Children that have the sign of the covenant

[Contra_Mundum]

Originally posted by piningforChrist

No.
Justification is not what unites us to Christ. We are united to Christ, historically, at the moment of our regeneration, "in our effectual calling," as our confession (if not yours) affirms. Faith is the instrumental cause. Justification (as well as adoption and sanctification) is a benefit partaken of by those who are effectually called.

I did not say historically.

I'm not referencing what you said. Non-historically, our union with Christ goes back to the eternal beginnings of the covenant of grace in election. "According as he hath chosen us in him {Jesus Christ} before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him" (Eph. 1:4).

 

[piningforChrist]

Pastor Buchanan,

I agree with everything you have stated in your last two posts.

What are the implications to my current position on baptism?

Thank you.

Your brother,

Matthew

 

[Mocha]

In dealing with the subject of 'Justification' in Roamsn 4, the apostle Paul says:

Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?(vs. 9)

What blessing? The blessing of receiving a righteousness that justifies by faith.

He (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith...(vs. 11)

For Abraham, the sign of circumcision was what? A 'seal'.

What did it 'seal'? It sealed 'the righteousness that he had by faith'.

What is baptism? A 'seal'.

What does it 'seal'? It seals 'the righteousness that we have by faith'.

Abrahams circumcision was a confirmation that he was right with God (Justified), and our baptism is a confirmation that we are right with God (Justified).

But how do we know that the ones being baptized are really justified? Does the Bible actually tell us to baptized those who are justified? I don't think so. We are simply told to baptize disciples, and those who believe, and those who repent. The sign is for the believer himself, to be a confirmation that he is justified, if he does in fact believe.

What about the infant? I don't now right now. I'm still working on that. If infants are to be baptized, it seems to me that it must work a little differently. Infant Baptism could not be a 'seal' that they have been justified, but maybe it is a sign of entrance into the covenant. I don't know.

But it just doesn't fit with me. It seems unlikely that baptism, to the believer, is a seal that confirms that they are justified, and to the infant, is a seal of entrance into the covenant. Baptism would then be a sign and seal of two different things.

I'm still confused...but I'm still trying to work it out!

Mike

 

[piningforChrist]

Dr. McMahon,

I think that our differing view of the covenants begins and ends at our differing interpretations of Romans.

 

[Mocha]

I wonder if we are trying to compare apple and oranges when we compare the baptism of believers and the baptism of infants. Could it be that the New Testament is dealing especially with the baptism of believers, and the Old Testament sets forth the sacrament in terms of children of believers?

Just a thought!

Mike

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by Mocha
We are simply told to baptize disciples, and those who believe, and those who repent. The sign is for the believer himself, to be a confirmation that he is justified, if he does in fact believe.

Hi Mike:

You are close, but you have an assumption that needs modified. Are we simply told to baptize disciples, or is baptism a component of being a disciple just as teaching is a component of being a disciple?

See what I am saying? Did Jesus say go and find disciples and then baptize and teach them or did he say make disciples by baptizing and teaching them?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Mocha
But how do we know that the ones being baptized are really justified? Does the Bible actually tell us to baptized those who are justified? I don't think so. We are simply told to baptize disciples, and those who believe, and those who repent. The sign is for the believer himself, to be a confirmation that he is justified, if he does in fact believe.

What about the infant? I don't now right now. I'm still working on that. If infants are to be baptized, it seems to me that it must work a little differently. Infant Baptism could not be a 'seal' that they have been justified, but maybe it is a sign of entrance into the covenant. I don't know.

But it just doesn't fit with me. It seems unlikely that baptism, to the believer, is a seal that confirms that they are justified, and to the infant, is a seal of entrance into the covenant. Baptism would then be a sign and seal of two different things.

As you rightly noted, we don't actually know that the ones being baptized are justified, whether infant or adult. Both cases are based upon presumption of one type or another.

Furthermore, as you noted, it is a sign of entrance into the covenant for the infant, but it's important to realize that it is likewise a sign of that very same thing for the adult. And while, as you noted, the adult who keeps that covenant (which all who are elect will do of course) also views it for himself as a sign of his justification, it's important to realize that in time it will likewise come to mean that for the infant who looks back upon it if he has kept the covenant (which all who are elect will do of course). That is why it is significant that baptism's efficacy and significance is not tied to the temporal moment of its administration; indeed, there is a reason we are only baptized once but partake of the Supper repeatedly.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Mocha
I wonder if we are trying to compare apple and oranges when we compare the baptism of believers and the baptism of infants. Could it be that the New Testament is dealing especially with the baptism of believers, and the Old Testament sets forth the sacrament in terms of children of believers?

Just a thought!

Mike

I had wondered that at times as well when I was first studying these issues. But see my post above, as I have tried to clarify why it ultimately turns out to really be the same thing for both the infant and the adult.

 

[Mocha]

Matthew McMahon said:

Circumcision is a sign of God's Abrahamic promise and covenant , and is a symbol of regeneration (Deut. 10, Jeremiah 4), which was given to Abraham and his whole household.

He received the sign of circumcision as a sign of the righteousness...(Romans 4:11)

That "righteousness" justified Abraham and that's what circumcision was a sign and seal of. Where is regeneration mentioned in that verse?

Mike

 

[piningforChrist]

And while, as you noted, the adult who keeps that covenant (which all who are elect will do of course) also views it for himself as a sign of his justification, it's important to realize that in time it will likewise come to mean that for the infant who looks back upon it if he has kept the covenant (which all who are elect will do of course). That is why it is significant that baptism's efficacy and significance is not tied to the temporal moment of its administration; indeed, there is a reason we are only baptized once but partake of the Supper repeatedly.

Here is where I differ. Baptism has no efficacy, that is not its intention. Moreover, the new covenant community is defined in scripture in such a way that it cannot be entered into upon birth and then left when one somehow "breaks" the covenant. There is a discontinuity between the covenants that goes unaswered time and time again on this forum. The Old Covenant could be broken. The New Covenant cannot be broken.

Jeremiah 31:31 "œBehold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, "˜Know the Lord,´ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Jeremiah 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.

The Old Covenant could be broken. The New Covenant cannot be broken.

 

[piningforChrist]

Originally posted by Mocha
Matthew McMahon said:

Circumcision is a sign of God's Abrahamic promise and covenant , and is a symbol of regeneration (Deut. 10, Jeremiah 4), which was given to Abraham and his whole household.

He received the sign of circumcision as a sign of the righteousness...(Romans 4:11)

That "righteousness" justified Abraham and that's what circumcision was a sign and seal of. Where is regeneration mentioned in that verse?

Mike

Mike, VERY good question.

 

[BrianBowman]

Originally posted by piningforChrist
Dr. McMahon,

I think that our differing view of the covenants begins and ends at our differing interpretations of Romans.

... and Matthew, this is where your system of hermeneutics crumbles. You need to begin at the beginning and not with Romans. Romans is not the foundation for understanding the Covenant of Grace. You must begin in Genesis and follow the unfolding of redemptive history forward through the Covenants. If you'll spend much time studying the Old Testament and Biblical/redemptive history you'll have the correct foundation for understanding what is revealed in Romans. You cannot weight Romans as any more imporant than what is revealed in the historical O.T. antecedents and expect to understand the integration of Scripture. Romans (Galatians too) was not written to be the hermeneutical "template" from which all of Biblical soteriology is understood.

 

[piningforChrist]

I never said template. The Old Tesitment is only fully understood under the light of the New.

 

[piningforChrist]

And Romans is the brightest light we have available (subjective opinion), therefore, I suppose that our differences may have something to do with differing observations/interpretations/applications of Romans. I find this opinion verified by the recent comments by Mike.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by piningforChrist

Originally posted by Mocha
Matthew McMahon said:

Circumcision is a sign of God's Abrahamic promise and covenant , and is a symbol of regeneration (Deut. 10, Jeremiah 4), which was given to Abraham and his whole household.

He received the sign of circumcision as a sign of the righteousness...(Romans 4:11)

That "righteousness" justified Abraham and that's what circumcision was a sign and seal of. Where is regeneration mentioned in that verse?

Mike

Mike, VERY good question.

Where is Christ mentioned in the verse?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by piningforChrist

And while, as you noted, the adult who keeps that covenant (which all who are elect will do of course) also views it for himself as a sign of his justification, it's important to realize that in time it will likewise come to mean that for the infant who looks back upon it if he has kept the covenant (which all who are elect will do of course). That is why it is significant that baptism's efficacy and significance is not tied to the temporal moment of its administration; indeed, there is a reason we are only baptized once but partake of the Supper repeatedly.

Here is where I differ. Baptism has no efficacy, that is not its intention. Moreover, the new covenant community is defined in scripture in such a way that it cannot be entered into upon birth and then left when one somehow "breaks" the covenant. There is a discontinuity between the covenants that goes unaswered time and time again on this forum. The Old Covenant could be broken. The New Covenant cannot be broken.

What about the olive tree (Rom. 11:17-24) - does it not need and receive pruning, including in the New Covenant (v. 21-22)? Likewise, do not the branches of the vine (John 15) receive pruning?

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Mocha
Matthew McMahon said:

Circumcision is a sign of God's Abrahamic promise and covenant , and is a symbol of regeneration (Deut. 10, Jeremiah 4), which was given to Abraham and his whole household.

He received the sign of circumcision as a sign of the righteousness...(Romans 4:11)

That "righteousness" justified Abraham and that's what circumcision was a sign and seal of. Where is regeneration mentioned in that verse?

Mike

And then Abraham circumcised his family and those within his gates.

 

[piningforChrist]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by piningforChrist

And while, as you noted, the adult who keeps that covenant (which all who are elect will do of course) also views it for himself as a sign of his justification, it's important to realize that in time it will likewise come to mean that for the infant who looks back upon it if he has kept the covenant (which all who are elect will do of course). That is why it is significant that baptism's efficacy and significance is not tied to the temporal moment of its administration; indeed, there is a reason we are only baptized once but partake of the Supper repeatedly.

Here is where I differ. Baptism has no efficacy, that is not its intention. Moreover, the new covenant community is defined in scripture in such a way that it cannot be entered into upon birth and then left when one somehow "breaks" the covenant. There is a discontinuity between the covenants that goes unaswered time and time again on this forum. The Old Covenant could be broken. The New Covenant cannot be broken.

What about the olive tree (Rom. 11:17-24) - does it not need and receive pruning, including in the New Covenant (v. 21-22)? Likewise, do not the branches of the vine (John 15) receive pruning?

This is a common error of interpretation. Analogies must not be used beyond the immediate application of the author. The promises that the New Covenant cannot be broken (unlike the Old Covenant) are clear from the Jeremiah passages already cited. Beyond the usual arguments (inferences) used for believer baptism, the linchpin of my argument is the discontinuity between the covenants.

Will someone here please answer the discontinuity question?

 

[BrianBowman]

The New Covenant cannot be broken.

... then what in the world does apostasy mean in the New Testament?

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by BrianBowman]

 

[piningforChrist]

hmm, I didn't know the mode of baptism comes down to the nature of the covenants. Interesting.

 

[piningforChrist]

Dr. James White's article on the New Covenant is utterly convincing. I invite any and all who are thinking this issue over to order it, and/or read the following excerpt:

<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px" align=center><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN lang=EN-US>THE NEWNESS OF THE NEW COVENANT: </SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px" align=center><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN lang=EN-US>Better Covenant, Better Mediator, Better Sacrifice,</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px" align=center><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN lang=EN-US>Better Ministry, Better Hope, Better Promises</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN lang=EN-US>James R. White</SPAN></FONT></P>

http://www.rbtr.org/RBTR I.2 The Newness of the New Covenant.htm

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yea. It used to be utterly convincing to me as well until I read Witsius, Owens and Turretin..................

This one's done.

Say good night.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]