Baptism should be administered to the true seed of Abraham, the elect in Christ

Status
Not open for further replies.

AV1611

Puritan Board Senior
what good reason is there for me to assume that one must only be baptised/receive the sign of covenant membership upon profession, especially given that in the OT infants and adults were given the sign almost immediately after inception into the covenant.

Hopefully I am not derailing the thread here. There is one covenant of grace/redemption, peace &c. which was made in eternity but which is administered in time in various economies and is the " the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ" (Gal 3:17). One administration begins with Abraham and so the Abrahamic Covenant is one administration of the covenant of grace. With the coming of Christ the New Covenant replaced the Abrahamic or more precisely the Abrahamic was fulfilled in the New:

"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." (Gal 3:16)

The New Covenant is a new administration of that one covenant of grace. Now circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant of grace as administered through the Abrahamic Covenant whilst baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant of grace as administered through the New Covenant.

What then am I trying to say? Well simply that there is unity between the one administration and the other but there are also differences and one difference is that whilst in the Abrahamic Covenant infants (the typical seed of Abraham) were circumcised now in the New Covenant only professors (the true seed of Abraham) are baptised.

Genesis 17 is clear, God declares:

I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.


Now this should, I believe, be interpreted in two ways. Firstly in a literal and physical way and secondly in a spiritual way.

"That the covenant with Abraham," says Dr. Carson, "has a letter and a spirit, is not a theory formed to serve a purpose. It is consonant to every part of the Old Dispensation, and is the only sense that can harmonize it with the New Testament. The temple was the house of God, in the letter; believers are so in the spirit. To call any house the house of God, is as much below the sense which the same phrase has when it is applied to the church of Christ, as to call the nation of Israel the people of God, is below the sense which that phrase has when applied to the spiritual Israel. Besides, there are many things spoken about the house of God in the letter, in terms that can only fully suit the spirit. "I have surely," said Solomon, "built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide forever." The incongruity of supposing him, whom ?the heaven of heavens cannot contain,? to dwell in a house forever, as a settled habitation, is removed only by referring it to the spirit." "Christ?s body is the only temple of which this is fully true. God did not dwell in the temple built by Solomon forever." That temple ceased to exist twenty five centuries ago. "But in the spirit it is accomplished, in its utmost extent." In another place, the same distinguished writer observes : -"For the accomplishment of the grand purpose that all nations should be blessed in Abraham, he had three promises. First, a numerous posterity; which was fulfilled in the letter, to the nation of Israel. It was fulfilled in the spirit, by the divine constitution that makes all believers the children of Abraham." "The second was, that he would be a God to him, and his seed; which was fulfilled in the letter, by his protection of Israel in Egypt, his delivering them from bondage," and his subsequent dealings with that nation. "This promise is fulfilled in the spirit, by God?s being a God to all believers, and to them alone, in a higher sense than he ever was to Israel" as a nation. "The third promise was of the land of Canaan; fulfilled in the letter to Israel; and in the spirit fulfilled to the true Israel, in the heavenly inheritance," the possession of the Canaan above. "In accordance with this double sense of the covenant," "the typical ordinances, which exhibit the truths of the gospel in a figure, form one of the most conclusive evidences of Christianity, and present spiritual things to the mind, in so definite and striking a manner, that they add the greatest lustre to the doctrines of grace." by R.B.C. Howell, PHILOLOGY OF THE COVENANTS

So what does God mean by "and to thy seed after thee"? Simple; 1stly God was the God of the nation of Israel as their covenant God who were the typical people of God in the OT. 2ndly this promise is fulfilled in the seed of Abraham therefore we must ask who precisely are the seed of Abraham?

"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." (Gal 3:16)

So Christ is the true seed of Abraham. But more:

"if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29)

The elect are the true seed of Abraham in Christ. What then does this mean for baptism. Well as circumcision was administered to the seed of Abraham in typical form so now in the blossom of redemptive history baptism should be also administered to the true seed of Abraham, the elect in Christ. How do we know who they are? Well their covenant head as their surety possesses all spiritual blessings which he mediates to them in time and two are repentance and faith. Therefore those who repent and believe ought to be baptised.

"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." (Galatians 3:26-29)
 
Last edited:
:judge: Moved to new thread. Richard, this post in the thread you responded to is really a whole new topic. Don't have the energy for it right now. Late here.

I'm sure you'll find others willing to take it up.

Blessings,

Rich
 
can he prove that the one difference needed is that God has told us our children, whom he put in, are now out. Doesn't matter if "the administration changed," what matters is if God removed classes of people he had previously allowed in:

Into what covenant did God place the children of believers? Into the covenant of grace? Head for head? This is blatantly false for as the WLC teaches in question 31 that "The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." It goes on to say that " The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New...The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation." (Questions 33 & 34)

Genesis 17 is not the covenant of grace proper but rather one administration of it and which is called the "covenant of circumcision" in Acts 7:8. Now into this "covenant of circumcision" infants were included but you and I are not under it. As Gill writes, "Nor can this covenant [of circumcision] be the same we are now under, which is a new covenant, or a new administration of the covenant of grace, since it is abolished, and no more in being and force."

Now you assert above that it "Doesn't matter if "the administration changed,"" but I beg to differ. The fact is that the administration has changed and so it is up to you to show me that the new administration includes placing the sign upon infants.

When the Major administration gave way to the Blair administration in the 1997 general election somethings changed and some things stayed the same. So it was with the change from the old administration to the new, we must therefore find from Scripture what has stayed the same and what has changed.

Wait, this was a bit fast. How'd you get here? As you say above:

In Genesis 17 God declares that the seed of Abraham are to receive the sign and seal of the covenant. In the OT the seed of Abraham was his fleshly decendants and these received circumcision. In the NT the seed of Abraham is the elect in Christ and these ought receive baptism.

So, baptism is for "covenant members." Now, where have you shown that *only elect* are *covenant members* and therefore worthy of the sign of baptism? Here's your argument then:

P1. Baptism is only for new covenant members.

P2. The new covenant consists, by necessity, of only the elect.

_________

C1. Therefore, baptism is for the elect.

Where has P2 been shown? No where.

I thought it was fairly obvious that only the elect are in the covenant:

1. " The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." (WLC Question 31)

2. Jeremiah 31:31-4 and Ezekiel 36:25-8

Jer 31:31-4 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Eze 36:25-28 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."

3. Greg Welty in A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism:

1) Jeremiah 31:31-34 "'The time is coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,' declares the LORD. 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the LORD. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'"

Jeremiah's statement is central, not peripheral, to identifying the relationship between the New Covenant and previous historical administrations of the one covenant of grace. Jeremiah's words are quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12, in Hebrews 10:16-17, and alluded to by our Lord in John 6:45. They speak directly to the issue of continuity and discontinuity between the covenant administrations. Three implications clearly follow from Jeremiah's description of the New Covenant.

First, the New Covenant is an unbreakable covenant. The very reason why God established this New Covenant with his people is because they broke the old one (v. 32). And if the New Covenant is an unbreakable covenant, then the paedobaptists have failed to recognize an important discontinuity between the New Covenant and the previous covenant administrations. The covenant as administered to Abraham and to Moses was breakable. "Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:14). "They broke my covenant" (Jeremiah 31:32; cf. Deuteronomy 28, 29:19-25). But according to Jeremiah, the covenant as administered in the New Covenant is not breakable by the covenantees.

Second, the New Covenant is made with believers only. This of course is the exact reason why the New Covenant is unbreakable, for only believers will persevere to the end without breaking God's covenant. Three blessings are spoken of with respect to the New Covenant: law written on the heart--"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" (v. 33); personal knowledge of God--"No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (v. 34a); and forgiveness of sins--"For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" (v. 34b). Now the contrast between the Old and the New is not that these three blessings will be experienced for the first time in redemptive history by the people of God! That would be to succumb to radically dispensational assumptions. The elect in every age have experienced these blessings, including the elect under the Old Covenant--law written on the heart (Psalm 37:31, 9:10, 76:1); personal knowledge of God (1 Samuel 2:12, 3:7); the forgiveness of sins (Psalm 32:1-2). Rather, the true contrast between the Old and the New Covenants is that now under the New Covenant, all who are covenant members experience these peculiar blessings. The fact that not all covenant members experienced these blessings under the Old Covenant is part of the divine motivation for readministering the covenant under the New! (v. 32: "It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers . . . because they broke my covenant.")

Third, the New Covenant is made only with the elect, with those who have experienced these blessings. It is not made with those who have not experienced these blessings. This is simply a restatement of the first two implications already mentioned. Thus in accordance with the covenant as newly administered in Christ, baptists do not give the New Covenant sign to those who give no evidence of being in the New Covenant. While recognizing the proper Old Testament distinction between an external covenant (elect and non-elect) and an internal covenant (elect only), baptists understand this external/internal distinction to be abolished in the New Covenant. No one is in covenant with God who is not a believer. Thus when paedobaptists speak of their "covenant children" as "breaking covenant" (i.e. becoming apostate by rejecting the faith), baptists rightly respond, "What covenant are you talking about? Obviously not the New Covenant! Only those who have the law of God written on their hearts, who know the Lord, and who have their sins forgiven, are in the New Covenant! Your 'covenant children' were never in the New covenant, and so never should have received the New Covenant sign!"

Now, on my view, a profession gets you into the covenant, hence you receive the sign. And, so does being born to professing parents. And, even though we can presume that both are elect, the profession and birth get you into the covenant, which, say I, has elect and non-elect members, still (see Hebrews 10:29-31, I Cor. 5, John 15, &c.). Hence I don't need to worry about probability calculus since the probability, on my view, that one is in covenant with God (externally at least) is 1 (not low, .4, or high, .7, or inscrutible).

Profession does not get you into the covenant nor does being born to professors. Rather profession (true repentance and faith) are evidences of already belonging in the covenant.
 
A few thoughts...

1. I believe you should more carefully distinguish between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption. I believe that modern-day Reformed Baptist arguments tend to confuse or conflate the two. The covenant of redemption is between God the Father and Christ the God-Man, representing His children (the elect). The covenant of grace is between God and the believer, representing his children. Likewise, baptism as a visible ordinance, is given to the visible church, not the invisible church. But you seem to argue otherwise.

2. Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 do not seem (to me, anyway) to define membership in the new covenant. They are not establishing terms of church communion (such as regeneracy, or evidence thereof).

3. I cannot see that the declarations in these chapters preclude infants from being in the covenant, as is polemically maintained by Reformed Baptists. (1.) The texts themselves do not exclude infants. (2.) Other OT passages, which likewise refer to the "newness" of the new covenant (even making mention to the regeneracy of those in that covenant), also explicitly include infants and children. See, e.g., Isa. 54:1-3, 10-13; 59:20, 21; 61:6-9; Jer. 32:36-40; Jer. 33:19-26; Ezek. 37:24-28. (3.) The new covenant is here made, not with "believers" or "the elect," but with "the house of Israel" and "the house of Judah" (cf. Ezek. 34:23-31). This, I would argue, necessitates the inclusion of their children, as certainly as the above passages explicitly mention their children, seed, etc.

4. Covenants naturally have the concept of representation (usually, but not always, on generational lines). All covenants made between God and men have had this element; namely, (1.) the covenant of redemption (made, as I said, between God the Father and Christ the God-Man, representing His elect children); (2.) the covenant of works, made between God and Adam, representing his children (all mankind); and, (3.) the covenant of grace, in ALL of its administrations, made between God and the believer, representing his children. The fact that the covenant of redemption and covenant of works included this principle confirms paedobaptism more than anything else, in my eyes. This demonstrates that this principle was not a ceremonial element of the administrations of the covenant of grace under the OT; since those covenants predate the covenant of grace, and the fall of man into sin, and therefore predate all types and ceremonies. Indeed, the covenant of redemption is from eternity past; meaning that the principle of "covenanters and their children" is a principle as eternal as God Himself. Why, then, on the basis of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 (which mention neither infants, nor baptism) should we conclude that infant baptism is unscriptural?
 
It is certainly unfortunate that Richard opted to totally ignore one of my arguments which showed that, even if he is correct, his position does not give him a reason to baptise only professors. Hence, even if Richard is correct, which he's not, he still has not provided any reason to not baptise children.

Your argument for the baptism of infants upon the grounds that they are born to believing parents and therefore we are able to assume their election is somewhat beside the point.

From my own position if we are going to baptize those who are in the new covenant then the only way to know if they are in the covenant is to assume that those who bring for the fruits of that covenant are elect. Therefore since both repentance and faith are fruits of electing grace then, because there is no way for me to be completely sure whether they are truly elect or not, I baptize them upon their profession.

However what grounds have I to assume that the children of believing parents are elect? No more that if I was to assume that the children of unbelieving parents are elect because election is not hereditary Cf. Ishmael and Esau. Therefore if you were to be consistent Paul you should baptize all infants regardless of their parental standing. But you would, rightly, be loath to do this because you are fully aware that the sign and seal is to be administered to those in the covenant and those alone.

The issue then is not election but covenant membership. Therefore the key question is just who is included in the New Covenant? Well the most obvious method to discern who is in the New Covenant is to look at what the blessings of it are at relating to the now. We can discern that the blessings of the NC include a new heart, and a new spirit, they will have the Spirit of God living within them, they shall possess true knowledge of God having been taught by him, having the law of God in their inward parts written upon their hearts, they will have God as their God and they shall be his people, their sins forgiven being sprinkled by the blood of Christ, their stony heart replaced by a heart of flesh. The members of the New Covenant possess all of these spiritual blessings including regeneration bringing forth repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Now it is to these that baptism is to be administered and that even by your own logic. Why? Because we both agree that the sign and seal is to be administered to those in the covenant and those alone.

The only way we know who are in the New Covenant is through their bringing forth the fruits of the New Covenant. The issue is not so much as do infants belong in the New Covenant but rather do infants bringing forth the fruits of the New Covenant? If they do not then they have no part in it and are not to be baptized.

Am I saying that we know for certain that Mr X and Mrs Y who say that they possess repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ are elect? In no wise, but we must go with their profession of faith in a judgment of charity because we know that such is a fruit of election. We must say with Philip “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” (Acts 8:37).

Well, since Richard believes that the children of believers were in *a* covenant, and I assume he believes that there have been only *two* covenants (laying aside a third, CoR), then our choice is pretty simple. Which covenant did God place children in:

1) CoW
or
2) CoG

(1) and (2) are the only options. We should note that *administrations* of (1) and (2) are not *different* covenants, but administrations of *the* covenants.

So, if God did not place any children in (2) then he placed them all in (1). Thus since there are only two options, and since Richard admits that some chiildren were in the Abrahamic adminstration of (2), then Richard must agree that some children, at least, were placed in (2).

This is a nice attempt at logic but unfortunately Paul fails to prove anything of importance. Children were never included in the Covenant of Grace as children but only as being elect in Christ. Furthermore whilst the covenant of circumcision undoubtedly included children there is no reason to presume that the New Covenant does also, and why? Simply because the NC is the fulfillment of the covenant of circumcision in that the latter was typical of the former. As Gill notes:

“and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you: of the promise of God to Abraham, that he should be the father of many nations. The apostle explains it, Ro 4:11; to be a seal, or what gave assurance to Abraham, or was a sure token to him, that righteousness would be wrought out by Christ, by his obedience, and the shedding of his blood, which is received by faith; and that this was imputed to him while he was uncircumcised, Ge 15:6; and that this also would "be in the uncircumcision", or uncircumcised Gentiles that should believe as he did, and be imputed to them, as to him, and so he would appear to be the father of them all. Moreover, this was a sign or token of that part of the promise or covenant, which gave to his seed the land of Canaan: this was a seal of the lease of that land, which was made while Abraham was in it, and which the Israelites were obliged to submit to, upon entrance into it in Joshua's time, as a token of it; and which they were to observe while in it until the Messiah's coming, and by which they were distinguished from other nations, and kept a distinct nation, that it might appear he came of them: and to use the words of Tacitus, this rite was instituted "ut diversitate noscantur", that they might be distinguished and known from others; it was typical of Christ, the end of it, who submitted to it, that it might appear he was really man, a son of Abraham, and a minister of the circumcision, and was made under the law, and so laid under obligation to fulfil it; and that he was to satisfy for the sins of men by the effusion of his blood, and endure pains and sufferings, signified thereby: it was also an emblem of spiritual circumcision, or circumcision of the heart, which ties in the putting off the body of sin, in renouncing man's own righteousness, and in his being by the grace of God, and blood of Christ, cleansed from the impurity of his nature, propagated by carnal generation, in which the member circumcised has a principal concern.”

I do indeed agree that children were included in the Abrahamic Administration of the CofG but I deny that that implies infants, as infants, are included in the CofG.

Furthermore, Richard notes that infants received the sign of the CoG in the Abrhamic administration, so there is nothing prima facie wrong with assuming children of believers can get the sign of a particular administrations sacrament (or ordinance). But he doesn't think infants should continue to get the sign. Why?

Simple, because whilst in the covenant of circumcision infants were included in the covenant and so received circumcision, in the new covenant only those who bring forth the fruit of the blessings of the new covenant are in the new covenant and so because the covenant sign is to be administered to those in the covenant and to those alone it stands to reason that infants being unable to bring forth the fruit of the new covenant, whether they will in the future or not, they should not be baptized.

Therefore, since it is *possible* that someone could break the new covenant, it is *impossible* that the new covenant is unbreakable.

I would openly dispute this for the new covenant is unbreakable.

“Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (Phil 1:6; 2:11, 12)

Furthermore the blessings of the new covenant as pointed out above are sure.

Let us look at the verses you produce for your assertion;

Hebrews 10:30: On this Gill notes:

And again, in De 32:36 the Lord shall judge his people; such as are truly so, his chosen and covenant people, his redeemed and called ones; these he judges by chastising them in a fatherly way, that they may not be condemned with the world; and by governing and protecting them; and by vindicating and pleading their cause, and avenging them on their enemies: or else such as are only his people by profession; on these he will write a "Lo-ammi"; he distinguishes them from his own, and judges between them and his people, and will condemn them; nor will their profession screen them from his wrath and vengeance.”

1 Corinthians 5:13: This points out the fact that if someone who said that they had faith was baptized and brought into the local church fellowship then lived a life unbecoming of a saint he should be excommunicated from the church until he repents. It bears not on the case in hand.

One problem for Paul is that in his insistence that the children of believing parents are in the covenant he seemingly ignores a most obvious statement to the contrary:

“But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.” (Genesis 17:21)

This suffices for now :)
 
Good post Paul.

Paul you wrote:
But how does this even *remotely* counter my argument. All this is, is a *reassertion* of his original position. There's no "answer" here. And, a restatement of a refuted position is still refuted. It doesn't matter how many times one restates it.

Precisely what I thought when I read Richard's response.

Honestly Richard, you might as well have just re-posted your intitial post 3 times. You haven't actually interacted with any arguments here but simply re-asserted what you initially posted without giving support for it or countered any arguments that undermine it.

Simply restating...
From my own position if we are going to baptize those who are in the new covenant then the only way to know if they are in the covenant is to assume that those who bring for the fruits of that covenant are elect. Therefore since both repentance and faith are fruits of electing grace then, because there is no way for me to be completely sure whether they are truly elect or not, I baptize them upon their profession.

...three or four times may make a nice security blanket to hide under so you don't have to deal with the fact that you haven't established it by didactic principle from the Scripture makes your position seem desparate.

Again, you can argue all you want, until you're blue in the face, that the New Covenat is with the elect but after you've exhausted yourself on that subject and have no energy left to establish that profession meets your accepted bar of "proving election", it does nothing to advance the notion you were hoping to prove in the first place.

It reminds me of the movie Night at the Museum that I saw with my kids the other day. Owen Wilson is this tiny little wax figure that comes to life at night. He's in a scene of the West in a mining town and is trying to blow the mountain so he can expand his territory. He sets up his "dynamite" after a fever of activity and yells "Fire in the hole!" After pushing the plunger down, a tiny amount of smoke puffs up with no sound and no explosion. Undeterred, he goes back to setting up his "dynamite" again so he can blow apart the mountain.

You're simply going have to do better than re-asserting the unbreakability of the New Covenant because all we see is a small puff of smoke when you try to use this idea to prove that you know how you're going to go about baptizing the elect and how you figured out how to identify them when God told us that only He knows who they are.
 
One other thing that keeps nagging me:

Richard: What was the "...fruit of election..." that Simon the Sorcerer displayed?
 
Richard,

I keep reading your confusion about an "Abrahamic administration of the Covenant of Grace" as if God has changed the promise made to Abraham. I would like to ask you to explain how you think the Covenant of Grace has changed in light of this passage (emphasis mine so you can explain how God has modified this promise):

Galatians 3

6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"[g] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.


So, Richard, this promise spoken of above. Has God ever not kept this promise to Abraham? I don't mean after Christ, I mean has God ever failed to keep this promise to Abraham from the time He made it to Him?
 
You all raise some interesting points. I will get around to these but weekdays I have very little free time...so will reply when I have some answers :)
 
Paul,

Some prelim questions before I respond tomorrow:

A. On what grounds do/would you baptise an adult?
B. Are all the infants of believers in the covenant head for head? What do you base this upon if "yes"?
C. What is the Covenant of Grace as you understand it?
D. What did circumcision typify?
 
From my own position if we are going to baptize those who are in the new covenant then the only way to know if they are in the covenant is to assume that those who bring for the fruits of that covenant are elect. Therefore since both repentance and faith are fruits of electing grace then, because there is no way for me to be completely sure whether they are truly elect or not, I baptize them upon their profession.

This is exactly the problem. On the one hand, you are willing to take people's profession as a sign that they are in the covenant. You take them at their word. But you are not willing to take God at his when he promises to save our children as well as us. On the one hand you have a profession of faith, on the other the promise of God, the profession is no more grounds for assurance than the covenant promises.
 
But you are not willing to take God at his when he promises to save our children as well as us.

How do I respond?

1. Nowhere does God promise to save our children, although I readily grant that he will save those which are included in the CofG but they are the elect,
2. Are you saying that we ought baptise the infants of believers because God has promised to save the seed of believers?
3. I am arguing that because baptism is the seal of the New Covenant it must be administered to those who are included within the New Covenant. As I pointed to Paul, the blessing of the NC are those which characterise the elect and so we know that the NC includes the elect alone. I then attempted to point out however, tha my argument is not that we baptise the elect, but rather we baptise the members of the NC. How do we know if x and y are in the NC? The Scriptural method to go by is to go by repentance and faith which are themselves fruits of electing grace and covenant blessings.
 
How do I respond?

1. Nowhere does God promise to save our children, although I readily grant that he will save those which are included in the CofG but they are the elect,
2. Are you saying that we ought baptise the infants of believers because God has promised to save the seed of believers?
3. I am arguing that because baptism is the seal of the New Covenant it must be administered to those who are included within the New Covenant. As I pointed to Paul, the blessing of the NC are those which characterise the elect and so we know that the NC includes the elect alone. I then attempted to point out however, tha my argument is not that we baptise the elect, but rather we baptise the members of the NC. How do we know if x and y are in the NC? The Scriptural method to go by is to go by repentance and faith which are themselves fruits of electing grace and covenant blessings.

I am saying that the children of believers are members of the covenant by birth, and that membership is afterward ratified by baptism. Baptism confirms the place that the child is already in.


John Calvin said:
The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it. . . . For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Crhist. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.

Earlier you said
From my own position if we are going to baptize those who are in the new covenant then the only way to know if they are in the covenant is to assume that those who bring for the fruits of that covenant are elect. Therefore since both repentance and faith are fruits of electing grace then, because there is no way for me to be completely sure whether they are truly elect or not, I baptize them upon their profession.

To this Calvin respond's:
This objection may be answereed without any difficulty by saying that they [infants of believers] are baptized into future repentance and faith; for though these graces have not yet been formed in them, nevertheless by secret operation of the Spirit, the seed of each of these is latent in them. By this answer, once and for all, is overthrown every argument they hurl against us, derived from the signification of baptism.
 
Paul, good stuff! I wouldn't dare attempt to add to it, it would be like mixing muddy water with fine wine!

This is exactly the problem. On the one hand, you are willing to take people's profession as a sign that they are in the covenant. You take them at their word. But you are not willing to take God at his when he promises to save our children as well as us. On the one hand you have a profession of faith, on the other the promise of God, the profession is no more grounds for assurance than the covenant promises.

Bingo! What the “believer’s only” position boils down to when all is said and done is nothing more complicated than a, “hath God really said…”, even twisting the Scripture to sustain it. A flat out denial of the Gospel in the covenant which is most precious to the children/people so baptized.

A child clinging to their baptism as an infant rooted in the promise of God to save them, among others Acts chapter, “…for the promise is to you and your children…”, quoting the Old Testament no less (continuity) - is approached by a “clever” believers only who seeks to up root the promise of God, the Gospel in Baptism, FOR THEM/ON THEM/TO THEM (the Gospel is NOT really the Gospel until the crucial FOR YOU/TO YOU is there, as Calvin says the Word promises and the sacraments deliver TO THE MAN) by implying they’ve not been IN the church nor properly baptized. The conscience of the dear little one is vexed that Christ is not for him/her until NOW he/she DOES something to EARN the merit of believer’s baptism, the now merit badge of faith. No longer can they praise or glory in the sovereignty of God’s work on them for them even when they could do NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, because the believers only has convinced them now they must work to earn it.

It is no small connection that Jesus says that children, NOT adults, but children are to be suffered (passively passionately allowed) to come unto Him.” Why” For of such are of the kingdom of God and adults are to become like them or else they will NOT so much as enter into it. Children MOST picture the Gospel of Christ in that they can, above all else, do absolutely NOTHING but receive it as gift. They most picture the Gospel. Yet, believers only would have us believe it is adults that picture the kingdom, contra-Christ.

Juxta position an infants baptism with an adults in any believers only church. The emphasis on the former is PURE Gospel as the infant receives passively. The emphasis on the later is glorying in “so and so” who “made a decision” or “actively displays a profession of faith”.



L
 
Thoughtful insights Richard

Richard,

I appreciate your thoughtful insights. You bring up several key points that I had not considered before. Excellent posts on your part. Bravo
 
I am saying that the children of believers are members of the covenant by birth

1. Which covenant?
2. So you are saying that the children of believers are elect by birth?

What is your Scriptural precedence? Was Ishmael in the covenant by birth? Scripture saith "No":

Gen 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
Gen 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

Ishmael was never included in the Covenant of Grace, oh he was included in the covenant of circumcision but the two are not identical.
 
A child clinging to their baptism as an infant rooted in the promise of God to save them, among others Acts chapter, “…for the promise is to you and your children…”, quoting the Old Testament no less (continuity) - is approached by a “clever” believers only who seeks to up root the promise of God, the Gospel in Baptism, FOR THEM/ON THEM/TO THEM (the Gospel is NOT really the Gospel until the crucial FOR YOU/TO YOU is there, as Calvin says the Word promises and the sacraments deliver TO THE MAN) by implying they’ve not been IN the church nor properly baptized. The conscience of the dear little one is vexed that Christ is not for him/her until NOW he/she DOES something to EARN the merit of believer’s baptism, the now merit badge of faith. No longer can they praise or glory in the sovereignty of God’s work on them for them even when they could do NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, because the believers only has convinced them now they must work to earn it.

It is no small connection that Jesus says that children, NOT adults, but children are to be suffered (passively passionately allowed) to come unto Him.” Why” For of such are of the kingdom of God and adults are to become like them or else they will NOT so much as enter into it. Children MOST picture the Gospel of Christ in that they can, above all else, do absolutely NOTHING but receive it as gift. They most picture the Gospel. Yet, believers only would have us believe it is adults that picture the kingdom, contra-Christ.

To both of these I can do no better than quote John Gill:

The minister in the dialogue before me, being pressed by his neighbor to declare what were the numerous texts of scripture he referred to, as proving the continuance of children’s privileges under the gospel-dispensation, meaning particularly baptism, mentions the following.

1st, The passage in Acts 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. This scripture is often made use of by our author, and seems to be his dernier resort on all occasions, and the sheet-anchor of the cause he is pleading for. The promise spoken of, he says, undoubtedly, was the covenant made with Abraham; and was urged as a reason with the Jews, why they and their children ought to be baptized; and as a reason with the Gentiles, why they and their children, when called into a church-state, should be also baptized [p. 11, 12]. He makes use of it, to prove that this promise gives a claim to baptism, and that an interest in it gives a right unto it [p. 15, 16, 18, 29, 30].

1. It is easy to observe the contradictions, that such are guilty of, that plead for infant-baptism, from the covenant or promise made with Abraham, as this writer is. One while, he tells us, that persons are by baptism brought into the covenant of grace; and what a dreadful thing it is to renounce baptism in infancy; whereby the covenant is vacated, and the relation to the glorious God disowned, they were brought into by baptism [p. 4]. And yet here we are told, that interest in this promise gives a right and claim to baptism; but how can it give a previous right and claim to baptism, when it is by baptism, according to this writer, that persons are brought into this covenant?

2. The promise here observed, be it what it will, is not taken notice of, as what gives a claim and right to baptism, but as an encouraging motive to persons pricked in the heart, and in distress, both to repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins, and as giving them hope of receiving the holy Ghost, since such a promise was made; wherefore repentance and baptism were urged, in order to the enjoyment of the promise; and, consequently, can be understood of no other than adult persons, who were capable of repentance, and of a voluntary subjection to the ordinance of baptism.

3. The children, here spoken of, do not design infants, but the posterity of the Jews, and such, who might be called children, though grown up: And nothing is more common in scripture,[62] than the use of the phrase in this sense; and, unless it be so understood in many places, strange interpretations must be given of them: wherefore the argument, from hence, for Paedobaptism, is given up by some learned men, as Dr. Hammond, and others, as inconclusive; but some men, wherever they meet with the word children, it immediately runs in their heads, that infants must be meant.

4. The promise, be it what it will, is restrained to as many as the Lord our God shall call, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, as well as to repenting and baptizing persons; and therefore can furnish out no argument for infant-baptism, but must be understood of adult persons, capable of being called with an holy calling, of professing repentance, and of desiring baptism upon it; and of doing this, that their faith might be led to the blood of Christ, for the remission of sin,

5. It seems clear from the context, that not the covenant made with Abraham, but either the promise of the Messiah, and salvation by him, the great promise made in the Old Testament to the Jews, and their posterity; or the particular promise of remission of sins, a branch of the new covenant made with the house of Israel, and mentioned in the preceding verse, and which was calculated for comfort, and pertinently taken notice of; or of the pouring out of the holy Ghost, which is last mentioned: And indeed all may be included in this promise, and used as a means to comfort them under their distress, and as an argument to encourage them to do the things they are pressed to in the foregoing verse.

2dly, To the former is added another scripture in Matthew 19:14. Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Upon which, it is asked, how, and which way, should we bring our little children to Christ, but in the way of his ordinances? If they belong to the kingdom of heaven, they must have a right to the privileges of that kingdom, p. 20. To which I answer,

1. These little children do not appear to be new-born babes; the words used by the evangelists do not always signify such, but are sometimes used of such as are capable of going alone, yea, of receiving instructions, of understanding the scriptures, and of one of twelve years of age (Matthew 18:2; 2 Tim. 3:15; Mark 5:39, 42). Nor is it probable that children just born, or within the month, should be had abroad. Moreover, these were such as Christ called unto him (Luke 18:16), and were capable of coming to him of themselves, as these words suppose; nor does their being brought unto him, or his taking them in his arms, contradict this; since the same things are said of such as could walk of themselves (Matthew 12:22; 17:16; Mark 9:36).

2. It is not known whose children these were, whether the children of those that brought them, or of others; and whether their parents were believers in Christ, or not, or whether their patents were baptized or unbaptized; and if they were unbelievers and unbaptized persons, the Paedobaptists themselves will not allow that their children ought to be baptized.

3. Certain it is, that they were not brought to Christ, to be baptized by him; for the ends for which they were brought are mentioned; Matthew says, they brought them unto him, that he should put his hands on them, and pray; that is, for them, and bless them; as was usual with the Jews to do (Gen. 49:14-16); and it was common with them to bring their children to venerable persons, men of note for religion and piety, to have their blessing and their prayers; and such an one the persons that brought these children might take Christ to be, though they might not know him to be the Messiah. Mark and Luke say, they were brought to him, that he would touch them (Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15); as he sometimes used to do, when he healed persons of diseases; and probably some of these children, if not all of them, were diseased, and were brought to be cured; otherwise it is not easy to conceive what they should be touched by him for; however, they were not brought to be baptized: If the persons that brought them had their baptism in view, they would not have brought them to Christ, but to his disciples; seeing not he but they baptized the persons fit for it; they might have seen the disciples administer that ordinance, but not Christ; and from hence it is certain, that they were not baptized by Christ, since he never baptized any.

4. This passage concludes against Paedobaptism, and not for it; for it seems, by this, that it had never been the practice of the Jews, nor of John the Baptist, nor of Christ and his disciples, to baptize infants; for had this been then in use, the apostles would scarcely have rebuked and forbid those that brought these children, since they might have concluded they brought them to be baptized; but knowing of no such usage, that ever obtained in that nation, neither among those that did or did not believe in Christ, they forbad them; and Christ’s entire silence about the baptism of infants at this time, when he had such an opportunity of speaking of it to his disciples, had it been his will, has no favorable aspect on such a practice.

5. This writer’s reasoning upon the passage, is betide the purpose for which he produces it; if he brings it to prove any thing respecting baptism, it must be to prove that infants were brought to Christ, in order to be baptized by him, and not to him in the way of his ordinance, or in the way of baptism: the reason our Lord gives why they should be suffered to come to him, for of such is the kingdom of heaven, is to be understood of such as were comparable to little children, for modesty, meekness, and humility, and for freedom from rancor malice, ambition, and pride (Matthew 18:2). And so the Syriac version is, who are as these; and the Parsic version, which is rather a paraphrase, shewing the sense, who have been humble as these little children; and such are the proper subjects of a gospel church-state, sometimes called the kingdom of heaven, and shall inherit eternal happiness. If the words are to be literally understood of infants, and of their belonging to the kingdom of heaven, interpreted of the kingdom of grace, or of the gospel church-stare, according to this author’s reasoning, they will prove too much, and more than he cares for; namely, that belonging to that kingdom, they have a right to the privileges of it, even to all of them, to the Lord’s supper, as well as to baptism; but the kingdom of glory seems to be designed: And we are not unwilling to admit the literal sense, for the eternal salvation and happiness of infants dying in infancy, is not denied by us; and, according to this sense, our Lord’s reasoning is strong, that seeing he thought fit to save the souls of infants, and introduce them into the kingdom of heaven, why should they be forbid being brought to him, to be touched by him, and healed of their bodily diseases? The argument is from the greater to the lesser; but furnishes out nothing in favor of Paedobaptism.​

From The Divine Right of Infant-Baptism, Examined and Disproved.

Further in his commentary he states

Acts 2:39

Ver. 39
For the promise is unto you,.... Either of the Messiah, and salvation by him, which was particularly given forth to the people of the Jews; or of the remission of sins, which was a branch of the covenant made with the house of Israel, in a spiritual sense, even the whole household of God; or of the pouring forth of the Spirit: and this promise was not only to them, but to theirs, even to as many of them as belonged to the election of grace; and whom the Lord their God would effectually call by his grace, as the last and limiting clause of the text, and which is to be connected with every part of it, shows:

and to your children: this is the rather mentioned, because these awakened, and converted souls, were not only in great concern about themselves, for their sin of crucifying Christ, but were in great distress about their children, on whom they had imprecated the guilt of Christ's blood, as upon themselves; the thought of which cut them to the heart, and made their hearts bleed, within them: wherefore to relieve them, and administer comfort to them in this their distress, the apostle informs them, that the promise of Christ, and of his grace, was not only to them, who were now called, but it was also to their children; to as many of them as the Lord God should call; and who are the children of the promise, which all the children of the flesh were not, Ro 9:6 and to these the promise should be applied, notwithstanding this dreadful imprecation of theirs:

and to all that are afar off; either in place, as those that were dispersed, among the several nations of the world; and so carried in it a comfortable aspect on the multitude of Jews, that were of every nation under heaven; or in time, who should live in ages to come; or else the Gentiles are intended, who were afar off from God and Christ, and the way of life and salvation by him; see Eph 2:12 even as many as the Lord our God shall call: not externally only, by the ministry of the word, but internally, by his grace and Spirit; with that calling, which is according to the purpose and grace of God, and is inseparably connected with eternal glory; the promise is to all such, and is made good to all such, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, fathers, or children, greater or lesser sinners. The Syriac version reads, "whom God himself shall call".


Matthew 19:14

Ver. 14. But Jesus said, suffer little children....
This he said to show his humility, that he was not above taking notice of any; and to teach his disciples to regard the weakest believers, and such as were but children in knowledge; and to inform them what all ought to be, who expect the kingdom of heaven; for it follows;

and forbid them not to come unto me, now, or at any other time;

for of such is the kingdom of heaven; that is, as the Syriac renders it, "who are as these" or as the Persic version, rather paraphrasing than translating, renders it, "who have been humble as these little children": and it is as if our Lord should say, do not drive away these children from my person and presence; they are lively emblems of the proper subjects of a Gospel church state, and of such that shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: by these I may instruct and point out to you, what converted persons should be, who have a place in my church below, and expect to enter into my kingdom and glory above; that they are, or ought to be, like such children, harmless and inoffensive; free from rancour and malice, meek, modest, and humble; without pride, self-conceit, and ambitious views, and desires of grandeur and superiority. Christ's entire silence about the baptism of infants at this time, when he had such an opportunity of speaking of it to his disciples, had it been his will, has no favourable aspect on such a practice. It is not denied that little children, whether born of believers or unbelievers, which matters not, may be chosen of God, redeemed by the blood of Christ, and have the passive work of the Spirit on their souls, and so enter into heaven; but this is not the sense of this text. It was indeed a controversy among the Jews, whether the little children of the wicked of Israel, abh Mlwel Nyab, "go into the world to come": some affirmed, and others denied; but all agreed, that the little children of the wicked of the nations of the world, do not. They dispute about the time of entrance of a child into the world to come; some say, as soon as it is born, according to Ps 22:31 others, as soon as it can speak, or count, according to Ps 22:30 others as soon as it is sown, as the gloss says, as soon as the seed is received in its mother's womb, though it becomes an abortion; according to the same words, "a seed shall serve thee": others, as soon as he is circumcised, according to Ps 88:15 others, as soon as he can say "Amen", according {z} to Isa 26:2 All weak, frivolous, and impertinent.

{z} T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 110. 2.
 
Well, if you don't know the answers, let's lessen the bravado about "refuting" paedobaptism since, obviously, you can't refute what you don't understand.

Firstly, I understand the case for paedobaptism;
Secondly, I have shown no "bravado about 'refuting' paedobaptism".

At any rate, what you don't seem to get is that my posts were negative, i.e., they refuted *your* arguments.

In your mind may be but as your whole probability argument which sounds good but actually fails to deliver because I am not arguing on ground of probability. My argument is simple:

a. Only covenant members are to be baptised,
b. Only the elect are covenant members,

You here start sidelining my srgument with what you perceive is mine about probability etc which is not what I say.

c. the fruits of election are covenant blessings which include repentance and faith
d. Scripture teaches those that repent and believe are to be baptised
e. So ultimately the elect are baptised.

this is the model, obviously it is not perfect.

So, at best, even if you could refute my position, that does nothing to save your refuted position. Thus, in this thread, I'd say you have all the answers you need.

You began a thread attemtping to prove a positive claim.

Actually I did not start a thread " attemtping to prove a positive claim" rather I offered an answer to a question.

You will also notice, and I'm a bit surprised you didn't catch it, I used *your own* premises and showed that you have no reason not to baptise children.

Well you must be far more intelligent than I.

That's what was so interesting about my argumentation. So, perhaps you'd like to re-read the thread and offer a rebuttal. If not, I'll just assume my points stand....

I will certainl reread it :)
 
(P.S. To be honest, I find how "hard core" you are about credobaptism a bit too strange for my blood. You just converted, but seem to be like you'veheld to credoism your entire life. And, add to that your ignorance of paedobaptist theology, and I sense something funny. Now, I'm not saying thsi is you, but you do know that we've had a history of credobaptists from teh UK coming in here and lying or pretedning to be people who they weren't, just to get their baptist views out. I find it odd that you come here and within a couple weeks make a big post about how you've now turned credo. Again, just a weird feeling. Not saying anything about you for sure, just that I find some of the detailes quite odd. I usually sense a sort of humbleness when someone changes positions. They usually wait for quite some time before they jump back in again. You jumped in with all the credo quotes and misrepresentations of paedos in hand. I find it odd that a former paedobaptist doesn't understand paedobaptism and seems to understand his "new found belief" better than some credos who have been here, and better than his former, *longer held* paedobaptist beliefs.)

1stly, if there has been any arrogance on my part I appologise,
2ndly, I was asked by Joshua to post my reason(s) for switching,
3rdly, I still find the paedobaptist position credible I just find the credo position more credible.
Finally, If you could show me where I have provided "misrepresentations of paedos" I would appreciate it.
 
Quote:
a. Only covenant members are to be baptised,
b. Only the elect are covenant members,
Isn't this saying that all Baptised persons are elect?

This is exactly what these premises lead to. If you work it out on a Venn Diagram you see exactly that conclusion, i.e. All baptized are elect. So all one has to do is show one non-elect baptized person and the argument fails because it proves to much.

Blessings,
Terry
 
Isn't this saying that all Baptised persons are elect?:think:

Not at all. There are two starting points, 1. you could say that only the elect are to be baptised and I am going to only baptise the elect or 2. you could say I am going to baptise covenant members and then two questions naturally arise;

A. Who are the members of the New Covenant? and,
B. How can we discern the members of the New Covenant.

I would argue that the answers are that the elect are members of the NC and they are made manifest through repentance and faith.

Of course in just baptising upon profession it is quite possible that you baptise someone who either lies about having faith in Christ or one who has natural faith but not a saving faith in that whilst they say they believe they later come not to which obviously means they never did in the first place. Now paedobaptists do not somehow escape this predicament becaue they also baptise upon profession but not only that they baptise the infants of that professor so whereas a Baptist would baptise one person with "faith" the paedobaptist could baptise greater than one person with "faith".

Another doubt is why have two criteria of covenant admission one purely by spirtual conditions the other by natural generation?

This is exactly what these premises lead to. If you work it out on a Venn Diagram you see exactly that conclusion, i.e. All baptized are elect. So all one has to do is show one non-elect baptized person and the argument fails because it proves to much.

Blessings,
Terry

No, the Baptist is aiming for the statement that "all the elect (covenant members) are baptised" whilst recognising that "not all the baptised are elect (covenant members)".

The paedobaptist must say "all covenant members some of whom are reprobate are baptised, some on the condition of faith and others through being born" although I will admit that Hoeksema refused to teach that the reprobate are in the covenant rather he held that the elect alone were in the covenant but that the reprobate could be in the sphere of the covenant, see: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_7.html I shared HH's position but now I see the that his argument in section one "One People: of the Old and New Dispensation" is strongly leads to the "Reformed" Baptist position. I.e.

"I offer, that the Word of God knows only of one seed of Abraham, the spiritual, the elect, the children of the promise. This is true both of the old and of the new dispensation. It is not correct to say that in the old dispensation the Jews were the seed of Abraham, while in the new dispensation believers are this seed. The Jews never were the seed of Abraham. It is correct to say, that for a time the seed of Abraham were found exclusively among Abraham's descendants, as they are found now among all nations. But Scripture never identifies Abraham's descendants with the seed of Abraham. The latter, the children of the promise, are at all times only the believers. In the times of the Old Testament they are found in the generations of Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham Israel. In the new dispensation they are among all nations, there being no difference anymore between Jew and Gentile. But wherever they are found the children of the promise, named after Abraham as the father of believers, are always the true children of God, the believers. These and these only are the seed of Abraham."
 
Richard,

I notice you are very heavy on quoting others but very light on showing proper understanding of the position you said you left.

You told Paul that you understand the Paedo view. I've seen no indication that you have a mature grasp. Your assertion that "Oh, I understand it..." does not indicate otherwise.

You've been asked a number of questions that you refused to answer. You do not need additional answers from us in order to answer the questions asked of you. If you want answers to the questions you asked then you can read the WCF and the Three Forms of Unity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top