Paedo-Baptism Answers "Believers and their children"

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

As I'm wrestling through baptism and related covenant theology questions, one major objection to paedobaptism has arisen that seems very strong to me. We paedobaptists often speak of the covenant signs belonging to "believers and their children". However, the more I study, the more I struggle to see this principle anywhere in Scripture. In the Old Testament, the principle was not that circumcision belonged to believers and the children of believers-- the principle was that it belonged to the physical descendants of Abraham. This included those whose parents were clearly not believers (e.g. the second generation in the wilderness). What mattered was physical descent from the covenant head.

This might seem like a minor difference, but the more I think about it the more it seems very important to me. The physical descent principle in the Old Testament was fundamentally ethnic or national, not based on the faith of any particular individual or family. Obviously, we do not believe the New Covenant is passed on in the same way. Instead, we believe our connection to the covenant head is spiritual, rather than physical. Putting this together seems to undermine the principle of "believers and their children".

So my question is, how would you respond to this objection from a PB perspective? What am I missing?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Deut. 30.6 - And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

Ezek 16.21 - That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? [Unbeliever's children were still God's children]

I see the promise and its sign given to the visible community (OT and NT). They are God's children

Right, but that doesn't answer the heart of the issue. The covenant community under the Mosaic covenant was the nation of Israel, so obviously that would include anyone in the nation, which would explain why the children of unbelievers were still his children. However, the national principle doesn't apply to the church-- rather than the physical seed of Abraham, it is the spiritual seed of Abraham who are children of the promise. So unless we are going to wholesale apply a quasi-ethnic principle to the NT church, where once a family joins their descendants are always in the covenant community, I don't see how we can say it applies in the same way.

(I'm sure the debates this leads to have been hashed out here before, so feel free to not engage the larger debate if you'd rather not, just sharing some of my thoughts in response. )

 

[Polanus1561]

Right, but that doesn't answer the heart of the issue. The covenant community under the Mosaic covenant was the nation of Israel, so obviously that would include anyone in the nation, which would explain why the children of unbelievers were still his children. However, the national principle doesn't apply to the church-- rather than the physical seed of Abraham, it is the spiritual seed of Abraham who are children of the promise. So unless we are going to wholesale apply a quasi-ethnic principle to the NT church, where once a family joins their descendants are always in the covenant community, I don't see how we can say it applies in the same way.

(I'm sure the debates this leads to have been hashed out here before, so feel free to not engage the larger debate if you'd rather not, just sharing some of my thoughts in response. )

Sorry I replied a bit hastily.

 

[Jud]

Meditation on the middle section of Romans 4 helps me value the concerns you mentioned. Your statement below...

​

"In the Old Testament, the principle was not that circumcision belonged to believers and the children of believers-- the principle was that it belonged to the physical descendants of Abraham."​

...seems to be addressed by Paul. It was not just the physical descendants of Abraham, but also the spiritual descendants of Abraham.

Paul's rhetorical question in Ro 4.9 is, "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?" [Yes- both.]

How?

"to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised,"​

Why both?

"so that righteousness would be counted to them [uncircumcised- all who received the gift of faith] as well,.."​

Who is "them"?

-Those who believe without circumcision.​

what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, xthe Jews were entrusted with ythe oracles of God. 3 zWhat if some were unfaithful? aDoes their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? 4 By no means! b

In an egregious sermon by John Macarthur, he asserts the only reason Jews were circumcised was only to identify as a member of the Jewish Nation- not as a sign of faith. Per Romans four, circumcision was a sign for two things: national identity and as a sign for faith. God saves only the ones that were circumcised in heart.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

The covenant sign was for those who professed faith, and they then were considered part of physical Israel. Israel is referred to as the true Church under the New Covenant. Yet, the pattern of belief passing onto children would still apply as it followed the same pattern under the Old Covenant. To illustrate this consider Romans 4:11-12:

Rom 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

The Church under the new covenant is still a mixed multitude of believers and unbelievers. Both share the benefits of the means of grace, as did the Israelites in the mixed multitude in the Old Testament (1 Cor 10:1-5).

1Co 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
1Co 10:2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
1Co 10:3 and all ate the same spiritual food,
1Co 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
1Co 10:5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

How did unbelievers drink from the rock that was Christ? Its because they all shared the same means of grace. A distinction needs to be made between the church visible (what we see) and invisible (what God sees). Baptism is an outward sign but the inward reality is only visible to our LORD. Because of this fact it is assumed through various passages that children are automatically grafted into the covenant like in the OLD (Acts 2:38-39; 1 Cor 7:14). However, only those who profess faith and demonstrate saving faith are saved. Only those who God recognizes as being saved are saved. This is true for everybody in church.

 

[De Jager]

As I'm wrestling through baptism and related covenant theology questions, one major objection to paedobaptism has arisen that seems very strong to me. We paedobaptists often speak of the covenant signs belonging to "believers and their children". However, the more I study, the more I struggle to see this principle anywhere in Scripture. In the Old Testament, the principle was not that circumcision belonged to believers and the children of believers-- the principle was that it belonged to the physical descendants of Abraham. This included those whose parents were clearly not believers (e.g. the second generation in the wilderness). What mattered was physical descent from the covenant head.

This might seem like a minor difference, but the more I think about it the more it seems very important to me. The physical descent principle in the Old Testament was fundamentally ethnic or national, not based on the faith of any particular individual or family. Obviously, we do not believe the New Covenant is passed on in the same way. Instead, we believe our connection to the covenant head is spiritual, rather than physical. Putting this together seems to undermine the principle of "believers and their children".

So my question is, how would you respond to this objection from a PB perspective? What am I missing?

This is actually not true and is contradicted explicitly by several texts.

1. Genesis 17:12 is explicit that even those who were not "of thy seed" were to be circumcised.
2. Exodus 12:48 explicitly gives direction for the circumcision of the household of a foreigner who joined himself to Israel. Of course, the foreigner and his household had no physical descent from Abraham whatsoever.

The sign was to be to believers, and to the households of believers. That's always the way it was supposed to be, despite many abuses to the contrary. That is irrefutable. Arguments that say it is only for ethnic Jews or descendants of Abraham physically simply aren't taking into account all the Biblical data.

 

[Jud]

I myself am still trying to sort out what it means to be a part of the covenant community.

To me, so far, it seems this is a higher spectrum of Common Grace, where unregenerate humans not only experience the best God has to offer during their time here on earth but also get to experience an even greater measure/experience of common grace while residing within a home of believers.

This 'greater' measure/experience of grace (being born in a Christian household) does not save them, but it does extend them an even greater experience of heavenly benefits as they reside in the home of those who are set apart by God's grace.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

This is actually not true and is contradicted explicitly by several texts.

1. Genesis 17:12 is explicit that even those who were not "of thy seed" were to be circumcised.
2. Exodus 12:48 explicitly gives direction for the circumcision of the household of a foreigner who joined himself to Israel. Of course, the foreigner and his household had no physical descent from Abraham whatsoever.

The sign was to be to believers, and to the households of believers. That's always the way it was, despite many abuses to the contrary. That is irrefutable. Arguments that say it is only for ethnic Jews or descendants of Abraham physically simply aren't taking into account all the Biblical data.

I don't think that these examples actually contradict the overall point. The servants and the foreigners who were circumcised were being marked as those who had joined the nation of Israel-- it was not divorced from the national nature of the covenant. There is also nowhere a requirement for the servants to profess faith. Additionally, this ignores the other point, that children in the nation who belonged to parents who were obviously not believers still belonged to the covenant people and received the sign. The principle at work is national, not based on household or parentage.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I myself am still trying to sort out what it means to be a part of the covenant community.

To me, so far, it seems this is a higher spectrum of Common Grace, where unregenerate humans not only experience the best God has to offer during their time here on earth but also get to experience an even greater measure/experience of common grace while residing within a home of believers.

This 'greater' measure/experience of grace (being born in a Christian household) does not save them, but it does extend them an even greater experience of heavenly benefits as they reside in the home of those who are set apart by God's grace.

I certainly agree that being in a Christian household is a great benefit. I'm just not sure anymore that I can agree that those children can rightly be said to be members of the covenant.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

The covenant sign was for those who professed faith, and they then were considered part of physical Israel. Israel is referred to as the true Church under the New Covenant. Yet, the pattern of belief passing onto children would still apply as it followed the same pattern under the Old Covenant. To illustrate this consider Romans 4:11-12:

Rom 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Two people have referenced Rom. 4, and I'm having trouble following the argument--

So yes, circumcision was a sign of justification, and under the Old Covenant Abraham's physical descendants received this sign as a typological pointer to the reality of God's promise (heart circumcision), as well as national identity-- but in the New Testament era now the reality of the promise has come, and the reality belongs to Abraham's spiritual seed, those who are of faith, and this is available whether one is Jewish (of the circumcision) or not. So far so good.

I fail to see how this establishes the principle that the physical descendants of those who are of faith, apart from any spiritual qualification, also receive the covenant sign.

 

[De Jager]

I myself am still trying to sort out what it means to be a part of the covenant community.

To me, so far, it seems this is a higher spectrum of Common Grace, where unregenerate humans not only experience the best God has to offer during their time here on earth but also get to experience an even greater measure/experience of common grace while residing within a home of believers.

This 'greater' measure/experience of grace (being born in a Christian household) does not save them, but it does extend them an even greater experience of heavenly benefits as they reside in the home of those who are set apart by God's grace.

"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. " (Romans 3:1-2). Of course, in the N.C. we don't have less privileges than the Jews did in the time of types and shadows.

I don't think that these examples actually contradict the overall point. The servants and the foreigners who were circumcised were being marked as those who had joined the nation of Israel-- it was not divorced from the national nature of the covenant. There is also nowhere a requirement for the servants to profess faith. Additionally, this ignores the other point, that children in the nation who belonged to parents who were obviously not believers still belonged to the covenant people and received the sign. The principle at work is national, not based on household or parentage.

You said that the sign of circumcision was for the physical descendants of Abraham. That is simply not true as proven by the scriptures I quoted.

You also say it was for those who didn't profess faith - here you need to separate what did happen from what was supposed happen. Just because unbelievers received the sign of the covenant does not mean it was intended to be given to unbelievers. That just doesn't logically follow. That's like saying that Christians aren't supposed to have assurance of faith because some Christians don't have assurance of faith.

You cannot separate the covenant sign of circumcision from the covenant obligations. The sign of circumcision was not some national badge or just something that "you do" because you were Jewish. It was a sign of a covenant relationship. That is how it was designed to be. Those who treated the covenant with contempt were to be excommunicated...the problem of course is that this was not enforced. For that reason, God himself had to purge the church several times, for example in the wilderness.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

Just to add to what I wrote... Baptism is described to as an appeal to God for a clear conscience. It uses the imagery of the flood when 8 people were saved due to one man's righteousness (ie. his family).

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
1Pe 3:19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,
1Pe 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[De Jager]

I certainly agree that being in a Christian household is a great benefit. I'm just not sure anymore that I can agree that those children can rightly be said to be members of the covenant.

You are implicitly saying that in the times of the new covenant, under greater grace, greater light, that the children of believers now have less status, less privileges. It goes against the flow of scripture. Where are these privileges revoked? Children always had a place in God's people, and now they don't? Children used to be "entrusted with the oracles of God" (Romans 3) and the revealed things belonged to them (Deut 29), but now they don't? Children used to be counted as members of God's church, but now they aren't?

 

[De Jager]

I myself am still trying to sort out what it means to be a part of the covenant community.

To me, so far, it seems this is a higher spectrum of Common Grace, where unregenerate humans not only experience the best God has to offer during their time here on earth but also get to experience an even greater measure/experience of common grace while residing within a home of believers.

This 'greater' measure/experience of grace (being born in a Christian household) does not save them, but it does extend them an even greater experience of heavenly benefits as they reside in the home of those who are set apart by God's grace.

And also greater condemnation if they reject it:

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)

 

[MyCrows]

In the Old Testament, the principle was not that circumcision belonged to believers and the children of believers-- the principle was that it belonged to the physical descendants of Abraham.

I think this premise is indeed faulty... there are provisions for gentiles to join the covenant people, and this included being circumcised.

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. One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.

Exodus 12:48-49

 

[RobertPGH1981]

I fail to see how this establishes the principle that the physical descendants of those who are of faith, apart from any spiritual qualification, also receive the covenant sign.

It's because the pattern of belief still holds still that faith is what saves in both the OT and NT.

God works through households in the OT and he continues to work the same way in the NT. As a former Baptist, I used to point to Jer 31:32-32 that the Old Covenant is not the same as the New in that the saving faith shifts to the spiritual like you are indicating. Hebrew scholars will actually tell you that new in Jeremiah is more like a new moon, or a refurbished car, and should actually be renewed.

In addition, many fail to see the language in 32:38-39.

Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Jer 32:39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.

This was true in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament. The means of grace (circumcision, Passover) correspond to (baptism, and lords supper). These acts do not save they all point to Christ who saves but the means of Grace is given to all within the church without distinction. This was true for everybody in the Old Testament and in the New Testament which is why warning passages tend to focus no professing believers in the church. It assumes those outside the church are completely lost but their is still hope for those within the church.

The warning passages in Hebrews sounded hypothetical but not possible as a Baptist. They are very real warnings to those inside the visible church who professed faith, were baptized, and take part in the LORD Supper. The newness of the new covenant comes through that the gentiles are grafted in and we now see more clearly than the prophets and kings of old.

 

[De Jager]

As I'm wrestling through baptism and related covenant theology questions, one major objection to paedobaptism has arisen that seems very strong to me. We paedobaptists often speak of the covenant signs belonging to "believers and their children". However, the more I study, the more I struggle to see this principle anywhere in Scripture. In the Old Testament, the principle was not that circumcision belonged to believers and the children of believers-- the principle was that it belonged to the physical descendants of Abraham. This included those whose parents were clearly not believers (e.g. the second generation in the wilderness). What mattered was physical descent from the covenant head.

This might seem like a minor difference, but the more I think about it the more it seems very important to me. The physical descent principle in the Old Testament was fundamentally ethnic or national, not based on the faith of any particular individual or family. Obviously, we do not believe the New Covenant is passed on in the same way. Instead, we believe our connection to the covenant head is spiritual, rather than physical. Putting this together seems to undermine the principle of "believers and their children".

So my question is, how would you respond to this objection from a PB perspective? What am I missing?

On the bolded.

No one is denying that the old covenant had a national element. But you also must not deny that at the end of the day, it was FAITH that God wanted. It simply wasn't enough to be Jewish. Case in point: God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham's offspring. But a whole generation didn't get in...why? Were they not Jewish enough? No, the problem is given to us in Hebrews 3:19 - So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.
Hebrews 11 goes on to explain how FAITH was always central to God's covenant, from the very beginning.

Circumcision was always a sign and seal of FAITH (Romans 4). And yet, God instructed Abraham to put this sign on his children.

I would encourage you to listen to the following sermon, I think it will really help answer some of your questions, or at least lead you in the right direction:

Circumcision: A Seal Of Faith

Kenneth Stewart | Glasgow RP Church of Scotland

www.sermonaudio.com

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

On the bolded.

No one is denying that the old covenant had a national element. But you also must not deny that at the end of the day, it was FAITH that God wanted. It simply wasn't enough to be Jewish. Case in point: God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham's offspring. But a whole generation didn't get in...why? Were they not Jewish enough? No, the problem is given to us in Hebrews 3:19 - So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.
Hebrews 11 goes on to explain how FAITH was always central to God's covenant, from the very beginning.

Circumcision was always a sign and seal of FAITH (Romans 4). And yet, God instructed Abraham to put this sign on his children.

I would encourage you to listen to the following sermon, I think it will really help answer some of your questions, or at least lead you in the right direction:

Circumcision: A Seal Of Faith

Kenneth Stewart | Glasgow RP Church of Scotland

www.sermonaudio.com

I don’t disagree that faith was always central. I do think part of our underlying disagreement about the nature of the Mosaic Covenant is showing up here though. I think circumcision is a pointer to the righteousness that comes by faith, but it was part of an old typological administration in which the physical nation served to foreshadow the spiritual people of the new covenant. Now that the promise has come and the typological shadow of the physical nation has gone, the spiritual people is made up of those who belong to Christ and have him as our covenant mediator.

I will check out the sermon you linked!

 

[Polanus1561]

I don’t disagree that faith was always central. I do think part of our underlying disagreement about the nature of the Mosaic Covenant is showing up here though. I think circumcision is a pointer to the righteousness that comes by faith, but it was part of an old typological administration in which the physical nation served to foreshadow the spiritual people of the new covenant. Now that the promise has come and the typological shadow of the physical nation has gone, the spiritual people is made up of those who belong to Christ and have him as our covenant mediator.

I will check out the sermon you linked!

Two questions to help you sort your thoughts out:
1. When was the transition from nation to 'spiritual people'?
2. Do you hold to a national restoration of Israel per Rom. 11?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Two questions to help you sort your thoughts out:
1. When was the transition from nation to 'spiritual people'?
2. Do you hold to a national restoration of Israel per Rom. 11?

1.I’d say the new covenant is what marks the transition. (Obviously I’ve started to shift in my understanding of covenant theology, which underlies this answer).

2. No, I don’t think so, though admittedly it’s not a topic I’ve spent a ton of time on.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I don’t disagree that faith was always central. I do think part of our underlying disagreement about the nature of the Mosaic Covenant is showing up here though. I think circumcision is a pointer to the righteousness that comes by faith, but it was part of an old typological administration in which the physical nation served to foreshadow the spiritual people of the new covenant. Now that the promise has come and the typological shadow of the physical nation has gone, the spiritual people is made up of those who belong to Christ and have him as our covenant mediator.

I will check out the sermon you linked!

God made a covenant with Abraham as a believer, not because he had special DNA. To that covenant was added a law under Moses as a schoolmaster until Christ came. OT Israel was a “church under age”, not a “nation foreshadowing a church to come”. One covenant of grace, multiple administrations.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

God made a covenant with Abraham as a believer, not because he had special DNA. To that covenant was added a law under Moses as a schoolmaster until Christ came. OT Israel was a “church under age”, not a “nation foreshadowing a church to come”. One covenant of grace, multiple administrations.

I agree Abraham had faith, but clearly the nation of Israel did not. Throughout essentially the entire OT only a small remnant have true faith. In my reading, the church of the NT has continuity with that remnant (so the church is there in the OT), but not with the nation as a whole, other than the ways in which the nation as a whole typologically pointed to the fuller spiritual reality of the New Covenant.

I realize this is more in line with RB theology than Presbyterian. Part of why I’m considering the switch.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In the Old Testament, the principle was not that circumcision belonged to believers and the children of believers-- the principle was that it belonged to the physical descendants of Abraham. This included those whose parents were clearly not believers (e.g. the second generation in the wilderness). What mattered was physical descent from the covenant head.

This might seem like a minor difference, but the more I think about it the more it seems very important to me. The physical descent principle in the Old Testament was fundamentally ethnic or national, not based on the faith of any particular individual or family. Obviously, we do not believe the New Covenant is passed on in the same way. Instead, we believe our connection to the covenant head is spiritual, rather than physical. Putting this together seems to undermine the principle of "believers and their children".

So my question is, how would you respond to this objection from a PB perspective? What am I missing?

1) Circumcision "belonged to the physical descendants of Abraham. This included those whose parents were clearly not believers." This is an assertion, that I presume comes from somewhere, but it's predicated on certain presumptions about the nature of the OT text, the nature of OT religion, a certain way of reading the OT. This is aside from predetermining whether those presumptions are accurate; I'm willing to accede to the observation that I make claims about how to read the OT myself. But it's simply a fact that the idea: circumcision is about belonging to the physical descent from Abraham rather than a spiritual sacrament (or is only the latter in some secondary sense)--requires as much of an a priori as anything a traditional covenant theologian brings to the text.

Where in the OT, and by what author, does the idea that there is both an external sign and an inward reality come? As early as Ex.6:12 we have the first plain metaphorical use of circumcision. And Lev.26:41 has the first textual reference to heart-circumcision. So, the sign is given to Abraham, whose story Israel has from Moses, who also is responsible for Exodus, Leviticus, and the rest of the Pentateuch. So, as soon as Israel has an inspired written text, they have a fully formed covenant sign, with both an external presentation and a spiritual meaning. It is the choice of the reader, if he wishes to conclude circumcision's spiritual aspect doesn't exist prior to Moses in history; for my part, I cannot conceive that circumcision was not from its institution with Abraham everything Moses writes later concerning it.

The people come out of Egypt were supposed to be believers, people attached to the OT church, participating in the great typological salvation-event of the OT age. That the generation come forth from Egypt had a rather large contingent of them whose faith was superficial, and who wanted to go back to Egypt, says nothing about whether they should have been responsive to a whole host of signs and verbal summons to live by faith. Furthermore, even as you claim a fundamental "physical decent principle," you give must give it up with every conversion story of alien attachment, so Ex.12:48, cf. Gen.34:15. Are new-minted Israelites just concerned with a physical tie to Abraham they gain by virtue of circumcision? Would such men as these be primarily interested in circumcising their children for mere citizenship benefits and privileges? If they are, is that in the least to their credit, or to the credit of those marketing the notion?

2) The subsequent claim that "the New Covenant is [not] passed on in the same way," is something of begged question. It is wholly dependent on the first assertion going unchallenged. I certainly won't give the former a pass. I deny that the covenant with Abraham was essentially physical, and neither is the New Covenant for the same reasons. Also, Moses is not Abraham; the Siniatic covenant administers the Abrahamic (it "cannot disannul" Gal.3:17), but also contains temporary and terminating aspects unique to itself that dominate its (legal) presentation. Those transitory aspects of Sinai were external, so much so that the days of the "Old Covenant" offer up a marked contrast to a resumed (relative to Abraham) emphasis on the "unseen" quality of the faith in the NT age.

The days of the OT required anticipatory, typological covenant mediators, pointing ahead in history to the Coming One. This role was held by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the patriarchal age. It was held preeminently by Moses when the Old Covenant was instituted, and after him was divided between the priests, prophets, and kings of the nation--all whom pointed to Christ the fulfillment. The reason we don't continue to use such types is because Christ is alive forevermore and eternal Mediator of his church. Were the people of the Old Covenant, and before it back to Abraham and even earlier, were they united to a covenant that was earthly in nature, fully invested irrespective of faith, so long as they could plausibly claim earthly allegiance (with no spiritual component)? Again, that is one way of reading the OT; but I do not believe it was ever meant to be so read, nor is it the way the NT authors read it.

All those figures, along with the heavy typological weight of the signs, were never ends, but means. They were to put the observers and practitioners of the OT covenant ways in mind of the Christ and kingdom of God for which their existence served as the entrance. Covenant people were to look through the types and shadows to make out (as best they might) the essence of their hope not reduced to those tangible things. This is what it meant and what it means to know that he is God to us and to our children.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

1) Circumcision "belonged to the physical descendants of Abraham. This included those whose parents were clearly not believers." This is an assertion, that I presume comes from somewhere, but it's predicated on certain presumptions about the nature of the OT text, the nature of OT religion, a certain way of reading the OT. This is aside from predetermining whether those presumptions are accurate; I'm willing to accede to the observation that I make claims about how to read the OT myself. But it's simply a fact that the idea: circumcision is about belonging to the physical descent from Abraham rather than a spiritual sacrament (or is only the latter in some secondary sense)--requires as much of an a priori as anything a traditional covenant theologian brings to the text.

Where in the OT, and by what author, does the idea that there is both an external sign and an inward reality come? As early as Ex.6:12 we have the first plain metaphorical use of circumcision. And Lev.26:41 has the first textual reference to heart-circumcision. So, the sign is given to Abraham, whose story Israel has from Moses, who also is responsible for Exodus, Leviticus, and the rest of the Pentateuch. So, as soon as Israel has an inspired written text, they have a fully formed covenant sign, with both an external presentation and a spiritual meaning. It is the choice of the reader, if he wishes to conclude circumcision's spiritual aspect doesn't exist prior to Moses in history; for my part, I cannot conceive that circumcision was not from its institution with Abraham everything Moses writes later concerning it.

The people come out of Egypt were supposed to be believers, people attached to the OT church, participating in the great typological salvation-event of the OT age. That the generation come forth from Egypt had a rather large contingent of them whose faith was superficial, and who wanted to go back to Egypt, says nothing about whether they should have been responsive to a whole host of signs and verbal summons to live by faith. Furthermore, even as you claim a fundamental "physical decent principle," you give must give it up with every conversion story of alien attachment, so Ex.12:48, cf. Gen.34:15. Are new-minted Israelites just concerned with a physical tie to Abraham they gain by virtue of circumcision? Would such men as these be primarily interested in circumcising their children for mere citizenship benefits and privileges? If they are, is that in the least to their credit, or to the credit of those marketing the notion?

2) The subsequent claim that "the New Covenant is [not] passed on in the same way," is something of begged question. It is wholly dependent on the first assertion going unchallenged. I certainly won't give the former a pass. I deny that the covenant with Abraham was essentially physical, and neither is the New Covenant for the same reasons. Also, Moses is not Abraham; the Siniatic covenant administers the Abrahamic (it "cannot disannul" Gal.3:17), but also contains temporary and terminating aspects unique to itself that dominate its (legal) presentation. Those transitory aspects of Sinai were external, so much so that the days of the "Old Covenant" offer up a marked contrast to a resumed (relative to Abraham) emphasis on the "unseen" quality of the faith in the NT age.

The days of the OT required anticipatory, typological covenant mediators, pointing ahead in history to the Coming One. This role was held by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the patriarchal age. It was held preeminently by Moses when the Old Covenant was instituted, and after him was divided between the priests, prophets, and kings of the nation--all whom pointed to Christ the fulfillment. The reason we don't continue to use such types is because Christ is alive forevermore and eternal Mediator of his church. Were the people of the Old Covenant, and before it back to Abraham and even earlier, were they united to a covenant that was earthly in nature, fully invested irrespective of faith, so long as they could plausibly claim earthly allegiance (with no spiritual component)? Again, that is one way of reading the OT; but I do not believe it was ever meant to be so read, nor is it the way the NT authors read it.

All those figures, along with the heavy typological weight of the signs, were never ends, but means. They were to put the observers and practitioners of the OT covenant ways in mind of the Christ and kingdom of God for which their existence served as the entrance. Covenant people were to look through the types and shadows to make out (as best they might) the essence of their hope not reduced to those tangible things. This is what it meant and what it means to know that he is God to us and to our children.

Thank you for this well thought-out reply brother. It gives me some helpful points to consider as I continue to study.

 

[Jud]

The days of the OT required anticipatory, typological covenant mediators, pointing ahead in history to the Coming One. This role was held by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the patriarchal age. It was held preeminently by Moses when the Old Covenant was instituted, and after him was divided between the priests, prophets, and kings of the nation--all whom pointed to Christ the fulfillment. The reason we don't continue to use such types is because Christ is alive forevermore and eternal Mediator of his church. Were the people of the Old Covenant, and before it back to Abraham and even earlier, were they united to a covenant that was earthly in nature, fully invested irrespective of faith, so long as they could plausibly claim earthly allegiance (with no spiritual component)? Again, that is one way of reading the OT; but I do not believe it was ever meant to be so read, nor is it the way the NT authors read it.

All those figures, along with the heavy typological weight of the signs, were never ends, but means. They were to put the observers and practitioners of the OT covenant ways in mind of the Christ and kingdom of God for which their existence served as the entrance. Covenant people were to look through the types and shadows to make out (as best they might) the essence of their hope not reduced to those tangible things. This is what it meant and what it means to know that he is God to us and to our children.

That could work as a decent summary for Hebrews 1-10:18.

 

[Jud]

I agree Abraham had faith, but clearly the nation of Israel did not. Throughout essentially the entire OT only a small remnant have true faith. In my reading, the church of the NT has continuity with that remnant (so the church is there in the OT), but not with the nation as a whole, other than the ways in which the nation as a whole typologically pointed to the fuller spiritual reality of the New Covenant.

I realize this is more in line with RB theology than Presbyterian. Part of why I’m considering the switch.

Keep in mind that even with the 'fuller spiritual reality' of the New Covenant, baptized parents and their children can still be a reprobate weed (or vice versa) and the mystery of who belongs in the remnant still remains.

Your statement could be transfixed to read, "I agree the parents had faith, but clearly, the children of those parents did not."
*****************
I find it interesting that one person asked two (2) questions that seem tangential at first, but they really are on topic. The two (2) questions distinctly explore if you view the scriptures through the lens of dispensationalism:

Two questions to help you sort your thoughts out:​

1. When was the transition from the nation to 'spiritual people'?​

2. Do you hold to a national restoration of Israel per Rom. 11?​

​

In reading your response that I quoted above, your words infer a lean toward Covenant Theology, but your later response indicates that the NT marks the transition. I agree that this could be both/and. Based on your comment above, it would seem that you agree that there was never a transition from a nation to spiritual people, but a shift in shadows due to developing typology. As such, there was always both a spiritual and a physical nation- some people were part of both, some part of one, and most (per 'Remnant' passages) were part of neither.

I am not speaking for you, but if you were to follow this logic/lens of viewing scripture, you would likely not hold to a national restoration of Israel which is what the dispensationalists hold to.

 

[jwithnell]

The strength of the covenant is not based upon our actions but upon God's binding himself to his people. The cutting of the animals is God's pledging the curses of the covenant against himself if he does not keep the terms. It is a grievous thing to be given the sign of the covenant (circumcision then baptism) and then to fail to respond in faith.

From the start, God has graciously brought in the strangers to the covenant and made provision for the sign to be placed upon them.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Keep in mind that even with the 'fuller spiritual reality' of the New Covenant, baptized parents and their children can still be a reprobate weed (or vice versa) and the mystery of who belongs in the remnant still remains.

Your statement could be transfixed to read, "I agree the parents had faith, but clearly, the children of those parents did not."

That is true, but I'm becoming convinced there is no "remnant" as such in the NC. Either way, perhaps inevitably this post has opened up several related issues, but I still think my initial point stands; the OT principle was never actually what I generally hear paedobaptists say; "believers and their children". It seems to me that it was an ethnic/national principle (of course including outsiders who joined the nation) which typologically pointed to a spiritual reality which Israel was called to hope in.

As Rev. Buchanan pointed out above, I realize this has as much to do with the approach one takes to the OT as anyone else, so perhaps this thread is just helping me solidify my shifting perspective on covenant theology closer toward a more 1689 Federalist position.

 

[MyCrows]

That is true, but I'm becoming convinced there is no "remnant" as such in the NC.

I don't understand what you mean. Isn't the continuing remnant the only hope Paul puts forward in Romans ch. 11?

The only reason there is any saved. OT or NT, is owing to God's grace in selecting a remnant.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

​

In reading your response that I quoted above, your words infer a lean toward Covenant Theology, but your later response indicates that the NT marks the transition. I agree that this could be both/and. Based on your comment above, it would seem that you agree that there was never a transition from a nation to spiritual people, but a shift in shadows due to developing typology. As such, there was always both a spiritual and a physical nation- some people were part of both, some part of one, and most (per 'Remnant' passages) were part of neither.

I am not speaking for you, but if you were to follow this logic/lens of viewing scripture, you would likely not hold to a national restoration of Israel which is what the dispensationalists hold to.

Yes, I would agree with what you are saying here-- I did not mean to say that the OT was purely physical whereas the NT is purely spiritual-- I meant that the Mosaic Covenant was a subservient and typological covenant, which constituted a physical nation based on temporal promises which were designed to point to Christ. However within that people I believe there was always the true people of God, the remnant, according to the promise God made to Abraham. The way of salvation was always the same, looking to Christ and his work. So when the New Covenant came, what changed was the shadow of the outward physical nation was shed to give place to the fulness of the spiritual reality which had always been there in some form. So I certainly hold to some kind of covenant theology-- what I've been working through is whether I hold to Westminsterian CT or something more like 1689 Federalism. Right now I think I sound like a baptist, but I'm trying not to "decide" hastily.