God's Vengeance on Covenant Breakers - Calvin's View

[non dignus]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Do you think Calvin was wrong in his view for his day?

Or, do you think that Calvin allowed the social concerns of the day to affect his interpretation of the text, or was it vice versa?

No, I don't think Calvin was wrong in his view. I don't read him as interpreting scripture by events in his life. If that were the case, his books would not have the longevity they have.

The 16th and 17th centuries were man's finest hour.

What makes me tremble is that we know that the Lord is a God of precision. A casual reading of the book of Numbers tells us that He has little tolerance for creative worship styles. Add to the fact that we are no longer under a school master; we are full grown theologically and these are the last days.

So I plead with my Baptist brothers and all my brethren: Make your calling and election sure.

David - I plead with you to say what you seem to be hinting at. Do you believe credo baptists are not saved...that they are not believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and part of the body of Christ? I want to hear people say "yes" or "no." I'm not much for fence sitting.

Hi Bill,

In my heart, I believe credo-baptists are saved. However, I also believe that the heart is wicked above all things. I'm not being flippant here, I hope the baptist error is not catastrophic. " ....if the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear? "

I am saddened that there is a separation so great between us that we are forced to be in different communions.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Do you think Calvin was wrong in his view for his day?

Or, do you think that Calvin allowed the social concerns of the day to affect his interpretation of the text, or was it vice versa?

No, I don't think Calvin was wrong in his view. I don't read him as interpreting scripture by events in his life. If that were the case, his books would not have the longevity they have.

The 16th and 17th centuries were man's finest hour.

What makes me tremble is that we know that the Lord is a God of precision. A casual reading of the book of Numbers tells us that He has little tolerance for creative worship styles. Add to the fact that we are no longer under a school master; we are full grown theologically and these are the last days.

So I plead with my Baptist brothers and all my brethren: Make your calling and election sure.

David - I plead with you to say what you seem to be hinting at. Do you believe credo baptists are not saved...that they are not believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and part of the body of Christ? I want to hear people say "yes" or "no." I'm not much for fence sitting.

Hi Bill,

In my heart, I believe credo-baptists are saved. However, I also believe that the heart is wicked above all things. I'm not being flippant here, I hope the baptist error is not catastrophic. " ....if the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear? "

I am saddened that there is a separation so great between us that we are forced to be in different communions.

David - so you hope, but you don't know.

I have to tell you, I am bothered by this whole line of reasoning. I believe there is such a thing as carrying a theological system too far. We say that individuals are saved by "grace (alone) through faith (alone)." If anyone places their faith in Christ (alone), repents of their sins and follows Him, we would say that they are part of the church. We would emphatically deny any assertion of baptismal regeneration. We would all be orthodox in our soteriology. But then comes the great bane, eccelesiology.

Because Christians are "children of Abraham", CT's believe that baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign. Under the old covenant, males who were uncircumsized were to be cut off from the people. Calvin is suggesting (and some of you are argeeing) that failure to be baptized as an infant should result in the same cutting off. Maybe we need to define terms. What exactly is the cutting off? Is it church discipline? Excommunication? A realization that the individual(s) is not saved and not part of the body of Christ? We better define these terms and define them well. If it is being suggested that the individual(s) is not part of the body of Christ, then I suggest that CT theology has created a dichotomy between soteriology and eccelesiology. How else could I not come to that conclusion when we will stand together and shout "amen!" on Calvinism, but be willing to label our "brother" anathema on the issue of baptism?

Matt, you have not introduced a minor debate.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Do you think Calvin was wrong in his view for his day?

Or, do you think that Calvin allowed the social concerns of the day to affect his interpretation of the text, or was it vice versa?

No, I don't think Calvin was wrong in his view. I don't read him as interpreting scripture by events in his life. If that were the case, his books would not have the longevity they have.

The 16th and 17th centuries were man's finest hour.

What makes me tremble is that we know that the Lord is a God of precision. A casual reading of the book of Numbers tells us that He has little tolerance for creative worship styles. Add to the fact that we are no longer under a school master; we are full grown theologically and these are the last days.

So I plead with my Baptist brothers and all my brethren: Make your calling and election sure.

David - I plead with you to say what you seem to be hinting at. Do you believe credo baptists are not saved...that they are not believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and part of the body of Christ? I want to hear people say "yes" or "no." I'm not much for fence sitting.

Hi Bill,

In my heart, I believe credo-baptists are saved. However, I also believe that the heart is wicked above all things. I'm not being flippant here, I hope the baptist error is not catastrophic. " ....if the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear? "

I am saddened that there is a separation so great between us that we are forced to be in different communions.

David - so you hope, but you don't know.

I have to tell you, I am bothered by this whole line of reasoning. I believe there is such a thing as carrying a theological system too far. We say that individuals are saved by "grace (alone) through faith (alone)." If anyone places their faith in Christ (alone), repents of their sins and follows Him, we would say that they are part of the church. We would emphatically deny any assertion of baptismal regeneration. We would all be orthodox in our soteriology. But then comes the great bane, eccelesiology.

Great bane?

Aye, faith and practice. We know who the faithful are by the signs of faith, namely word and sacrament. Without the church and accompanying signs would there not be great confusion as to who has the approval of God? Who really believes?

Because Christians are "children of Abraham", CT's believe that baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign. Under the old covenant, males who were uncircumsized were to be cut off from the people. Calvin is suggesting (and some of you are argeeing) that failure to be baptized as an infant should result in the same cutting off. Maybe we need to define terms. What exactly is the cutting off? Is it church discipline? Excommunication? A realization that the individual(s) is not saved and not part of the body of Christ? We better define these terms and define them well.

To the term, "cut off", perhaps scripture is a bit vague on purpose. We agree we don't want to be cut off. That is enough.

If it is being suggested that the individual(s) is not part of the body of Christ, then I suggest that CT theology has created a dichotomy between soteriology and eccelesiology. How else could I not come to that conclusion when we will stand together and shout "amen!" on Calvinism, but be willing to label our "brother" anathema on the issue of baptism?

I think you make a good point here. Baptist theology seems to have a glitch that divorces ecclesiology from soteriology. Perhaps what Calvin was driving at is this: to swear off baptism is to swear off the church.

 

[Herald]

David...

I think you make a good point here. Baptist theology seems to have a glitch that divorces ecclesiology from soteriology.

We're going to go round and round on this one. One of the problems I am having with CT is the "glitch" that adds to ecclesiology that which is not in soteriology. Result? A logical inconsistency.

btw...the phrase "great bane" was used more to underscore the conflict in the discussion, not that ecclesiology is a dreaded word or subject.

Aye, faith and practice. We know who the faithful are by the signs of faith, namely word and sacrament. Without the church and accompanying signs would there not be great confusion as to who has the approval of God? Who really believes?

David, I am in whole agreement with you on "faith and practice." Jesus did say:

Matthew 7:21 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven.

Both sides of the debate would be pointing their howitzers at each other while making similar statements.

I am sure this is where Matt wants to bring this discussion. Was Calvin correct? Was he over-zealous? Is a credobaptist still in their sins? Based on what Matt posted, Calvin's phraseology sure seems to indicate that is the case. But does a quote from Calvin make it so? I am not prepared to label my paedo brothers as unsaved. To think they would label me as unsaved is not just offensive, it is cause for me to break any fellowship I may have with them.

David, as an aisde, my attachments to dispensationalism are unrecognizable to me. There may be some dispensational practices that I hold to (out of ignorance), but I have formally forsaken the system itself. I don't want to oversimplify my statement, nor do I wish to trivialize any differences that remain, but the only major "beef" I have with CT is paedobaptism. That is just to give you an insight as to where I am theologically.

Blessings.

Bill

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Was Calvin correct? Was he over-zealous? Is a credobaptist still in their sins? Based on what Matt posted, Calvin's phraseology sure seems to indicate that is the case. But does a quote from Calvin make it so?

Definitely not, Calvin saying something does not make it so.

Next question would be how the entire historical church, say from 70 AD to 1650AD, thought about excommunication, and its implicaitons?

In other words, if Christ gives pastors and teachers to the church to teach us, then what is the concensus on thier teaching? We obviously never do exegesis and theology in a vacuum. Are there others that have this same line of reasoning? Calvin, for example, was a great mimicker, especially of explaining, for example, Augustine.

I'll do some digging.

 

[MW]

Augustine is a good one to mention, since he would associate severe discipline with Donatism. Many in his time postponed baptism because of the view of its efficacy to wash away sin.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Do you think Calvin was wrong in his view for his day?

Or, do you think that Calvin allowed the social concerns of the day to affect his interpretation of the text, or was it vice versa?

No, I don't think Calvin was wrong in his view. I don't read him as interpreting scripture by events in his life. If that were the case, his books would not have the longevity they have.

The 16th and 17th centuries were man's finest hour.

What makes me tremble is that we know that the Lord is a God of precision. A casual reading of the book of Numbers tells us that He has little tolerance for creative worship styles. Add to the fact that we are no longer under a school master; we are full grown theologically and these are the last days.

So I plead with my Baptist brothers and all my brethren: Make your calling and election sure.

David - I plead with you to say what you seem to be hinting at. Do you believe credo baptists are not saved...that they are not believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and part of the body of Christ? I want to hear people say "yes" or "no." I'm not much for fence sitting.

Hi Bill,

In my heart, I believe credo-baptists are saved. However, I also believe that the heart is wicked above all things. I'm not being flippant here, I hope the baptist error is not catastrophic. " ....if the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear? "

I am saddened that there is a separation so great between us that we are forced to be in different communions.

David - so you hope, but you don't know.

I have to tell you, I am bothered by this whole line of reasoning. I believe there is such a thing as carrying a theological system too far. We say that individuals are saved by "grace (alone) through faith (alone)." If anyone places their faith in Christ (alone), repents of their sins and follows Him, we would say that they are part of the church. We would emphatically deny any assertion of baptismal regeneration. We would all be orthodox in our soteriology. But then comes the great bane, eccelesiology.

Because Christians are "children of Abraham", CT's believe that baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign. Under the old covenant, males who were uncircumsized were to be cut off from the people. Calvin is suggesting (and some of you are argeeing) that failure to be baptized as an infant should result in the same cutting off. Maybe we need to define terms. What exactly is the cutting off? Is it church discipline? Excommunication? A realization that the individual(s) is not saved and not part of the body of Christ? We better define these terms and define them well. If it is being suggested that the individual(s) is not part of the body of Christ, then I suggest that CT theology has created a dichotomy between soteriology and eccelesiology. How else could I not come to that conclusion when we will stand together and shout "amen!" on Calvinism, but be willing to label our "brother" anathema on the issue of baptism?

Matt, you have not introduced a minor debate.

Bill,
Matt Mc. earlier in this thread posted some treatments of what it meant to be 'cut off'; have you looked at them? As well, in a earlier thread that was started on the subject, I posted some information on what it meant to be without the sign:

That can be found here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20426

In regrads to the sign now being baptism, Nigel Lee helps with dispelling any doubt how this naturally occured. That can be found here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20678

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon

Next question would be how the entire historical church, say from 70 AD to 1650AD, thought about excommunication, and its implications?

"Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."

Perdition.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Do you think Calvin was wrong in his view for his day?

Or, do you think that Calvin allowed the social concerns of the day to affect his interpretation of the text, or was it vice versa?

No, I don't think Calvin was wrong in his view. I don't read him as interpreting scripture by events in his life. If that were the case, his books would not have the longevity they have.

The 16th and 17th centuries were man's finest hour.

What makes me tremble is that we know that the Lord is a God of precision. A casual reading of the book of Numbers tells us that He has little tolerance for creative worship styles. Add to the fact that we are no longer under a school master; we are full grown theologically and these are the last days.

So I plead with my Baptist brothers and all my brethren: Make your calling and election sure.

David - I plead with you to say what you seem to be hinting at. Do you believe credo baptists are not saved...that they are not believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and part of the body of Christ? I want to hear people say "yes" or "no." I'm not much for fence sitting.

Hi Bill,

In my heart, I believe credo-baptists are saved. However, I also believe that the heart is wicked above all things. I'm not being flippant here, I hope the baptist error is not catastrophic. " ....if the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear? "

I am saddened that there is a separation so great between us that we are forced to be in different communions.

David - so you hope, but you don't know.

I have to tell you, I am bothered by this whole line of reasoning. I believe there is such a thing as carrying a theological system too far. We say that individuals are saved by "grace (alone) through faith (alone)." If anyone places their faith in Christ (alone), repents of their sins and follows Him, we would say that they are part of the church. We would emphatically deny any assertion of baptismal regeneration. We would all be orthodox in our soteriology. But then comes the great bane, eccelesiology.

Because Christians are "children of Abraham", CT's believe that baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign. Under the old covenant, males who were uncircumsized were to be cut off from the people. Calvin is suggesting (and some of you are argeeing) that failure to be baptized as an infant should result in the same cutting off. Maybe we need to define terms. What exactly is the cutting off? Is it church discipline? Excommunication? A realization that the individual(s) is not saved and not part of the body of Christ? We better define these terms and define them well. If it is being suggested that the individual(s) is not part of the body of Christ, then I suggest that CT theology has created a dichotomy between soteriology and eccelesiology. How else could I not come to that conclusion when we will stand together and shout "amen!" on Calvinism, but be willing to label our "brother" anathema on the issue of baptism?

Matt, you have not introduced a minor debate.

Bill,
Matt Mc. earlier in this thread posted some treatments of what it meant to be 'cut off'; have you looked at them? As well, in a earlier thread that was started on the subject, I posted some information on what it meant to be without the sign:

That can be found here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20426

In regrads to the sign now being baptism, Nigel Lee helps with dispelling any doubt how this naturally occurred. That can be found here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20678

Scott - I perused the first link and found a few posts that seemed to touch on being cut off. To be honest, the thread is huge and I don't have the time to look at each post. What I was able to glean (from your responses) was that you view credo parents as covenant breakers. My main contention with this thread is trying to get someone from your side to come clean on what this really means. I just want to know, do you believe credo parents are saved? Are part of the body of Christ? Terms such as, covenant breakers and cut off aren't telling me much until the terms are defined. Am I asking too much? Is it wrong to ask the simple question? I am not trying to be divisive. I just want to know.

Your second point (about baptism replacing circumcision) is not a bone of contention with me. I understand your view on that issue. I'm not there, but I understand it.

Just looking for some plain answers.....

Bill

 

[Calvibaptist]

OK, Here's my 2 cents worth (from a Reformed Baptist view) on signs of the covenant.

Circumcision was the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, given to all of Abraham's children (both believers - Isaac, and unbelievers - Ishmael). I have read Matt's book on CT and repented of my not thinking in those terms before.

Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, which replaces the sign of circumcision. Some of my Baptist friends might disagree with me, but this is how I see the teaching of the NT.

Circumcision was given to every physical child of Abraham as a sign that they were in the covenant. The question for Baptists has always been, "To whom do we give the sign of Baptism?" If Baptism replaces the sign of circumcision for the spiritual children of Abraham, how do you become a spiritual child of Abraham? Is it being born physically to a believer? Or is it by faith?

Romans 4:9-16 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. 13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 <b>Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all </b>

Notice that Paul in discussing justification by faith deals with the sign of circumcision. He also tells us who the true children of Abraham are (who should therefore be receiving the sign of baptism). The seed, those who receive the promise (the covenant) are those who are of the faith of Abraham. Not those who are born to elect parents.

Now, I can see why disagreements over this issue would cause people to break fellowship (denominationalize). I do not see how disagreement over this issue would cause one to suggest that the other is unsaved. It appears that Calvin was saying this. If this is so, then I disagree with him.

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by Calvibaptist]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Doug,
Paul is speaking of the invisible church, Gods elect. The above in no way abbrogates the command to place the sign on our children. How in the world did you get that from the above? In the same way Abrahams righteousness was accounted to him prior to his circumcision, it is as well accounted to our elect children prior to their baptism; if indeed they are elect. We place the sign in faith; assuming. In the same way, the baptist assumes as he applies the sacrament to ALL the candidates of baptism; This is a fact that cannot be avoided. Plenty of credo baptists have walked away from the faith whom have had the sign placed upon them. Was this a mistake on the credo's behalf? Greg, you say above that the recipients of baptism should only be those that are elect. This is shooting the credo in the big toe; who can know this???

Bill,
Hermenuetics and continuity are key in understanding the Presbyterian perspectivce. The reason I suggested you read Lee's paper is because in the paper, you will see how baptism was actually a Jewish concept and the transition not so odd. As well, after acknowledging this in light of Lee's paper, one can easily see the family unit and continuity continuing in that regard.

Well, where does this lead? If the continuity is there and the family unit is as well enforced and supported, not to mention Gods immutability, i.e God is a covenantal God and a God of families, Gen 17 would have to be tragic for those whom disregard it; the outcome is clear in the text; one is cut off, unclean, cast away.

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Herald]

Scott Bushey wrote:

Well, where does this lead? If the continuity is there and the family unit is as well enforced and supported, not to mention Gods immutability, i.e God is a covenantal God and a God of families, Gen 17 would have to be tragic for those whom disregard it; the outcome is clear in the text; one is cut off, unclean, cast away.

Scott, I follow your logic. I suppose this is as plain an answer to my question as I am going to get. Please correct me if I am wrong, but if one rejects the covenant sign of paedobaptism, then that person has no part with Christ. They are not justified. They are not saved. Unless I am misreading what you have written, this is your position.

What does that lead me to conclude? A few things:

1. I am considered to be an unbeliever because of my credobaptist stand.

2. All credobaptists are considered to be unbelievers.

3. A person can only be a believer if they believe/practice paedobaptism.

Needless to say, this grieves me. I thought I was accepted on the PB as a fellow brother in Christ. I am not going to over react. I know that not everyone on the PB believes that credos are not brothers in Christ. But the fact that some do distresses me.

Scott, if I am misrepresenting your view, I apologize. It is not my intent to twist words. I have been asking for a plain statement on the issue. One has not been forthcoming. Your response was the plainest I have seen. Let me know if my assessment of what you are saying is correct (or not). If it is, I have another question. Should not the PB require all members to be paedo? If credos are not part of the body of Christ, why should they be allowed to join the PB?

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Bill,
Gods elect will persevere! Surely some of Gods elect are in the credo baptist camp; I was. I don't believe ALL credobaptists are falling under this judgment. However, credobaptists whom have children must be; would you disagree with the text? Tjhats what it conveys, does it not? Moses failed to circumcise his child and his wife ended up having to do it; she ended up calling him 'husband of blood'.

Answers to your statements:


1. I am considered to be an unbeliever because of my credobaptist stand.

~Not necessarily; The WCF calls this error as a 'great sin'. Nowhere else in the confession is this type of language used. I cannot know your position in Christ; only God knows. The passage in Genesis is concerning, none the less.

2. All credobaptists are considered to be unbelievers.

~See above

3. A person can only be a believer if they believe/practice paedobaptism.

~Gods elect will persevere and Christ will lose none.

 

[Jie-Huli]

As I posted before (later withdrawn, as it was not directly on point at the time), the direct application of Genesis 17.14 to credo-baptists is not an appropriate one.

Genesis 17.14 deals with individuals who simply refused to take the sign of the covenant, circumcision, showing thereby that they despised both the institution and the covenant it signified. There was certainly no question of these people merely "delaying" the sign of circumcision due to their interpretation of the command.

Credo-baptists, on the other hand, certainly do not despise the sign of the covenant. Surely this is key. Not only have credo-baptist parents taken the sign of the covenant themselves, they greatly long to see their children take the sign (and embrace the substance) of the covenant as well. The question is primarily one of timing, credo-baptists believing that the sign should not be administered until their children personally profess faith in Christ. But they can in no wise be likened to the people who flat refused the covenant of circumcision in the Old Testament era.

Now for paeodobaptists to say that credo-baptists are in error in their understanding of baptism, yea, even in sin, I can understand well. But to go further and make a direct application of Genesis 17.14 as to credo-baptists being "cut off" is a tremendous mistake.

Blessings,

Jie-huli

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
3. A person can only be a believer if they believe/practice paedobaptism.

~Gods elect will persevere and Christ will lose none.

Which means that we credos, who are of the elect, will eventually become Paedo.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Ivan

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
3. A person can only be a believer if they believe/practice paedobaptism.

~Gods elect will persevere and Christ will lose none.

Which means that we credos, who are of the elect, will eventually become Paedo.

Ivan...yeah...I kinda took it that way.

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by Jie-Huli
As I posted before (later withdrawn, as it was not directly on point at the time), the direct application of Genesis 17.14 to credo-baptists is not an appropriate one.

Genesis 17.14 deals with individuals who simply refused to take the sign of the covenant, circumcision, showing thereby that they despised both the institution and the covenant it signified. There was certainly no question of these people merely "delaying" the sign of circumcision due to their interpretation of the command.

Credo-baptists, on the other hand, certainly do not despise the sign of the covenant. Surely this is key. Not only have credo-baptist parents taken the sign of the covenant themselves, they greatly long to see their children take the sign (and embrace the substance) of the covenant as well. The question is primarily one of timing, credo-baptists believing that the sign should not be administered until their children personally profess faith in Christ. But they can in no wise be likened to the people who flat refused the covenant of circumcision in the Old Testament era.

Now for paeodobaptists to say that credo-baptists are in error in their understanding of baptism, yea, even in sin, I can understand well. But to go further and make a direct application of Genesis 17.14 as to credo-baptists being "cut off" is a tremendous mistake.

Blessings,

Jie-huli

Jie, what a comfort it was to read your post. I actually never viewed it that way (because I haven't considered my credo position to be in error). Upon review, Genesis 17:14 certainly does seem to deal with those who despise circumcision.

Thank you for the insight.

Bill

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jie,
God does not tell Abraham to place the sign upon his children and maidservants when the mood hits him. The sign is to be placed expediantly. Does the passage not say infants? The response, on our part, to the command is obedience; Is it obedience if someone places the sign when they are good and ready? Why was Zipporah so upset with Moses when he tarried??? Why did God seek to kill Moses??? Was Nahab and Abihu wrong when they offered up strange fire to God in worship? As well, the sign is placed in faith, by the parent on the child. Not the other way around. So, as you say, timing is key! And as far as the credo baptist dispising the sign; they do despise the sign. Thats why this large gulf exists! Thats the point; They have reinterpreted the protocol and made the sign something it is not. They have redefined it to fit their own situations and credo discipline; They hate the idea of placing a sign upon any infant. This is a break in the second commandment; it is a golden calf and an invention of their own minds.

The command was to separate Gods people from the Gentile; Gentiles were considered unclean. The man who rejected placing the sign was cut off and seen as unclean. What the baptist is doing is essentially dipping themselves in mud, them and thier seed, and making themselves unclean ln Gods sight. Would a future bapstim satisfy? Yes and no.

For the time, lets just look at the passage: Are the people whom refuse to obey Gods command 'cut off' or not? Does God not say that those whom refuse to place the sign upon their infants, children and maidservants, breaking His covenant?

3772 tr;K' karath {kaw-rath'}
Meaning: 1) to cut, cut off, cut down, cut off a body part, cut out, eliminate, kill, cut a covenant 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to cut off 1a1a) to cut off a body part, behead 1a2) to cut down 1a3) to hew 1a4) to cut or make a covenant 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be cut off 1b2) to be cut down 1b3) to be chewed 1b4) to be cut off, fail 1c) (Pual) 1c1) to be cut off 1c2) to be cut down 1d) (Hiphil) 1d1) to cut off 1d2) to cut off, destroy 1d3) to cut down, destroy 1d4) to take away 1d5) to permit to perish 1e) (Hophal) cut off
Origin: a primitive root; TWOT - 1048; v

The above is used 284 times in the bible. A word study clarifies any misconception.


Food for thought.

I am closing this thread.



[Edited on 9-15-2006 by Scott Bushey]