Here is a thread that some might want to respond to. I probably won't paraticipate much as I am really burnt out on the baptism debate. I have been debating it for years and have a lot of blogs that answer many of the questions we have already debated.
Anyways,
I am kind of burnt out on the whole baptism debate. I have been doing it for years. You guys can look at my blogs concerning the Covenants, Circumcision, Baptism, Mosaic, or whatever. I initially responded to Nate's question in a credo only forum. A mod noticed that a Paedo baptist posted by mistake and tried to make a new thread. So I complied thinking the Moderator thought the question Pastor Keister asked needed to be addressed.
Here was Pastor Lane Keister's response to my reply.
Anyways,
I am kind of burnt out on the whole baptism debate. I have been doing it for years. You guys can look at my blogs concerning the Covenants, Circumcision, Baptism, Mosaic, or whatever. I initially responded to Nate's question in a credo only forum. A mod noticed that a Paedo baptist posted by mistake and tried to make a new thread. So I complied thinking the Moderator thought the question Pastor Keister asked needed to be addressed.
No, because the covenant was one that differed in scope. Abraham had a mixed covenant that also had to do with his posterity promises that were not included in the Covenant of Grace...
Randy-
Isn't this one main point of contention between credos and paedos, whether or not the New Covenant is defined in part by the Abrahamic (a priori), or if the specifics of each covenant are defined by the explicit teachings on that particular covenant?
I am not sure about your question Nate. The Abrahamic Covenant is a Covenant of Promise and it's fulfillment is found in the seed (Christ). We are Abraham's seed by faith and share in the Covenant of Grace with him. So as a priori, I would say yes. But the Covenant of Circumcision is given to Abraham as its Covenant head. That Covenant is no longer in force as circumcision is also abrogated. But the Covenant given to Abraham finds its fulfillment in Christ as its promises are concerned in the Covenant of Grace. Christ is the Head of the New Covenant. I have a lot of blogs on this topic.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/
Does Baptism Replace Circumcision
John Tombes on Genesis 17:7
Circumcision and Baptism A. W. Pink Colosians 2
Is the New Covenant Really New
Covenant Head and Covenant Children
The Abrahamic Covenant
Here are a few of the blogs that might be relevant to this.
Here was Pastor Lane Keister's response to my reply.
I am glad, Martin, that this is one of the very few points at which we would disagree. The paedo would respond by saying that both the Abrahamic and the New Covenants had an outer and an inner dimension. With Abraham, yes, Ishmael was part of the administration of the covenant. However, he did not belong to the promise: "In Isaac shall your offspring be named." See especially Genesis 17:18-21, where Abraham wanted the covenant to continue through Ishmael, but God replied that Isaac will be the one through whom the covenant as an everlasting covenant will be confirmed. The substance of the covenant did NOT belong to Ishmael, but rather to Isaac. The same is true in the New Covenant, where not all who are baptized belong to the substance of the covenant, but rather only with the elect is the substance of the covenant made. So this argument, unfortunately for the Baptists, does not pass the test of being something that could not be used against circumcision.
Last edited: