Baptist view of the Lord's Supper given to the unbaptized

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

However, you must realise that in Baptist understanding, infant baptism is no baptism at all. Someone who has been 'christened' as an infant is no different to somebody who has never been baptized. Yet we do not wish to prevent visitors to the church, who may be evangelical Anglicans and true believers, to be excluded from the Lord's Table over a difference of understanding over ordinances. As far as we are concerned, everyone who has repented of his sins and trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ is entitled to come to His table.

I certainly understand that you see infant baptism as no
baptism at all. But the question is why the unbaptized in your
eyes are admitted to the Table at all before baptism. Please forgive
me if I seem dense - I'm just trying to get a grasp on the fundamental
matters in this issue, and it's certainly possible I've missed an explanation here or there.

I'm, very curious about the development of this practice.
Is the reason you say that any who profess faith are admissible
to the Lord's Supper regardless of baptism that you do not see
baptism as a marker of initiation, the way that a person is
marked as a member of the visible church?

I also wonder if it is also because you do not see the Lord's
Supper as the communion meal of the church. I assume
this practice is done in part because you see a great disjunction
between the testaments as to their ordinances/sacraments.

I'd be curious to see why, Biblically, those who have
repented of sins and trusted in Christ are not immediately
brought to the baptismal font, as was the Ethiopian. I just
don't see any Biblical justification for offering the Lord's
Supper to any that have not identified themselves publicly
with God's people first.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
But if, say, the son or daughter of a church member professed faith in Christ and wanted to partake of the Lord's Supper, we would naturally expect him to be baptized, and would want to know the reason why if he didn't want to be.

Is this distinction actually made? (between those children of
church members who profess faith vs. those unrelated to church
members who profess faith) Aren't all encouraged to be baptized
upon profession?

Thanks for the dialog,

Todd

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by SemperFideles

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Further, and more fundamentally, the Supper is not the sign of initiation into the covenant of grace, baptism is. It's this confusion of initiation and renewal that is at the heart of paedocommunion. That's why I say that the paedocommunionists are really crypto-Baptists with a medieval pretense!

Can somebody explain this to me a little more. Everything he writes resonates but:

1. What does he mean that paedocommunionists are crypto-Baptists?
2. What is the medieval pretense?

I'm trying to get better read but I'm missing it here. If Dr. Clark sees this and has time to respond it would be great but anybody who understands it is welcome to help me out here.

Rich,

Both paedocommunionists and Baptists conflate the two signs. They do it for different reasons, but neither Baptists (as I understand them) nor paedocommunionists distinguish properly between Baptism as the sign/seal of covenant initiation and the Supper as the sign/seal of covenant renewal. Hence, Baptists use Baptism to show that, in effect, the covenant has been renewed and the Supper, in many cases, means little or nothing and is ill observed -- or in some cases, not at all.

Clearly, in the case that Baptists allow unbaptized persons to come to the table, baptism is regarded as a mere formality and at best shows that that the candidate has taken up the promises of the covenant of grace for himself.

In Reformed churches (and I make that distinction intentionally) we see the Supper as the place in which the baptized person (whether infant or adult), having been properly catechized and having made a profession of faith, takes up the promises made in baptism for himself. The Supper is the place of covenant renewal. What was initiated in Baptism comes to realization in the Supper.

By giving communion to infants, paedocommunionists (many of whom are former Baptists trying really hard to rebel against their Baptist/fundamentalist roots by becoming "high church," -- "look Ma, we're all grown up now!") do the same thing as the Baptists. They treat communion as a sign of initiation. Clearly infants cannot renew the covenant. When infants take communion they are not saying, "I hereby take up for myself the promises made to me in my Baptism." They have not been catechized. They have not made profession of faith. The signs/seals of initiation and renewal have once again, like the Baptists, been conflated, albeit in a different direction. In this case, rather than ignoring Baptism, these fellows (often FV in our circles) load up Baptism with the power to unite the Baptized to Christ and to thus convey to the Baptized temporary possession of the benefits of Christ, i.e., the ordo salutis). I see the same sort of phenomenon when premillennial dispensationalists embrace predestination (and hence, in their minds, have become "Reformed") and flip their eschatology right over into postmillennialism. What was an earthly 1000 year reign becomes an earthly golden age of indeterminate length. It's more or less the same thing in slightly different dress. The legalist fundamentalist Baptist becomes a legalist fundamentalist theonomist. Where once he was a tee-totaler, issuing dictates against the paedobaptist "liberals," now he starts drinking and issue fatwahs against non-theonomic "liberals." Same mentality, different issues. In these cases, the newly "Reformed folk" never stopped to actually learn the Reformed confessions, traditions, ethics, and ethos. Often, but not always, they're just "a passin' through" on the way to the next stop (be it Greek orthodoxy or whatever).

As to "medieval pretense," I mean to describe those folk for whom the history of the church was once seen as a giant parenthesis: Apostles, parenthesis (well, maybe there were some Waldenses or Albigenses who kept the gospel alive in the interim) then Reformation (a good but halting step), then the real thing shows up in the [pick 'em] ___th century.

In reaction, they discover that, rather than Morton buildings, we used to have really nice church buildings (mostly in Europe), we used to think about sacraments and means of grace, and we used to take the idea and practice of Christian community and the visible church seriously. So, once again, without really pausing to let the Reformation sink in, they pass through Geneva briefly just long enough to pick up some vocabulary and cloak their still Baptist-fundamentalist theology and ethics with a medieval robe and a few naughty votive candles. "Whoopee, we're recovering the ancient church."

Those evangelicals who've done something like this and rushed into Greek orthodoxy are regarded by the traditional orthodox still as "Baptists." I suspect that's how Scott Hahn is seen by the more traditional Romanists who don't appear on cable TV shows etc.

So, having fled fundamentalism and reductionism, they remain fundamentalists and reductionism. In the process, they take lots of other well meaning but impatient American fundamentalists with them on their misguided pilgrimage.

It would have been helpful if they could have spent a little more time in Geneva, perhaps actually gone to school -- but like real fundamentalists, they didn't really have time or inclination to get some actual book learning -- and actually lived in actual Reformed churches for a few years before they starting revising (along fundamentalist principles) what they never really understood in the first place.

Clearer?

rsc

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Crystal.

Thank you.

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by toddpedlar

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

However, you must realise that in Baptist understanding, infant baptism is no baptism at all. Someone who has been 'christened' as an infant is no different to somebody who has never been baptized. Yet we do not wish to prevent visitors to the church, who may be evangelical Anglicans and true believers, to be excluded from the Lord's Table over a difference of understanding over ordinances. As far as we are concerned, everyone who has repented of his sins and trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ is entitled to come to His table.

I certainly understand that you see infant baptism as no
baptism at all. But the question is why the unbaptized in your
eyes are admitted to the Table at all before baptism. Please forgive
me if I seem dense - I'm just trying to get a grasp on the fundamental
matters in this issue, and it's certainly possible I've missed an explanation here or there.

Well first of all, pace Dr Clark, baptism is never described in the Bible as the seal of the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit is that (Eph 1:13-14 etc). Baptism is an outward sign of something that has already happened, ie. A new birth in Christ (Acts 2:41; 8:12 ). Beyond any doubt, the natural and proper thing is for new believers to be baptized and then attend the Lord's table.

I'm, very curious about the development of this practice.
Is the reason you say that any who profess faith are admissible
to the Lord's Supper regardless of baptism that you do not see
baptism as a marker of initiation, the way that a person is
marked as a member of the visible church?

I do not use the term visible church. One becomes a member of the Church universal when one is converted. One becomes a member of a local church when that church accepts you into membership. Baptism is, in addition to that described above, the public profession of faith by the party baptized, and an indication by the baptizing church that it accepts that he is, as far as man can tell, a Christian.

I also wonder if it is also because you do not see the Lord's
Supper as the communion meal of the church.

No. we would see the Lord's Supper as the communion meal of the church.

I assume this practice is done in part because you see a great disjunction between the testaments as to their ordinances/sacraments.

It is not done because of that, but yes, a moment's thought will reveal the huge differences between the Passover and the Lord's Supper.

I'd be curious to see why, Biblically, those who have
repented of sins and trusted in Christ are not immediately
brought to the baptismal font, as was the Ethiopian.

I think this is a question for paedo-baptists to answer.

I just
don't see any Biblical justification for offering the Lord's
Supper to any that have not identified themselves publicly
with God's people first.

Are you saying that paedo-baptists have not identified themselves publicly with God's people? The reason for all this is that 'open' Baptists do not wish to exclude their paedo-baptist brethren from sharing table fellowship with them. I will accept criticism from Strict Baptists on this score, but not from paedo-baptists. If you don't want to come, that's just fine.

But if, say, the son or daughter of a church member professed faith in Christ and wanted to partake of the Lord's Supper, we would naturally expect him to be baptized, and would want to know the reason why if he didn't want to be.

Is this distinction actually made? (between those children of
church members who profess faith vs. those unrelated to church
members who profess faith) Aren't all encouraged to be baptized
upon profession?

Yes, all are encouraged to be baptized upon profession. The exception is made purely for paedo-baptists wishing to take the Lord's Supper in open Baptist churches, but who do not wish to undergo believers' baptism.

I am aware of some Baptist churches that treat baptism as a sort of 'optional extra.' I don't think that many reformed Baptist churches would take that view. However, the practices of churches will vary since each church is independent. In the church where I was helping until recently, all those who 'know and love the Lord Jesus Christ' were invited to take the Lord's Supper. This invitation was for the benefit of visitors, of whom there might be many since the church is in a holiday area. However, new converts were expected to be baptized before partaking. After baptism, another six months had to elapse before one was eligible for church membership.

Bunyan's views on this matter are set out in his Confession of my Faith and a Reason of my Practice in Worship, published in 1672. It must be available on the Net somewhere. William Kiffin replied on behalf of the 'Strict' Baptists in his Sober Discourse of Right to Church Communion (1681 ).

I hope this is helpful.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Originally posted by toddpedlar
I assume this practice is done in part because you see a great disjunction between the testaments as to their ordinances/sacraments.

It is not done because of that, but yes, a moment's thought will reveal the huge differences between the Passover and the Lord's Supper.

There are some obvious differences, of course - for one,
there is no Lamb at the Lord's Supper (physically anyway,
THE Passover Lamb is, of course, there.) I assume you understand
the connections that ARE there, however. It is the regular communion meal of the church, just as Passover was in the Old Testament; it signifies freedom from slavery, etc. Christ IS our Passover (therefore let us keep the feast).

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Originally posted by toddpedlar
I'd be curious to see why, Biblically, those who have
repented of sins and trusted in Christ are not immediately
brought to the baptismal font, as was the Ethiopian.

I think this is a question for paedo-baptists to answer.

What's to answer? When a new believer confesses faith,
he is brought to the font, if not previously baptized.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Originally posted by toddpedlar
I just
don't see any Biblical justification for offering the Lord's
Supper to any that have not identified themselves publicly
with God's people first.

Are you saying that paedo-baptists have not identified themselves publicly with God's people?

As a paedo-baptist, of course I deny this. Those who have
been baptized have very clearly been publicly identified with the
church. What I'm saying is that I don't see the Lord's Supper
as properly administered to those (rightly or wrongly) that one
believes is unbaptized. But again, this view hangs on an
interpretation that sees far more continuity between the
Testaments than baptists typically do. One rite of covenant initiation
(baptism/circumcision), one rite of covenant communion
(passover/Lord's Supper). Obvious differences there are, but
they are of form and not substance - at any rate these
are the functions of the ordinances/sacraments in the two testamental periods.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Originally posted by toddpedlar
Is this distinction actually made? (between those children of
church members who profess faith vs. those unrelated to church
members who profess faith) Aren't all encouraged to be baptized
upon profession?

Yes, all are encouraged to be baptized upon profession. The exception is made purely for paedo-baptists wishing to take the Lord's Supper in open Baptist churches, but who do not wish to undergo believers' baptism.

But in practice this includes many who are not baptized
at all (in any way - I realize you think all we do is get our
babies wet). So, as you note, baptism in effect becomes "an optional
extra", in practice. (although I'm sure good deacons have their sights set on those who are continually partaking without desire to be baptized)

Todd

 

[Steve Owen]

Todd wrote:-

There are some obvious differences, of course - for one,
there is no Lamb at the Lord's Supper (physically anyway,
THE Passover Lamb is, of course, there.) I assume you understand
the connections that ARE there, however. It is the regular communion meal of the church, just as Passover was in the Old Testament; it signifies freedom from slavery, etc. Christ IS our Passover (therefore let us keep the feast).

Just to mention a few other differences:-
1. The Israelites fed upon the passover lamb physically, Christians feed upon Christ by faith.
2. The Passover was kept only once a year; the Lord's Supper is held, 'As oft as ye eat...'
3. No faith was required in order to eat the Passover, only circumcision. If a stranger wished to partake, 'Let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and take it' (Exod 12:48 ). Nothing is said of all the males (children and servants) needing to believe in anything, including the promises to Abraham. The purpose of the Passover may well have been to inspire faith (Exod 12:26-27 etc); the purpose of the Lord's Supper is to strengthen faith.

To draw too close a parallel between the Passover and the Lord's Supper might seem to play into the hands of the Paedo-communionists. Entry to the Passover was by circumcision; entry to the Lord's Supper is by faith.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My principal purpose in this post is to address this comment: "No faith was required in order to eat the Passover, only circumcision," and this one: "Entry to the Passover was by circumcision; entry to the Lord's Supper is by faith."

If a credo-baptist is not going to see baptism and circumcision as correlative sacraments, New Covenant and Old Covenant, then I suppose it is consistent for them to also deny that the Lord's Supper and Passover are also correlative sacraments.

As for one meal (Passover) requiring ritual only as prerequisite, and then only in the New Covenant do we find faith requirent--I am stunned to find this kind of materialistic cast assigned to the Old Covenant administration. Truly. I mean, why did God tell these people that he hated their feasts (e.g.: Is. 1:13-14; Hos2:11; Amos 5:21-25) ? Why were the people commanded to be ceremonially clean in order to keep the feast (Nu. 9:7ff) ? We know that ceremonial cleansing symbolized purity before God, adherence to his law-word and covenant, separation from sin and from those outside the covenant--none of which is genuinely possible apart frorm faith? Jesus rebukes Nicodemus (John 3:10), and in him the whole leadership and the whole nation, for generations of ignoring the obvious.

If you belonged to the covenant people, you were supposed to have faith, you were expected by GOD to have faith. If you were content with ritual, then "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me," was the divine assessment, and judgment was sure to follow (see. Lev. 26:40-42; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4).

Israel was expected to be circumcised in faith in order to partake of the Passover. Likewise, to partake in the Lord's Supper, you must be baptized in faith. Is this the only requirement? No. But it is primary. It's the door into the church. You must be a member of the church in order to be incommunion. How else can you be excommunicated?

As for the idea that closely connecting the two feasts is a means of playing into the hands of P-C, I flatly deny. That would be like saying that we should downplay the connection between Christ's sacrifice and the sacrificial system of the OT, because that would encourage dispensationalist dreams of a third temple.

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Todd wrote:-

There are some obvious differences, of course - for one,
there is no Lamb at the Lord's Supper (physically anyway,
THE Passover Lamb is, of course, there.) I assume you understand
the connections that ARE there, however. It is the regular communion meal of the church, just as Passover was in the Old Testament; it signifies freedom from slavery, etc. Christ IS our Passover (therefore let us keep the feast).

Just to mention a few other differences:-
1. The Israelites fed upon the passover lamb physically, Christians feed upon Christ by faith.
2. The Passover was kept only once a year; the Lord's Supper is held, 'As oft as ye eat...'
3. No faith was required in order to eat the Passover, only circumcision.

The first is odd to point out - so they ate the lamb physically. Was that lamb REALLY the sacrificed Lamb of God? Was it REALLY the Lamb that purchased their salvation with his very life? MH GENOITO!. Just as then, it is the case now. Partaking of these sacraments is done SPIRITUALLY, indeed, REALLY. The physical nature of what was consumed then is no different than it is now - ONLY the symbol has changed.

The second is irrelevant. Frequency just doesn't play a role. In the Old Testament, there was but one memorial day for the Exodus. In the New, EACH Sabbath is meant for the celebration of the atoning work of Christ. The Supper is intimately tied to that act that we celebrate, which is why many churches celebrate it weekly.

The last one, as Bruce has commented, is really astounding. NO faith, eh? Well, if you ask me, if I wanted to partake, and therefore I had to be circumcized, that would take a LOT of faith!

To assert that faith was not expected of God's people in Old Testament times is really odd to me. The people of old, just as we are today, HAD to live by faith! Only the DOOR to the Passover was provided by circumcision - beyond that, you see, as Bruce noted, that all kinds of derision was heaped on the Israelites for their LACK of faith in participation. Same today - although you are asserting that there is no door to the Lord's Supper. Check that. You are asserting that there is a door, but it is "faith". Tell me, how do you know that the profession of another, by which you admit them to the table, is valid?

To draw too close a parallel between the Passover and the Lord's Supper might seem to play into the hands of the Paedo-communionists. Entry to the Passover was by circumcision; entry to the Lord's Supper is by faith.

Well, it might seem so to play, to you, but truly it does not. We're only drawing parallels that we see Scripture making. What I think we see you and other baptists doing is bifurcating the two cermonies (and the two testaments, often) completely, in a way that is foreign to the way New Testament writers (and, indeed, Christ) speak of the Old Testament. What is asserted by the Reformed community is that baptism is a marker of inclusion. It is not the ONLY requirement. The PC folks would argue that it is the only requirement, but there we part ways.

Todd

 

[Steve Owen]

Bruce wrote:-

If you belonged to the covenant people, you were supposed to have faith, you were expected by GOD to have faith. If you were content with ritual, then "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me," was the divine assessment, and judgment was sure to follow (see. Lev. 26:40-42; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4).

Exactly so. That is why the Lord says, '"Behold, the days are coming," Says the Lord, "When I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah- not according to the covenant I made with their fathers......."'. As hard as you look, you will find no text that says that faith was required to partake of the Passover. Most Israelites went through the ritual and commemorated their deliverance from Egypt, but with no thought of, or faith in, the promises made to Abraham. But the 'better' New Covenant, and therefore the Lord's Supper, is specifically 'not according' to the old. The huge majority of the Israelites did not have faith and did not know the Lord, and so they perished in the wilderness or went into captivity (Isaiah 1:9 etc). God's new covenant people do have faith and do know the Lord, 'From the least of them to the greatest of them' (Heb 8:11 ). Therefore it is written of them, 'I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds i will remember no more.'

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Bruce wrote:-

If you belonged to the covenant people, you were supposed to have faith, you were expected by GOD to have faith. If you were content with ritual, then "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me," was the divine assessment, and judgment was sure to follow (see. Lev. 26:40-42; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4).

Exactly so. That is why the Lord says, '"Behold, the days are coming," Says the Lord, "When I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah- not according to the covenant I made with their fathers......."'. As hard as you look, you will find no text that says that faith was required to partake of the Passover. But the New Covenant, and therefore the Lord's Supper, is specifically 'not according' to the old. The huge majority of the Israelites did not have faith and did not know the Lord, and so they perished in the wilderness or went into captivity (Isaiah 1:9 etc). God's new covenant people do have faith and do know the Lord, 'From the least of them to the greatest of them' (Heb 8:11 ). Therefore it is written of them, 'I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds i will remember no more.'

Grace & Peace,

Martin

So, exactly so, you were supposed to have faith to participate in the Passover?

 

[Steve Owen]

So, exactly so, you were supposed to have faith to participate in the Passover?

No. Exactly so, the Israelites came under judgment. They were certainly supposed to have faith in God generally (eg Heb 3:19 ), but faith was not a requirement for the Passover, only circumcision. Look at Exod 12:48 again and tell me where the faith comes in. In Esther 8:17 we read, 'Then many of the people of the land became Jews because fear of the Jews came upon them.' There is no suggestion that they had any fear of Jehovah, but if they lived in Israel they would need to be circumcised, and they could observe the Passover with no problem.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There is no suggestion that Rahab had any more faith than that her city was about to be sacked and she didn't want to die with them but, fortunately, she didn't have somebody reading into the kind of faith that she had.

You technically don't have to have any faith to participate in the Lord's Supper either if you want to partake in any unworthy manner.

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
There is no suggestion that Rahab had any more faith than that her city was about to be sacked and she didn't want to die with them but, fortunately, she didn't have somebody reading into the kind of faith that she had.

Oh dear. Look at Josh 2:9, 11. You can even find her repentance in Josh 2 if you look hard enough.

You technically don't have to have any faith to participate in the Lord's Supper either if you want to partake in any unworthy manner.

The NT makes it clear that faith was required to partake of the Lord's Supper (Acts 2:44;47; 1Cor 11:27-29 ). There is nothing similar relating to the Passover.

BTW, I am of course not saying that no Israelite had faith in God's promises (eg. Luke 2:25; 10:24 ). But to patake of the Passover, all you had to be was a circumcised Israelite or sojourner.

Blessings,

Martin

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I know Rahab had true faith but the first thing she states is that the terror of the Israelites had fallen on them. It is the same idea of a fear of the Jews elsewhere. Just because God doesn't connect the dots for you doesn't give you license to presume some sort of mass circumcision without any attendant faith. It is also absurd to imply some sort of "easy believism" among the Hebrews of Esther's day that they would just circumcise pagans into the Covenant community willy nilly.

I think, for sake of your "system", you prooftext a passage and say "See, here's an example where we know these people were circumcised with no faith whatsoever."

Hogwash. You may attempt to establish your point by appealing to explicit teaching but don't use your view as a pretext to read into passages that simply refer to fear to not only rule out any faith but then, by way of tautology, establish your idea that it was just fine to be circumcised without true faith into the Old Covenant.

In other words your tautology is formed like this:

1. A priori, I know that one could get circumcised into Israel without faith and participate in the Passover.
2. Esther 8:17 only mentions fear of the Israelites. No mention of faith. Clearly they had none because I already know that a man can be circumcised without faith.
3. Look Rich! Esther 8:17 mentions people without faith could get circumcised. This proves that you could get circumcised into Israel without faith!

Also, you're asking the wrong question to request a prooftext of faith in Exodus 12:48. If you can't see that then it is difficult to overthrow your presuppostions.

Blessings,

Rich

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by SemperFideles
I know Rahab had true faith

Now Rich, make up your mind. In your previous post you said something quite different.

but the first thing she states is that the terror of the Israelites had fallen on them. It is the same idea of a fear of the Jews elsewhere. Just because God doesn't connect the dots for you doesn't give you license to presume some sort of mass circumcision without any attendant faith. It is also absurd to imply some sort of "easy believism" among the Hebrews of Esther's day that they would just circumcise pagans into the Covenant community willy nilly.

Well, dear brother, read the Bible!
Exod 12:48. 'And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to 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 a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.' (cf. also v44 ). Don't inflict your presumptions on the text and then accuse me of presumption!

I think, for sake of your "system", you prooftext a passage and say "See, here's an example where we know these people were circumcised with no faith whatsoever."

Hogwash. You may attempt to establish your point by appealing to explicit teaching but don't use your view as a pretext to read into passages that simply refer to fear to not only rule out any faith but then, by way of tautology, establish your idea that it was just fine to be circumcised without true faith into the Old Covenant.

Well, I read the text that's there, and it tells me that circumcision was all that was necessary to partake of the Passover. Now if you can find me another text that says something different, then we must use the analogy of faith to reconcile them. But in the absence of such a text, I think you need to show a little humility.

In other words your tautology is formed like this:

1. A priori, I know that one could get circumcised into Israel without faith and participate in the Passover.
2. Esther 8:17 only mentions fear of the Israelites. No mention of faith. Clearly they had none because I already know that a man can be circumcised without faith.
3. Look Rich! Esther 8:17 mentions people without faith could get circumcised. This proves that you could get circumcised into Israel without faith!

Rich, a moment's thought will tell you that I could form a silly paradigm like this for you, but I forbear.

Also, you're asking the wrong question to request a prooftext of faith in Exodus 12:48. If you can't see that then it is difficult to overthrow your presuppostions.

I am not asking for a 'proof-text of faith' in Exodus 12:48. I am offering it as a text that shows that faith was not necessary for one to partake of the Passover and backing it up with Esther 8:17. What you need to do is either to provide textual evidence that Exod 12:48 doesn't mean what it appears to, or to accept the word of God as it's written without filtering it through your own presuppositions.

The Passover is a type of the Lord's Supper. It could be taken by God's Old Covenant people, who had the Old Covenant sign. It commemorated the physical salvation of the Jews from Egypt. The Lord's Supper is for the New Covenant people, those who know the Lord (Heb 8:10-11 ) and have the true circumcision, that of the heart (Col 2:11. cf. Phil 3:3 ). It comemorates the eternal salvation of God's people, of which the Passover is again merely a type.

Rich, without wanting to appear patronizing, I think you need to brush up on your hermeneutics. Might I suggest purchasing Principles of Biblical Interpretation by Louis Berkhof? He was a Presbyterian, so he won't do you any harm.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Martin,

I don't believe you are being patronizing but I do believe you have trouble understanding what is being argued and tend to lose track of where the argument is. Please read my concern, re-read it, make sure you understand what I criticized in your method to begin with, and then think about what, if any, response you will give. Perhaps then we can stop speaking past each other.

1. I never stated that Rahab had no faith. I used her as an example of a person who appeared to be basing her help to the spies on fear. I don't have to rely even on Joshua to know she had real faith as she is commended in Hebrews. Had it been left unexpressed both in Joshua (ending maybe with Joshua 2:11a) and in Hebrews, you would have likely been convinced she had no faith until you ran into her in glory. Speaking of Hebrews 11, Jephthah is an interesting charachter to include. Without divine revelation to "connect the dots" it is certainly difficult to see "resting faith" in Judges 11. Judges 11 never asks us to consider whether Jephthah had true faith (a point we shall keep in mind).

2. I focused specifically on your use of Esther 8:17 as a prooftext for circumcision without faith. OK Martin, exegete the passage and demonstrate that the passage establishes that the converts had no faith. Show me explicitly how the passage, as it only mentions fear, rules out faith. You cannot do so. You are arguing it in by tautology. The scriptures do not tell us they had no faith, you tell us they had no faith and then use the passage as an example of circumcision without faith!

3. Exodus 12:48 is another example of where you prescribe something that is not stated. You demand that the text states that no faith is required for the Passover. Where? Where does it say you don't have to have faith? You drop it in like some prooftext and then tell me I have to demonstrate to you that faith is required in Exodus 12:48 to overthrow your presupposition that the absence of a detailed statement of faith means none is required.

In summary, you are reading things into both texts mentioned. I am not claiming that the texts demand faith, I am merely correcting your faulty use of the texts to show me that they demand no faith.

And so, since you are the hermaneutical expert and I am a mere novice, please show me what accepted method allows you to rule faith out of Esther 8:17 or Exodus 12:48 and then use them as pretexts to demonstrate your pretextual rule?

Lest you lose track of the argument: I am arguing against your imperialism that the texts rule out faith. I am negating your argument rather than positing one. It might well be that you are right (I don't believe so) but you'll have to do a much better job than the texts you use to establish that there is no faith required in either circumcision or the passover.

Finally, I hope I don't sound patronizing when I say that I am used to such poor use of inference from Arminians and their abuse of John 3:16. "Look", they say, "no mention of inability in John 3:16. It must mean that all men are capable of responding to the Gospel." When I state such things you believe I am "playing the man". Not at all. I want to be vivid so you'll realize what you're doing with the passages and then add insult to injury by accusing me of eisogesis when I ask "...where does this passage say they had no faith?"

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by SemperFideles]