Paedo-Baptism Answers Abraham’s seed - help me understand

[JvMill]

Hi friends, I need some help with the concept of the Abrahamic covenant, Abraham’s seed, and the inclusion of the children of believers in the covenant of grace.

For context: I’ve been listening to R. Scott Clark’s podcast series, “I will be a God to you and your children.” The last couple episodes I’ve listened to emphasized that the covenant of grace is to believers and their children. Though circumcision (and many other things) were typological in the time of types and shadows, the basic principle of the children being included in the external administration of the CoG is not seen as typological. If my understanding is wrong here, please correct me.

My question is this, and what is tripping me up/a hurdle to my understanding of Covenant theology: Galatians 3, and especially verse 29, seems to teach that those who believe are heirs according to the promise, and are ‘sons’ or ‘seed’ because they are united to Christ by faith. So far so good, according to Covenant Theology, yes? (Again, if I am misunderstanding, please correct me) If this is the case, that we are heirs (seed) of the promise to Abraham, by faith, does that not satisfy the ‘to your children’ in the promise made to Abraham? And those who are truly his children are not those according to the flesh, but those who believe. Would this not make the ‘to your children’ typological, pointing to those who believe? If my question does not make sense, please help it make sense!

Perhaps this answers my question: the solution is found in the difference between the external administration and the substance. The external administration is to believers and their children, but the substance is only to be found and efficacious by faith? Let me know if I am conceptualizing this correctly, and how my language could be better.

This would seem to solve the issue, no? Because then only the believing Israelites were actually the children of Abraham, which according with Romans 9, not all Israel is Israel.

Thanks my brothers and sisters for your help. It’s been a rough couple weeks of wrestling for me. I would appreciate your prayers.

 

[MW]

This would seem to solve the issue, no? Because then only the believing Israelites were actually the children of Abraham, which according with Romans 9, not all Israel is Israel.

I think you meant, "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." Israel is elect. "Of Israel" is the focus of administration.

Administration keeps us from collapsing everything into eternal election. It allows scope for God's purposes to be worked out historically with all the conditionality and contingency that entails.

The apostle gives an example in Jacob and Esau: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." Both grew up together in the covenant family until God's purposes were manifested in their individual lives. The covenant administration was an important aspect of Jacob's nurture in the faith. The blessing belonged to him by election but that election worked itself out through the covenant administration.

 

[EvanF]

Hi friends, I need some help with the concept of the Abrahamic covenant, Abraham’s seed, and the inclusion of the children of believers in the covenant of grace.

For context: I’ve been listening to R. Scott Clark’s podcast series, “I will be a God to you and your children.” The last couple episodes I’ve listened to emphasized that the covenant of grace is to believers and their children. Though circumcision (and many other things) were typological in the time of types and shadows, the basic principle of the children being included in the external administration of the CoG is not seen as typological. If my understanding is wrong here, please correct me.

My question is this, and what is tripping me up/a hurdle to my understanding of Covenant theology: Galatians 3, and especially verse 29, seems to teach that those who believe are heirs according to the promise, and are ‘sons’ or ‘seed’ because they are united to Christ by faith. So far so good, according to Covenant Theology, yes? (Again, if I am misunderstanding, please correct me) If this is the case, that we are heirs (seed) of the promise to Abraham, by faith, does that not satisfy the ‘to your children’ in the promise made to Abraham? And those who are truly his children are not those according to the flesh, but those who believe. Would this not make the ‘to your children’ typological, pointing to those who believe? If my question does not make sense, please help it make sense!

Perhaps this answers my question: the solution is found in the difference between the external administration and the substance. The external administration is to believers and their children, but the substance is only to be found and efficacious by faith? Let me know if I am conceptualizing this correctly, and how my language could be better.

This would seem to solve the issue, no? Because then only the believing Israelites were actually the children of Abraham, which according with Romans 9, not all Israel is Israel.

Thanks my brothers and sisters for your help. It’s been a rough couple weeks of wrestling for me. I would appreciate your prayers.

In my opinion, when people say that all children of believers are part of the covenant of grace, they are either actual federal visionists who believe it without qualification, or they are employing a confused or oversimplified terminology to describe the external participation of reprobates in the administrations of the covenant of grace.

However, just as only one of Abraham’s eight sons was to have a covenant relationship with God, they were all nonetheless gifts of fruitfulness to Abraham from God by way of his own covenant relationship, and it was an appropriate act of faith that Abraham administered the sign of his covenant upon all the males of his house, including each of his sons. Also, just as you say, only those who have faith are heirs of Abraham, yet all the Israelites benefited from the administration of God's covenant when he led them out of captivity in Egypt as a nation, so it is true in a way that some reprobates benefit from the special grace of God toward his people in ways that most do not.

 

[JvMill]

I think you meant, "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." Israel is elect. "Of Israel" is the focus of administration.

Administration keeps us from collapsing everything into eternal election. It allows scope for God's purposes to be worked out historically with all the conditionality and contingency that entails.

The apostle gives an example in Jacob and Esau: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." Both grew up together in the covenant family until God's purposes were manifested in their individual lives. The covenant administration was an important aspect of Jacob's nurture in the faith. The blessing belonged to him by election but that election worked itself out through the covenant administration.

So in the NC, the administration is still believers and their children? That is not typological, as circumcision of the males was?

Post automatically merged: Mar 5, 2025

In my opinion, when people say that all children of believers are part of the covenant of grace, they are either actual federal visionists who believe it without qualification, or they are employing a confused or oversimplified terminology to describe the external participation of reprobates in the administrations of the covenant of grace.

However, just as only one of Abraham’s eight sons was to have a covenant relationship with God, they were all nonetheless gifts of fruitfulness to Abraham from God by way of his own covenant relationship, and it was an appropriate act of faith that Abraham administered the sign of his covenant upon all the males of his house, including each of his sons. Also, just as you say, only those who have faith are heirs of Abraham, yet all the Israelites benefited from the administration of God's covenant when he led them out of captivity in Egypt as a nation, so it is true in a way that some reprobates benefit from the special grace of God toward his people in ways that most do not.

So technically speaking Abraham’s sons (in Paul’s usage in Galatians) are only those who have faith? And yet, those who have faith are to include their children in the covenant promises?

 

[EvanF]

So technically speaking Abraham’s sons (in Paul’s usage in Galatians) are only those who have faith? And yet, those who have faith are to include their children in the covenant promises.

I wouldn't say that we include our children in covenant promises by baptizing them. Administration of baptism to our children does not extend to them any covenant promise that God has not already given to them through election. However, in doing so, we acknowledge them as blessings upon us by our covenanting Lord, and we affirm our faith in his sovereign covenant that he applied to us through election before we yet had faith. While baptized children may not really be included in covenant promises, they nonetheless derive gracious benefit from those promises through the nurture of their parents and the church who are included.

 

[MW]

So in the NC, the administration is still believers and their children? That is not typological, as circumcision of the males was?

In the administration of the new covenant there is no attempt to remove the historical contingencies and conditions by which God works out His electing purpose. The Book of Hebrews is very clear on that point. And there are still physical actions by which people enter into covenant with God. Those people are identified as believers and their children. The covenant administration is as extensive as it was in the old covenant.

We must guard against an over-realised eschatology which fixates on the "now" to the exclusion of the "not-yet." The types of the old covenant have been fulfilled by Christ, but that does not mean we have taken possession of the promised inheritance. We need to be careful to retain the perspective of Hebrews that we are pilgrims and strangers who seek a better country. We live amidst earthly realities and the covenant administration takes all those realities into account.

 

[JvMill]

In the administration of the new covenant there is no attempt to remove the historical contingencies and conditions by which God works out His electing purpose. The Book of Hebrews is very clear on that point. And there are still physical actions by which people enter into covenant with God. Those people are identified as believers and their children. The covenant administration is as extensive as it was in the old covenant.

We must guard against an over-realised eschatology which fixates on the "now" to the exclusion of the "not-yet." The types of the old covenant have been fulfilled by Christ, but that does not mean we have taken possession of the promised inheritance. We need to be careful to retain the perspective of Hebrews that we are pilgrims and strangers who seek a better country. We live amidst earthly realities and the covenant administration takes all those realities into account.

So, it is right to say that the people group of Israel ought to all have been believers, like Abraham, even though they were not?

I think I’m getting hung up on the ethic aspect of circumcision (Abraham and his family after him) against the multi-ethnic aspect of baptism.

Anyone could have joined Israel, correct? As long as they took circumcision and other OT regulations? Is this analogous to the church, but just multi-ethnic?

 

[MW]

So, it is right to say that the people group of Israel ought to all have been believers, like Abraham, even though they were not?

Yes, it presumes the existence of faith. The sacrament is a sign to the senses and a seal to faith.

Anyone could have joined Israel, correct? As long as they took circumcision and other OT regulations? Is this analogous to the church, but just multi-ethnic?

Correct. Exod. 12:48, "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof."

 

[EvanF]

So, it is right to say that the people group of Israel ought to all have been believers, like Abraham, even though they were not?

I think I’m getting hung up on the ethic aspect of circumcision (Abraham and his family after him) against the multi-ethnic aspect of baptism.

Anyone could have joined Israel, correct? As long as they took circumcision and other OT regulations? Is this analogous to the church, but just multi-ethnic?

At least certain people were excluded from Abraham’s covenant, as it flowed through Israel, on an ethnic/hereditary basis, for example, children of a bastard until the tenth generation (Deut 23:2), Amonites and Moabites "for ever" (Deut 23:3), and Edomites and Egyptions until the third generation (Deut 23:7-8). Also, again, simply receiving the sign of circumcision did not ingraft someone to Abraham's covenant. Paul taught that those were not Jews who were circumcised in the flesh but who were circumcised in the heart.

It is true that national Israel was analogous to the visible church in that the flock was a mixture of sheep and goats - the crop was a mixture of wheat and tares. But the goats Christ never knew, and the tares were not sown by him.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

So, it is right to say that the people group of Israel ought to all have been believers, like Abraham, even though they were not?

I think I’m getting hung up on the ethic aspect of circumcision (Abraham and his family after him) against the multi-ethnic aspect of baptism.

Anyone could have joined Israel, correct? As long as they took circumcision and other OT regulations? Is this analogous to the church, but just multi-ethnic?

Brother, three things:

1. You are distinguishing betwen Israel and the Church, when the New Testament considers them the same entity: "This is he, that was in the church [ekklesia] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us." (Acts 7:38 KJV).

2. Paritcipation in the spiritual blessings of the covenant was dependent on faith in the OT, and it is in the new. Jesus tells the "master of Israel" Nicodemus that he ought to understand that he needed a spiritual birth, because "that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3); that is to say, paritcipation in the spiritual blessings of the covenant was dependent on spirit-wrougt faith and regeneration, and a Jewish teacher ought to have known that. John the Baptist said to the Jews, "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Matt 3:9 KJV).

Similarly, NT believers are warned that their outward participation in the covenant did not guarantee their participation in the spiritual privileges of the covenant. See Heb 3:12-4:2 and 1 Cor 10:1-6.

3. Ethnicity/race/lineage was never an essential part of being a part of Israel, which is the church. Exodus 12:48 was already mentioned. Take a look at Romans 11:17-21. Israel is represented as an olive tree. The natural branches (the Jews) were cut out because of their lack of faith, and wild branches (us) were grafted in. It's the same tree, it just has wild branches grafted in. Paul then warns that if we don't have faith, we will be cut out of the Israel-tree, just as the Jews were cut out.

 

[JvMill]

Brother, three things:

1. You are distinguishing betwen Israel and the Church, when the New Testament considers them the same entity: "This is he, that was in the church [ekklesia] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us." (Acts 7:38 KJV).

2. Paritcipation in the spiritual blessings of the covenant was dependent on faith in the OT, and it is in the new. Jesus tells the "master of Israel" Nicodemus that he ought to understand that he needed a spiritual birth, because "that which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3); that is to say, paritcipation in the spiritual blessings of the covenant was dependent on spirit-wrougt faith and regeneration, and a Jewish teacher ought to have known that. John the Baptist said to the Jews, "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Matt 3:9 KJV).

Similarly, NT believers are warned that their outward participation in the covenant did not guarantee their participation in the spiritual privileges of the covenant. See Heb 3:12-4:2 and 1 Cor 10:1-6.

3. Ethnicity/race/lineage was never an essential part of being a part of Israel, which is the church. Exodus 12:48 was already mentioned. Take a look at Romans 11:17-21. Israel is represented as an olive tree. The natural branches (the Jews) were cut out because of their lack of faith, and wild branches (us) were grafted in. It's the same tree, it just has wild branches grafted in. Paul then warns that if we don't have faith, we will be cut out of the Israel-tree, just as the Jews were cut out.

Thank you for your reply, that is helpful.

I think I am still hung up on this, though I am having a hard time wording it:

Per Gen 17, circumcision is the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham, and the promise is to him and to his children, that God will be their God and He their people (17:7-8). But, Paul says in Galatians 3 that it is those who have faith who are the children of Abraham.

I think I can sum up my difficulties this way, with this question:
How do these two concepts work together? The covenant is to Abraham and his children, and the mark of the covenant is to be given to all males. Covenant theology says this is Abraham’s physical descendants, which therefore shows us that the covenant of grace’s administration includes believers and their children. But Abraham’s true children are those of faith, not his physical descendants, according to Paul. Are they children of Abraham in a different sense?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Thank you for your reply, that is helpful.

I think I am still hung up on this, though I am having a hard time wording it:

Per Gen 17, circumcision is the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham, and the promise is to him and to his children, that God will be their God and He their people (17:7-8). But, Paul says in Galatians 3 that it is those who have faith who are the children of Abraham.

I think I can sum up my difficulties this way, with this question:
How do these two concepts work together? The covenant is to Abraham and his children, and the mark of the covenant is to be given to all males. Covenant theology says this is Abraham’s physical descendants, which therefore shows us that the covenant of grace’s administration includes believers and their children. But Abraham’s true children are those of faith, not his physical descendants, according to Paul. Are they children of Abraham in a different sense?

It's the distinction between being in the covenant externally and being in the covenant internally. One can be a child of Abraham, or a child of the covenant, in an external sense, without having he substance of it. Such a person is not a child of Abraham/child of the covenant internally.

"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" (Rom 2:28-29).

Or to put it in terms of the NT administration of the covenant, "He is not a Christian, which is one outwardly; neither is that baptism, which is outward on the flesh: but he is a Christian, which is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

It may be helpful to note that, even from the beginning, it wasn't only Abraham's physical descedents who were in the covenant--it was his household. When Abraham whent and circised all the males of his house, he only had one son. We read, "And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him" (Gen 17:23). All but one of those people were his slaves, presumably from various nations.

I think you're getting hung up on the "physical descendent" idea, when that was never the point. "Household" does not equal "physical descendents."

 

[JvMill]

I think you're getting hung up on the "physical descendent" idea, when that was never the point. "Household" does not equal "physical descendents."

You’re definitely right with this. I am struggling to see the covenant with Abraham as primarily spiritual, rather than primarily earthly (which is true per Romans 4 and Hebrews 11, and more)

 

[Deleted member 6112]

You’re definitely right with this. I am struggling to see the covenant with Abraham as primarily spiritual, rather than primarily earthly (which is true per Romans 4 and Hebrews 11, and more)

It might help to consider that just as in the OT, the NT administration has its earthly/external administration, as well as its spiritual administration.

Baptism and membership in the visible church are earthly and external, and altough Baptists may deny that fact, they can't escape it. I sometimes hear Baptists say that they hold to "regenerate church membership," and that they only baptize believers. But can they know infallibly whether someone is truly converted? Of course not. On what basis, then, do they baptize and admit people to membership? They have to do it on the basis of a credible profession of faith--something external, which may or may not match the spirutal reality. As much as they talk about "regenerate church membership" and "believer's baptism," their membership rolls and baptismal records will never line up with the secret and spiritual administration of the covenant, and that secret and spiritual administration can never be the basis for their practice.

"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deut 29:29).

 

[Elias_Amare]

How do these two concepts work together?

Samuel Petto in Infant Baptism of Christ’s Appointment under "Objections against infant baptism and covenant interest answered," especially objection II deals with Covenant with Abraham, his seed, and Gal 3,4.

 

[Pomopu]

Samuel Petto in Infant Baptism of Christ’s Appointment under "Objections against infant baptism and covenant interest answered," especially objection II deals with Covenant with Abraham, his seed, and Gal 3,4.

Might you perhaps summarize Petto in a paragraph for our benefit?

 

[EvanF]

It's the distinction between being in the covenant externally and being in the covenant internally.

Can those really be called "in the covenant" who only externally seem to be so? This is where I see many people easily stumble over covenant terminology into an idea that those whom God has not elected can be established in or preserve a covenant relationship with God through "covenant faithfulness" in the external administrations of his covenant.

Does God initiate a covenant relationship with reprobates whom he has elected for destruction but who go through the external motions of a covenant relationship - those to whom he will say "I never knew you"? If not, are they properly described as in his covenant "externally"?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Can those really be called "in the covenant" who only externally seem to be so? This is where I see many people easily stumble over covenant terminology into an idea that those whom God has not elected can be established in or preserve a covenant relationship with God through "covenant faithfulness" in the external administrations of his covenant.

Does God initiate a covenant relationship with reprobates whom he has elected for destruction but who go through the external motions of a covenant relationship - those to whom he will say "I never knew you"? If not, are they properly described as in his covenant "externally"?

The Scriptures use the language of them being in the covenant.

"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words." - Ex 24:8 (we are told in Heb 3 that most of them were unbelievers).

"Set the trumpet to thy mouth. He shall come as an eagle against the house of the LORD, because they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law." - Hos 8:1

"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." - Is 24:5

"But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me." - Hos 6:7

"Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" - Heb 10:29.

How we parse that language theologically is another question, and could be the subject of another thread. You'll get different answers from different strains of Reformed/paedobaptist covenant theology. Nevertheless, the Scriptures use the language of them being in the covenant, breaking the covenant, and bringing on themselves the curses of the covenant.

 

[JvMill]

The Scriptures use the language of them being in the covenant.

"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words." - Ex 24:8 (we are told in Heb 3 that most of them were unbelievers).

"Set the trumpet to thy mouth. He shall come as an eagle against the house of the LORD, because they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law." - Hos 8:1

"The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant." - Is 24:5

"But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me." - Hos 6:7

"Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" - Heb 10:29.

How we parse that language theologically is another question, and could be the subject of another thread. You'll get different answers from different strains of Reformed/paedobaptist covenant theology. Nevertheless, the Scriptures use the language of them being in the covenant, breaking the covenant, and bringing on themselves the curses of the covenant.

So they would be the in the covenant externally but not have the substance (Christ)?

 

[mpinckard]

Can those really be called "in the covenant" who only externally seem to be so? This is where I see many people easily stumble over covenant terminology into an idea that those whom God has not elected can be established in or preserve a covenant relationship with God through "covenant faithfulness" in the external administrations of his covenant.

Does God initiate a covenant relationship with reprobates whom he has elected for destruction but who go through the external motions of a covenant relationship - those to whom he will say "I never knew you"? If not, are they properly described as in his covenant "externally"?

Tyler's answer is spot-on. It's important to have a category of external covenant membership, even for the reprobate, or the frequent language that speaks of breaking the covenant will make no sense.

One might also consider the earlier-mentioned metaphor of the olive tree in Romans 11. Surely we must be able to say that the branches of the tree are within God's covenant, else how do they have any connection to the tree? And yet, branches may be broken off--have been broken off, and may yet be grafted back in. Such language is easy enough to understand if you distinguish the administration of the covenant from the substance of the covenant. Otherwise I'm not sure how you make sense of it.

And I think it's only on these lines that you can make sense of the language that the New Testament uses when speaking of apostasy, especially in the warning passage of Hebrews. Such passages speak of apostasy as a real thing, as something more than merely taking off a mask and finally revealing your true self. Which does not at all contradict what John says about those who go out from us showing that they were never really of us. In fact, the administration/substance distinction is necessary to hold the two ways of thinking about apostasy together, with the warning passages of Hebrews and elsewhere speaking of apostasy from the perspective of covenant administration, and 1 John speaking of apostasy from hte perspective of the covenant's substance.

So they would be the in the covenant externally but not have the substance (Christ)?

Exactly. They received the administration of the covenant, but because they did not embrace it by faith, they did not receive the substance, which is Christ. Consider also 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, along with Hebrews 4:2.

 

[JvMill]

Such language is easy enough to understand if you distinguish the administration of the covenant from the substance of the covenant. Otherwise I'm not sure how you make sense of it.

And I think it's only on these lines that you can make sense of the language that the New Testament uses when speaking of apostasy, especially in the warning passage of Hebrews. Such passages speak of apostasy as a real thing, as something more than merely taking off a mask and finally revealing your true self. Which does not at all contradict what John says about those who go out from us showing that they were never really of us. In fact, the administration/substance distinction is necessary to hold the two ways of thinking about apostasy together, with the warning passages of Hebrews and elsewhere speaking of apostasy from the perspective of covenant administration, and 1 John speaking of apostasy from the perspective of the covenant's substance.

Seems like this is the Baptist understanding, if I understand it correctly, though of course they would not verbalize it this way. Yet, there must be room for wheat and tares in the Church. Is this the right way to understand this:

CT says they were in the covenant externally, and therefore truly break thr covenant, even though they did not have the substance. This makes sense of the apostasy passages.

1689 federalism (according to your understanding/critique, not necessarily how they could describe themselves) say only the elect, and therefore those with faith, are a part of the NC/CoG (which is the same thing, I think) and those who apostatize were never part of the covenant. But, according to CT, the weakness here is that scripture, and Hebrews specifically, speaks of trampling the blood of the covenant, which means they must have some connection to it. CT would say 1689 does not do justice to the way 1689 explains this connection.

Is this a right understanding of the argument?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

So they would be the in the covenant externally but not have the substance (Christ)?

That's correct.

 

[JvMill]

Another tangential question for those watching this thread: would Ishmael and Esau have circumcised their households? Is there anything in scripture which speaks of this? Did the nations which grew out of these two men circumcise their people?

Put another way: if baptism is the NC sign pointing to the same thing as circumcision (Types and shadows sign) - a sign pointing to righteousness by faith in Christ - would we expect apostate Jews under the OC to withhold circumcision from their children in the same way apostate Christians do not baptism their children?

Hopefully that makes sense. I think this would help me work through my ethnic/national misunderstandings of CT and Israel.

 

[MW]

Can those really be called "in the covenant" who only externally seem to be so?

To man they do not merely seem to be in the covenant; they are in fact covenant members. Act 3:25, "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." The covenant is administered for man's sake. The Lord knows them who are His.

 

[EvanF]

The Scriptures use the language of them being in the covenant.

...

How we parse that language theologically is another question, and could be the subject of another thread. You'll get different answers from different strains of Reformed/paedobaptist covenant theology. Nevertheless, the Scriptures use the language of them being in the covenant, breaking the covenant, and bringing on themselves the curses of the covenant.

Does that mean they may enter into a covenant relationship with God by their own unregenerate will and remain in the covenant relationship by their dead works? Does God honor such works by promising something to them in spite of their reprobation? Is the benefit they derive from association with the people of God to be considered a contingent blessing based on their external participation? I think that's unlikely considering that many in Israel benefited from God's blessings upon the nation even while failing even externally to abide by God's covenant.

Or, are they only "in the covenant" as far as the heaping of coals upon their own heads because they fail to participate in it internally? In which case, we would call them in the covenant only to say that they are in breech of the covenant.

Tyler's answer is spot-on. It's important to have a category of external covenant membership, even for the reprobate, or the frequent language that speaks of breaking the covenant will make no sense.

One might also consider the earlier-mentioned metaphor of the olive tree in Romans 11. Surely we must be able to say that the branches of the tree are within God's covenant, else how do they have any connection to the tree? And yet, branches may be broken off--have been broken off, and may yet be grafted back in. Such language is easy enough to understand if you distinguish the administration of the covenant from the substance of the covenant. Otherwise I'm not sure how you make sense of it.

And I think it's only on these lines that you can make sense of the language that the New Testament uses when speaking of apostasy, especially in the warning passage of Hebrews. Such passages speak of apostasy as a real thing, as something more than merely taking off a mask and finally revealing your true self. Which does not at all contradict what John says about those who go out from us showing that they were never really of us. In fact, the administration/substance distinction is necessary to hold the two ways of thinking about apostasy together, with the warning passages of Hebrews and elsewhere speaking of apostasy from the perspective of covenant administration, and 1 John speaking of apostasy from hte perspective of the covenant's substance.

I understand the olive tree to be the posterity of Abraham, covenantally promised to him. Reprobate Jews were naturally connected to the tree in that they stemmed from it according to the flesh, yet they were pruned off covenantally because they were not part of the promised posterity. The analogy, I think, does not require this pruning to be understood as happening after a certain point in their lives before which they maintained their status in Abraham’s posterity by their works. The point is only that some who descended from Abraham according to the flesh were nevertheless plucked from his covenantal posterity. Unfortunately I have heard this passage used by federal visionists to support the idea that we remain in covenant by faithful works.

 

[mpinckard]

Does that mean they may enter into a covenant relationship with God by their own unregenerate will and remain in the covenant relationship by their dead works? Does God honor such works by promising something to them in spite of their reprobation? Is the benefit they derive from association with the people of God to be considered a contingent blessing based on their external participation? I think that's unlikely considering that many in Israel benefited from God's blessings upon the nation even while failing even externally to abide by God's covenant.

Or, are they only "in the covenant" as far as the heaping of coals upon their own heads because they fail to participate in it internally? In which case, we would call them in the covenant only to say that they are in breech of the covenant.


I understand the olive tree to be the posterity of Abraham, covenantally promised to him. Reprobate Jews were naturally connected to the tree in that they stemmed from it according to the flesh, yet they were pruned off covenantally because they were not part of the promised posterity. The analogy, I think, does not require this pruning to be understood as happening after a certain point in their lives before which they maintained their status in Abraham’s posterity by their works. The point is only that some who descended from Abraham according to the flesh were nevertheless plucked from his covenantal posterity. Unfortunately I have heard this passage used by federal visionists to support the idea that we remain in covenant by faithful works.

I don't that's a workable interpretation of the olive tree metaphor, when Paul also says that the Gentiles who had been grafted in could also be cut off again, if they prove faithless. Honestly, a right understanding of the administration/substance distinction is the best defense against the FV error, because it clearly delineates the difference between covenant membership (administration) and election (substance).

More important, though, is that you didn't address the broader point about apostasy. How do you reconcile what you're saying with the way that Paul in 1 Cor 10 or the warning passages of Hebrews (especially Hebrews 6) speak of apostasy as a real possibility?

Also, I'm not nearly as well-read as many on the PB, but I'm fairly confident that your understanding of covenant membership is very much outside the mainstream of Reformed covenant theology.

 

[mpinckard]

Seems like this is the Baptist understanding, if I understand it correctly, though of course they would not verbalize it this way. Yet, there must be room for wheat and tares in the Church. Is this the right way to understand this:

CT says they were in the covenant externally, and therefore truly break thr covenant, even though they did not have the substance. This makes sense of the apostasy passages.

1689 federalism (according to your understanding/critique, not necessarily how they could describe themselves) say only the elect, and therefore those with faith, are a part of the NC/CoG (which is the same thing, I think) and those who apostatize were never part of the covenant. But, according to CT, the weakness here is that scripture, and Hebrews specifically, speaks of trampling the blood of the covenant, which means they must have some connection to it. CT would say 1689 does not do justice to the way 1689 explains this connection.

Is this a right understanding of the argument?

I think you've got it right. That apostates were members of the covenant, who then broke the covenant, will serve to increase the judgment against them on the Last Day. That's also why we treat the sexually immoral who bear the name of brother differently from the sexually immoral in the world. We are not even to eat with the former, but we have nothing to do with judging outsiders.

As for whether NC/CoG are the same thing, a 1689 Baptist would say that they are, but historic reformed CT would put the beginning of the CoG immediately post-Fall. 1689 Federalism holds the the CoG was foreshadowed and typified in prior covenants, but was not present in substance until the NC was made in Christ.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Does that mean they may enter into a covenant relationship with God by their own unregenerate will and remain in the covenant relationship by their dead works? Does God honor such works by promising something to them in spite of their reprobation? Is the benefit they derive from association with the people of God to be considered a contingent blessing based on their external participation? I think that's unlikely considering that many in Israel benefited from God's blessings upon the nation even while failing even externally to abide by God's covenant.

Or, are they only "in the covenant" as far as the heaping of coals upon their own heads because they fail to participate in it internally? In which case, we would call them in the covenant only to say that they are in breech of the covenant.

To all the questions in the first paragraph, no. We're getting wide of the scope of this thread, though, and I don't want to derail it. Perhaps it would be a good subject for another thread.

 

[Elias_Amare]

Might you perhaps summarize Petto in a paragraph for our benefit?

From five answers he gives to objection that "none but those that are Christ’s visibly, and that are of the faith, are Abraham’s seed, (Gal. 3:16, 26, 29). Infants then are not the seed of Abraham." The first two answers he gave are helpful. The answers can be summarised.

1. Any privilege which infants of old had by the Covenant with Abraham or as his seed have continuity, and “There is nothing for cutting off any that were of the seed, as infants once were, (Gen. 17, Deut. 29:10-14), rather he asserts the sameness of the Covenant in respect of its seed and that it could not be disannulled, (see Gal. 3:16-17)”
2. In Gal. 3:8-10 the apostle “speaks of a seed of Abraham as to justification and life, and it is they which are of the faith.” This doesn’t oppose an infant seed but “an adult seed, which sought justification by works of the Law, as these verses witness it in Gal. 3:24, 26, and 29." while infants were in the Covenant, yet Abraham seed, as to justification, was of the faith and not of works; and only real believers are this seed Gal. 4:24-31. “where they that were born from Mount Sinai, from the Law and Works, are said to be born after the flesh; they are in the apostles’ sense the fleshly seed, which with Ishmael are to be cast out; and they by promise are those of the faith.” Abraham always had but one seed, Christ, and those that are Christ’s and are of the faith as to justification. Gal. 3:16 He never had two seeds for that end; in the times of the Old Testament there was but one seed, not two seeds—one by the Law and another by promise—but only one in Christ by promise. The “one seed," which excludes only a pretended seed seeking justification by the works of the Law, is such that God never intended for the seed.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello John @John The Baptist ,

I hope to bring some clarity to your mind.

I would not call the circumcision of the children of Abraham typical, but a substantial, actual sign and seal of the covenant the LORD was making with him.

When the LORD commanded Abraham to circumcise all his children—including the males and the male children of all those in his house, servants or otherwise—that they may partake of the covenant He was unilaterally making with Abraham, it was to put the seal and sign of the covenant upon them—God’s elect—and it obviously could not require of them a profession of belief, at least not the very little ones. But for the sake of the elect children among them, all were circumcised. Yes, there will be the non-elect in their midst, as we see with Esau and many others up though the centuries, leading Paul to say, “they are not all Israel which are of Israel…That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Rom 9:6 KJV; Rom 9:8 KJV). But the elect were marked and sealed. The others, reprobate among them, were not in God’s covenant, despite appearances.

The New Testament manifestation of that covenant of grace made with Abraham, inaugurated and ratified by Jesus Christ with His blood, was the final stage of the covenant with Abraham: “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29 KJV ).

This is the point: if we are Abraham’s seed (in Christ), then God’s command to Abraham to put the sign and seal on his infant offspring, for the sake of the elect among them, this command applies to us as well: “for the sake of the elect children among us, all are baptized”. For adult converts, the command to be baptized applies to them also (Mark 16:16 KJV; Matt 28:19 KJV). The LORD will make manifest who are elect and who reprobate, by their fruit. If not discerned in this life, then surely in the next.

Does this help?