism because he made a cognizant decision for something. And that is the measuring stick, so to speak, by which one is to look. As Romans states. Confession is made unto salvation. We have discussed those false brethren concepts before. They are to be dealt with as 1 Cor 5 plainly tells us.

Sorry but I am getting tired right now.

Be Encouraged AJ.

I would really prefer to keep dealing with Rob. He was the one I was discussing this with and I really don't want to rabbit trail.

**PuritanCovenanter** · #84 (**permalink**) 08-28-2009, 12:51 AM

Ricardo.

I am not trying to avoid you. I do know that some believe the Mosaic to have a republication of the CofW in them and I also know probably most do not hold to this view. I can also reference others who believe more so that this is true, considering other factors, of the Abrahamic Covenant also.

Good night.

Like I said I was just hoping to discuss more with Rob. I don't want to Rabbit trail with others. Thanks.

Laudante · #85 (**permalink**) 08-28-2009, 03:15 AM

I address this and any future post on this thread to everyone who participates in it and might be interested on what I´m saying, and not particularly to Randy, so that he won´t feel compelled to reply to it and alter his private debate with Robert. (Randy, I don´t feel offended, of course... I think it´s legitimate for you to answer only the posts you want to, but I also feel I can participate in this thread regardless of that. From now on, if you don´t answer my posts I won´t take it as if you are neither avoiding nor granting what I say, nor being discourteous with me, right?).

The law has different levels of intentions or uses. In one of these levels, yes, I would say it is a republication of the covenant of works. Paul says in Gal. 3:12: "However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.”

This means that if someone, hypothetically, could practice everything that is on the law, he would be saved (even today). And Paul confirms that this is something completely apart from the covenant of grace, which operates through faith, when he says: "The law is not of faith".

However, just the two preceding verses make us clear that all those who pretend to be saved that way fail and are under a curse, not because the offer to be saved by doing the law is not sincere, but because “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM” (Gal. 3:10).

If they could abide by all those things, they would be in a true agreement or covenant of works with God, but since original sin makes this impossible, and everyone is under original sin, we all know that "that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH” (Gal. 3:11).

All human beings who reject the mercy of God in Christ put themselves automatically into the covenant of works, and they fail it. It is in this sense that John says: "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17).

My point is that this is the only sense in which there is something like a sharp difference and even contrast between the Old and the New convenants, and this is the only sense in which the law seems to have tried to "hinder" the Abrahamic promise in Gal 3:17. But when we understand that the real intention of God with the Law was not to save persons by works, nor to put a perpetual curse on his people, but rather to lead people to despair in order that they might invoke the covenant of grace, we see that this latter was always in view in the giving of the Law. It is only that the issue is more clearly revealed in the NT than in the OT. So the Law becomes thus a means of grace and not a means of damnation, for those who recognize its true nature, while it remains perpetually a curse for those who fail to invoke mercy on view of our impossibility to fulfill her demands of holiness. "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully" (1 Tim. 1:8). So the alleged contrast between dispensations is a mere illusion after all, and the real opposition is between the pharisees and the penitent tax collectors, both of which kinds have existed in OT as much as in NT times.

I know that all this can be slightly off-topic, but at the end, the heart of the paedo vs. credo debate lies in the nature of the dispensations, more than with the rite in itself. I´m not saying that Randy or anyone else on this thread fails to understand all this, but I´m just trying to clarify how I understand covenant theology. Congruence with all this is what made me, personally, abandon a 15 year-old credobaptist position. I thought I could see everything clear as day when I was there, but recently something "made click" in my mind and I understood that both baptism and circumcision are signs of the covenant of grace, and that only the outward aspect of circumcision was typical, but the meaning and candidates are the same. I had always thought that the paedos had a rather too "earthly" view of the New Covenant, but later I understood that maybe it was I who was having a less "spiritual" view of the Old one, in the wrong aspect of it. I mean that, yes, without doubt the OT is more earthly or fleshly than the New, but NOT IN THE ASPECT OF WHO ARE ITS REAL MEMBERS and how they are saved, but only in the more rudimentary means of grace and teaching of the truths of the Gospel. The truth Paul asserts that "Not all Israel is Israel" doesn´t only apply to NT times. It had always been so.

The only issue with which I am still dealing is why, if candidates are the same, now baptism should be applied to girls also. Maybe the answer is that another thing that changed is that the New covenant is more universal in scope. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." But girls and gentiles were also saved and "circumcised in the heart" under the old economy, so the sacrament was not applied to them? Well, gentiles that became proselytes were circumcised. I think the reason girls weren´t is clear. But I don´t know if a physical motive is the only one. If someone has good ideas on this, they´ll be more than welcome.

In Christ,

CalvinandHodges · #86 (**permalink**) 08-28-2009, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

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:

Quote:

I answer, that circumcision was only a seal to Abraham of a peculiar covenant made with him, and of a particular promise made to him, and was it to be admitted a seal of the covenant of grace, it will not prove baptism to be such; since, as has been observed, baptism does not succeed it in place, in time, and use; and could this be allowed that it succeeds it, and is a seal of the righteousness of faith, as that was, it can only be a seal to them that have both faith and righteousness,

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.

Quote:

The edition is den Dulk Christian Foundation distributed by P&R, reprinted 1990. Vol. II, p. 186, Witsius says of the Mosaic Cov.,

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.

Quote:

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

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

Thank you, Randy, for your kindness and patience with me.

Thank you also for explaining yourself. I thought we were talking about Jer 31:31ff and the Old/New Covenant distinctions. In this sense the distinctions are outward/physical - both the Old and New Covenants have the same head - Jesus Christ.

The "Old" Covenant here cannot be equated with the Covenant of Works, because the "Old" Covenant is a gracious Covenant made by God. It is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. My understanding of what you said was that the Covenant of Grace - represented by both the Old and New Covenants - had two different heads.

Now you tell me that you were speaking of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Yes, I agree with you that Adam was the covenant head of the Covenant of Works, and Jesus is the Covenant head of the Covenant of Grace.

I agree with you about that, and my "accusation" of the capital "D" is withdrawn with my sincere apologies.

As far as the Burroughs quote goes: Your point was that Burroughs was saying that there was no command from God which prohibited the Sons of Aaron from offering the fire which they offered. However, when reading the rest of the passage it is clear that Burroughs was satisfied that the Sons of Aaron were doing something they were not supposed to do. Thus, the punishment of God was just.

Blessings,

Rob

**PuritanCovenanter** · #87 (**permalink**) 08-28-2009, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

As far as the Burroughs quote goes: Your point was that Burroughs was saying that there was no command from God which prohibited the Sons of Aaron from offering the fire which they offered. However, when reading the rest of the passage it is clear that Burroughs was satisfied that the Sons of Aaron were doing something they were not supposed to do. Thus, the punishment of God was just.

Blessings,

Rob

I agree that Burroughs was satisfied that the sons of Aaron were doing something they were not supposed to do. The punishment of God was just. The point Burrough's also makes is that there was no command to not offer strange fire. If they were doing something in ignorance it did not excuse them. Burrough's also makes the point that these young Priests were not vile men who were void of any integrity. They did something ignorantly and God said he would be sanctified in them. Thus, when they were punished their father Aaron had to say that God was just even though they might not have understood they were violating anything, even if there wasn't a negative command.

Rob, I might be a bit slow responding since the weekend is here. I get busy on the weekends so be patient with me brother if it seems I don't get back to the discussion right away. That is one reason I just want to discuss this with you. I am not trying to avoid others arguments. I just have so much time and need to stay focused so I probably won't be dealing with the other's arguments. I hope others take no offense. Thanks for understanding.

CalvinandHodges · #88 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 04:18 PM

Greetings Randy:

I know what you mean when it comes to taking your time in replying - this past weekend I had to drive 6 hours to preach in Owego, NY. I had a great time, but it was quite draining.

To back up a bit I want to address something you said in post #80. You wrote:

Quote:

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.

What kind of baptism are you referring to? The rite of Water Baptism, or, the Baptism of the Spirit? If you are referring to Water Baptism, then did Simon the Sorceror "put on Christ" when he was baptized? If he did, then what does that mean about the unbreakable covenant which cannot be broken?

In an earlier post you argued that circumcision was given as a civil ordinance to Israel - as part of the land promises. When you consider that strangers who were servants of the Jews were also to be circumcised, and they never inherited the land, then such an argument does not seem to hold water (pardon the pun).

What I would like to see from you, and from any Credobaptists, is a good Biblical argument that dipping is the only Mode of Christian Baptism. Can you adequately defend the statment in the 1689 Confession:

Quote:

Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

If you cannot defend dipping as the sole means of Baptism in the Bible, then how can anyone expect your arguments concerning Adults only to be Biblically valid? Being faithful over a little...

Blessings,

Rob

**PuritanCovenanter** · #89 (**permalink**) 09-15-2009, 03:37 PM

Wow, I didn't notice you replied.

In the remark where you site me I believe that we are referring to St. Paul in post 80.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

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.

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.

Quote:

(Gal 3:26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

(Gal 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

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

Quote:

(Gal 5:3) For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

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. [/QUOTE]

I believe Paul is writing about physical baptism here in a general sense concerning those who are considered children of God by faith in Jesus Christ. At least that is what the passage seems to indicate. If Simon the Sorcerer was a child of God by faith in Jesus Christ, he did. If not he only added to his condemnation in my estimation. I don't think you can make a for certain whether or not Simon was in Christ or not. History seems to reveal he was opposed to Peter. The key to the passage and the point I would direct you to is in verse 26. I don't think you can divorce verse 26 from 27.

Now concerning the slaves who had no inheritance in the land. I would point you to understand that had they not been circumcised they would have been cut off. They wouldn't be allowed to stay in the land nor dwell with Abraham, Isaac, or any of the Isrealites after their reluctance to be circumcised. So as long as they remained and were circumcised they were included as a part of the civil promise to serve and have habitation in the land. And they also might have been participants of the Covenant of Grace. But then again circumcision wasn't necessary for that. As we have discussed before on the PB. The Covenant of Circumcision was not purely the sign of the Covenant of Grace.

Concerning Immersion? I think you are making a big jump here but I will refer you to John Calvin, Francis Territin, and Herman Witsius from another post I made .

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Even though water baptism is not mentioned in Romans 6 the death, burial, and resurrection analogy is signified in the going down under the water and the resurrection is signified by coming up to newness of life, out of the water. That is some of the reasoning.

Let me leave you with a quote here.

Quote:

But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed , and whether thrice or once, whether he should be only sprinkled with poured water---these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word 'baptizo' means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, 4:15:19 (1320)

Also in the footnotes of Fred Malones book 'The Baptism of Disciples Alone' on page xviv it is noted.

Quote:

See also Herman Wisius' and Francis Territin's discussions of mode of baptism in the early church. Both admit immersion was the practice, though they claim pouring and sprinkling also was practiced depending upon circumstances such as health or the availability of water.
Economy of the Covenants 1:422-428
Institutes of Elcentic Theology 3:381

The following post is also pretty revealing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by refbaptdude

Some additonal quotes concerning baptism by immersion:

What Non Baptists Have Said Concerning the Ancient Mode of Baptism

Presbyterian
John Calvin -"The very word "baptize however, signifies to IMMERSE, and it is certain that IMMERSION was the practice of the ancient church."(Institutes of the Christian Religion, chp 15)

John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of John
John 3:22-23
22. After these things came Jesus. It is probable that Christ, when the feast was past, came into that part of Judea which was in the vicinity of the town Enon, which was situated in the tribe of Manasseh. The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord's appointment and rule. So far as we are able to conjecture, the; vicinity of those places caused various reports to be circulated, and many discussions to arise, about the Law, about the worship of God, and about the condition of the Church, in consequence of two persons who administered baptism having arisen at the same time. For when the Evangelist says that Christ baptized, I refer this to the commencement of his ministry; namely, that he then began to exercise publicly the office which was appointed to him by the Father. And though Christ did this by his disciples, yet he is here named as the Author of the baptism, without mentioning his ministers, who did nothing but in his name and by his command. On this subject, we shall have something more to say in the beginning of the next Chapter.

Lutheran
Martin Luther -" I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word."

Philip Schaff -"IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan." (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).

Roman Catholic
Cardinal Gibbons -"For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by IMMERSION; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by IMMERSION (Faith of our Fathers p. 317)

Methodist
John Wesley -commenting on Rom 6:4- "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)

George Whitefield -commenting on Rom 6:4- "It is certain that the words of our text is an allusion to the manner of baptism by IMMERSION

Episcopalians
Conybeare and Howson -commenting on Rom 6:4-":This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION."

At the same time.... I am not as concerned about the mode. I believe I can defend it historically and scripturally but I do believe the Lord to be merciful and gracious who wouldn't break a bruised reed. And if someone is incapable of having immersion performed upon their Confession of Christ, I do believe that pouring will suffice in the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

CalvinandHodges · #90 (**permalink**) 09-24-2009, 08:08 PM

Hay Randy:

I am sorry for being so long in answering - I had written presbytery exams to take, a paper to write for presbytery, and the new semester began! Thank you for your patience with me.

There is a Biblical distinction between the physical rite of circumcision and the spiritual applications of it. One can be physically circumcised, and, yet not have his/her heart circumcised:

Quote:

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 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.

There is a promise of a land inheritance to those who are baptized as well - a New Heavens and a New Earth:

Quote:

2 Pet 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

This is not surprising to the paedo-baptist because we understand that Abraham viewed the land promises in the same way:

Quote:

Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

There are land promises in the New Testament, and these are the same land promises that Abraham was looking for as well.

The example of Ishmael does not support your theory. Ishmael did not receive the same land promises as Isaac. Though God provided for Ishmael because of Abraham - the land was not given to Ishmael and his descendents, but to Isaac and his seed.

I agree with you that servants were allowed in the land because they were circumcized. The picture is that of cleanliness. As those on Earth, in Israel, are cleansed from their sin (circumcized), then those who are in Heaven are to be cleansed from their sin (by Grace through faith). If there are servants among the Jews who did not believe, then that only shows the imperfection of the physical rite - as it is with the physical rite of baptism.

The teaching of the New Covenant is that Baptism and Circumcision both signify the same thing: The Washing and Renewing of the Holy Spirit. This is demonstrated in many ways:

Circumcision is the sign of the Covenant: Acts 7:8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.

Baptism is the sign of the Covenant: 1 Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Circumcision is a seal: Rom 4:11 And he 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.

Baptism is a seal: 1 Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Circumcision represents the New Birth: Romans 2:29 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.

Baptism represents the New Birth: Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Circumcision represents the cleansing of the Heart: Deut 10:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Baptism represents the cleansing of the Heart: Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

That there are differences between the Old and New Testament does not change the similarities. Otherwise, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is of none effect, because the OT sacrifices were done with sheep, goats, birds, etc, and Jesus was a human male.

The things that circumcision represented spiritually are the same things that baptism represents spiritually.

Blessings,

Rob

**PuritanCovenanter** · #91 (**permalink**) 09-25-2009, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Hay Randy:

I am sorry for being so long in answering - I had written presbytery exams to take, a paper to write for presbytery, and the new semester began! Thank you for your patience with me.

No problem Rob.... I have a feeling you and I are going to take this thread into next year. I haven't read anything but the first few lines and just let it go at that. I will probably respond sometime next week anyways. In fact I kind of like it that way. We can respond intelligently and not off the cuff, so to speak.

To bad 99% of the threads can't slow down and respond a bit more intelligently and with less emotion as ours appears to be doing.

BTW, have you got my old RPCNA Pastor's book on William Symington yet. If not I will get you a copy. It is a very beautiful work that I believe the whole church of God could benefit from. I am reading it slowly. I started posting about it here.

William Symington Penman of the Scottish Covenanters

Sorry. I took it off topic but will respond later brother.

Love ya,
Randy