Jeremiah 31:31-34 & Infant Baptism

[JSauer]

So you would agree with these two statements :

the old covenant was made with people who were physical descendants of Abraham no matter if they had faith or not.

Now those who are in the covenant are only those who possess faith, but that hasn't always been the case.

My question to you is this: doesn't Paul's definition of Abrahams children in Galatians 3 disprove this? And when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again Jesus scolds him for being Israel's teacher and not knowing this. Why should Nicodemus know something that hasn't yet occurred?

Correct me where I've misunderstood your position.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bruce & Randy,

I am completely open to having my position corrected. It seemed like Randy wasn't in agreement with what I was saying at the beginning of this post and wanted Bruce to explain. Was anything I said out of accord with what confessional Presbyterians believe?

I remember a couple years ago when I was trying to grasp these issues and I was getting a lot of information dumped on me and in an effort to keep things simple I hope I'm not oversimplifying them.

Jesse,
I admit I haven't read your posts with precision, probably because I assume you and I have Confessional agreement. From what I can remember seeing, I don't think I disputed your substance. You were making good attempts at providing basic guidance.

Discussing such issues is an art. It's hard to simplify without oversimplifying. It's hard to walk the line between presentation and argument, if that's where you want to be.

Communication--including listening/paying attention--is a practiced skill. I'm sure this thread will provide you with some lesson for a future conversation.

Peace,

 

[JSauer]

Thank you-- I am glad that there are precise people like yourself to help imprecise people like me. Explaining these things in a biblical way is a skill and I appreciate your example. I can't just tell everyone I meet to talk to go to Michigan and find Bruce, so I need to be able to explain these doctrines clearly.

 

[Hemustincrease]

doesn't Paul's definition of Abrahams children in Galatians 3 disprove this?

Abraham had natural seed and spiritual seed. His natural seed included those whom God ‘hated’ and ‘rejected’ (Ishmael/Esau) and those whom God set apart as a chosen people (and even amongst these special physical descendants, many were not spiritual children or heirs of the spiritual realities of the promise, but only heirs of the physical ’type’ of the better spiritual realities to come.) The promise to Abraham also included spiritual seed, namely and of pivotal importance, Christ as the promised Seed and all those who would believe upon Him (the faithful). In Adam, all sinned and came under condemnation. In Christ, the promised Seed of Abraham, all, whether Jew or Gentile (who are in Him) are set free from that condemnation and receive the fullness of the promise which physical Israel partook of the ‘type’. When people presume that the ‘type’ and the spiritual reality which that type foreshadows are one and the same, they bring in all manner of confusion.

The true heirs of the promise are the faithful. Esau was not one of the faithful. He was not ‘chosen’ unto salvation yet he was still the natural seed of Abraham and a recipient of the natural out workings of the promise given to him. Our Lord made it very clear, that not all of the natural children of Abraham were true children. Not all were faithful. Not all were spiritual children. Not all were going to inherit the glorious spiritual fullness of the promise given to him. Some were in fact, children of the devil! God demonstrated the spiritual unimportance of natural birth in the plainest of ways. He demonstrated it in the stark difference between Isaac and Ishmael and Jacob and Esau. All four were true natural seed of Abraham, but only two received the fullness of the promise. Circumcision of the flesh gave no spiritual or gracious benefit to Esau or to Ishmael. It availeth nothing (so far as spiritual blessings or peace with God etc). The sign and seal of the gracious covenant was to be the circumcision of the heart (pointed to in the sign and seal of the legal covenant) and they (Esau/Ishmael) were ‘uncircumcised’ in that regard despite bearing the sign and seal of the national Israel.

Jesus affirms all this by telling Nicodemus that one must be ‘born again’. Nicodemus should have known this because this Gospel truth had been proclaimed all throughout the Old Covenant era. The Messiah was prophesied. The new birth was prophesied. The New Covenant was prophesied and much of the Old was a type, a shadow of the new, which ‘circumcised’ hearts would have seen and rejoiced with anticipation in.

Those who have circumcised hearts are the true heirs of the promise! There are no children of the devil in this company. All are redeemed, blood bought children and their circumcised hearts are the sign and the seal of the New and better covenant they can rejoice in being eternally a part of.

"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” John 8

Here Jesus tells Jews that they are not the children of Abraham, for they do not his works, but just a few verses later He says this:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.”

In the former He is speaking spiritually and in the latter He is speaking naturally/physically. All Jews are the natural seed of Abraham, but not all are his spiritual seed. The ‘church’ (the body of Christ) does not have any children of the devil within it. All are Christ’s. All are true spiritual seed of Abraham. All are saved by grace. Abraham understood that he would not see the greatest fulfillment of the promise in his day by any means other than spiritual eyes. He did not live to see the Messiah come in the flesh, but he understood (and rejoiced in) as one whose heart was circumcised, that only through the coming Messiah could anyone, no matter who their natural father might be, ‘know God’ and find peace with Him.

 

[MW]

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

It is not wise to be wiser than God. It is an abusing of the ordinance to act the part of God in it. It is for the Lord to manifest His purpose of grace through the means, not for men to manipulate the means to produce their own "selected-elected." It is an unkindness to elect infants to deprive them of the token of God's love in order to keep the means pure. The Lord well knows how to keep His ordinances pure in an impure world.

 

[Hemustincrease]

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

It is not wise to be wiser than God. It is an abusing of the ordinance to act the part of God in it. It is for the Lord to manifest His purpose of grace through the means, not for men to manipulate the means to produce their own "selected-elected." It is an unkindness to elect infants to deprive them of the token of God's love in order to keep the means pure. The Lord well knows how to keep His ordinances pure in an impure world.

Esau was an ‘elect’ infant (insofar as natural seed) and he bore the sign in his flesh, yet God hated him. If baptizing babies is one and the same as the circumcision of infants under the Old Covenant, then how is it a ‘token of God’s love’? What benefit does it confer? It did not confer spiritual blessings then and it cannot do so now. Esau was ultimately condemned along with all the uncircumcised Gentiles and Jacob was saved along with all the Gentiles whose hearts were circumcised.

Nobody can deprive a living soul of the sign and seal of the New Covenant for it is entirely a work of grace.....not of hands!

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:” Colossians 2:11

 

[MW]

Esau was an ‘elect’ infant (insofar as natural seed) and he bore the sign in his flesh, yet God hated him. If baptizing babies is one and the same as the circumcision of infants under the Old Covenant, then how is it a ‘token of God’s love’? What benefit does it confer? It did not confer spiritual blessings then and it cannot do so now. Esau was ultimately condemned along with all the uncircumcised Gentiles and Jacob was saved along with all the Gentiles whose hearts were circumcised.

Esau was not "elect" in the sense the word is being used in this thread, though I grant a temporal and conditional election to external privileges in Esau's case.

The faith of elect Jacob was nurtured under the token of grace, as is every elect infant. I do not know why you would desire to take away the children's bread lest the dogs eat of the crumbs.

 

[Hemustincrease]

Esau and Ishmael were just as much the natural seed of Abraham as Isaac and Jacob were. Yet they were not of the true circumcision. Ishmael was made into a great nation and became the father of 12 rulers. He was thus blessed as a direct result of being the natural seed of Abraham. However, neither were the spiritual seed of Abraham.

If my children are not of the true circumcision, who has deprived them of that? Who deprived Esau?
The outward sign was applied faithfully by Isaac, a man of faith, but God did not circumcise his heart. You may apply water to your babies, but unless God circumcises their hearts, the water will do them no more good than the circumcision of the flesh did for Esau. I am taking nothing away from my children, nor do I have the least bit of concern about dog’s eating crumbs. It bears no relevance to this subject.

I repeat:

"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:” Colossians 2:11

 

[JSauer]

Jo, no one is arguing that receiving the sign in the old or new covenants means that person is regenerated. But it does set the children of believers apart to God in a sense. Just as those who received the old covenant sign are held to a higher accountability so are those who receive it in the new covenant.

Why do you think Col. 11 is followed by: "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

Jer. 4:4 "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds."

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,"



It isn't because circumcision used to be physical and now is spiritual. Just as we are baptized today outwardly, we still need to be baptized inwardly when we are regenerated, just as the Old Testament church.

 

[MW]

If my children are not of the true circumcision, who has deprived them of that? Who deprived Esau?

The issue does not pertain to grace but to means of grace. Secret things belong to the Lord, the things revealed are for us and our children. The correct question is, Who has deprived them of the means of grace? In the case of Esau, no one, not even God, deprived him of the means. His sin was to despise the means and sell his birthright. It was his attitude to the means which manifested he was a profane fellow. There is no sense in depriving infants of the means in the fear they might profane them; the means of grace are the means God uses to save them from profanity.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

First off, is it impossible for infants to know the Lord? I set John the Baptist in front of us all even though that is quite an exceptional situation.

While infants can know the Lord as this text makes clear, it took an equally supernatural endowment of the Holy Spirit on Elizabeth (Lk. 1:41) for her to discern that her infant was so filled. What is at issue is what ought the church to do we do when we don't know the state of the infant.

I believe that is answered. We raise them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. We exercise the means of Grace that God commands. Part of that means is taking them to The Lord, baptizing them, and discipling them as the Gospel commands.

Mat 19:13    Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Mat 19:14    But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:15    And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.


Mat 28:18    And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.Mat 28:19    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20    Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I also had to come to understand what is meant by New. What is New? What is meant by New? The term actually means renewed in Jeremiah 31.

Halliday's lexicon notes that the word used in Jer 31:31 is "new" (châdâsh) not "renewed" (châdash).

I have heard some different explanations Tim. Some dependent upon whether or not it is in verb form or an adjective. The New Testament doesn't use the word neos (brand new) in Hebrews 8 but kainos (refresh) which signifies renewal. Pertaining to the mediator Christ is neos to the Kainos Covenant.
Another help in understanding this would be in John 13:34. A commandment to love each other was nothing new. The commandment to love one another was not neos (brand new) but kainos (refreshed with more). Jesus added more depth to it when he said to love them as He has loved them.


Lev 19:18    Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.


Joh 13:34    A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.


Anyhow... That is how I am understanding this at this time.

 

[timmopussycat]

First off, is it impossible for infants to know the Lord? I set John the Baptist in front of us all even though that is quite an exceptional situation.

While infants can know the Lord as this text makes clear, it took an equally supernatural endowment of the Holy Spirit on Elizabeth (Lk. 1:41) for her to discern that her infant was so filled. What is at issue is what ought the church to do we do when we don't know the state of the infant.

I believe that is answered. We raise them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. We exercise the means of Grace that God commands. Part of that means is taking them to The Lord, baptizing them, and discipling them as the Gospel commands.

Mat 19:13    Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
Mat 19:14    But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:15    And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.


Mat 28:18    And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.Mat 28:19    Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20    Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

So we should follow Jesus command and example: i.e. don't hinder the children from coming to him and don't baptize those who don't ask?

 

[timmopussycat]

I also had to come to understand what is meant by New. What is New? What is meant by New? The term actually means renewed in Jeremiah 31.

Halliday's lexicon notes that the word used in Jer 31:31 is "new" (châdâsh) not "renewed" (châdash).

I have heard some different explanations Tim. Some dependent upon whether or not it is in verb form or an adjective. The New Testament doesn't use the word neos (brand new) in Hebrews 8 but kainos (refresh) which signifies renewal. Pertaining to the mediator Christ is neos to the Kainos Covenant.

Bauer's Lexicon disagrees

. . . in the sense that what is old has become obsolete, and should be replaced by what is new. In such a case the new is, as a rule, superior in kind to the old . . . the new covenant (several Scriptures ending with Heb. 8:8.

And the point of specific relevance to the OP is that one of 3 superiorities stated of the NC over the OC is that "all shall know me" which implies that under the OC all did not know God.

The notion that we can postpone the day in which all in the NC come to know God via an already not yet hermeneutic stumbles at this: the superiorities of the new are specifically stated to eventuate at the making of the covenant.

Another help in understanding this would be in John 13:34. A commandment to love each other was nothing new. The commandment to love one another was not neos (brand new) but kainos (refreshed with more). Jesus added more depth to it when he said to love them as He has loved them.
Lev 19:18    Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Joh 13:34    A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

Although "kainen" is an adjective, its use in Matt. 9:17 is enough to prove it does not always carry the idea of renewing when in that form. In fact there is no example of the word's use in the NT where the context forces a rejection of "new" in favour of "renewed." John 13:34 is a perfect example of why the reading renewed cannot be proven. When Jesus added "as I have loved you to the OT command to love others, his addition creates a new command - a fact which is enough to make the known meaning "new" a sufficient fit against a claimed meaning that fails to demonstrate a better fit in any NT context in which it occurs.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I would also remind you that you should peer at Jeremiah 31 with Jeremiah 32. One problem we have is dividing the scriptures into parts when they shouldn't be. It gives us lop sided understanding when we parse too much.

Agreed that we can get into trouble when we divide the scriptures wrongly. It is worth noting however that Jeremiah 31 seems to be part of a larger section that starts at 29:1 which seems to have taken place rather early in Zedekiah's reign. Jer. 32 on the other hand is dated to Zedekiah's tenth year, thus we may not too quickly assume that the two chapters are linked.

Thanks Tim. You are correct. At the same time though I am seeing the promises in the following chapters to be very relevant and similar. God will be their God. Their hearts are turned toward the Lord. Their sin is forgiven. The difference seems to come to light in the topic of mediator and who has the privilege of knowing God and how he is known. In the Old the Levites were privileged and responsible for the people's knowledge of God. They were the mediators in that capacity. What is promised and different in the New is the mediator. Now everyone (from the least to the greatest) has direct access through Christ. Now there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Similarities are the same God declaring his ownership of a people. Forgiveness is apparent. A heart for God seems apparent. Plus, the Everlasting Covenant is pronounced as it was long before. What is apparent is what was and what is. And I believe our Children play a significant part in this. I don't see that has changed as the context in these passages have to do with the least to the greatest.


Anyways, I hope I have helped you understand what I have seen and what I understand whether I be correct or not. I sure hope I am. ;^)


Jer 32:38    And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
Jer 32:39    And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
Jer 32:40    And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.


Jer 33:6    Behold, I will bring it health and cure, and I will cure them, and will reveal unto them the abundance of peace and truth.
Jer 33:7    And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first.
Jer 33:8    And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.
Jer 33:9    And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it.

 

[Hemustincrease]

Jo, no one is arguing that receiving the sign in the old or new covenants means that person is regenerated. But it does set the children of believers apart to God in a sense. Just as those who received the old covenant sign are held to a higher accountability so are those who receive it in the new covenant.

People who sprinkle their babies believe it brings them into the New Covenant. (It does not.) The New Covenant is made up only of those who ‘believe’ and have repented of their sin. (These are the true circumcision). Their entrance into the New Covenant is conferred upon them by the circumcision of the heart.....a work of God, not of man. Entrance into the New Covenant is not by outward sprinkling or natural birth, but by inner cleansing and spiritual new birth.

Why do you think Col. 11 is followed by: "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

To be buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through faith, is to be circumcised in the heart, not sprinkled with water as a baby. The Biblical ordinance of water baptism which follows this circumcision of the heart, pictures that burial and the raising up with Christ from the dead. If you believe that the water baptism of babies symbolizes this (being buried with Christ and raised with Him through faith) then you must believe that the babies of New Covenant believers are in fact regenerate and possess that required faith, yet you have said they are not! A baby is not buried with Him and raised with Him ‘through the faith of their New Covenant parent/s’. They must first have personal faith.

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,"

‘as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith’ Whose faith? His faith or his parents faith?

‘to make him a father of all who believe without being circumcised’ Personal belief is essential.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12

"And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21

Baptism is not a ritual or the mere removing of dirt from the flesh but is an appeal to God for a good conscience. How can a baby appeal to God for a good conscience? Baptism is the outward expression of an inward appeal to God. This can only happen when true faith is present in the one being baptized. If water baptism is applied to a baby (who cannot make this inward appeal, through personal faith) or to a false professor, then it avails absolutely nothing at all. To think otherwise would certainly appear superstitious and Peter quite plainly does away with any superstition people might have pertaining to it.

 

[Peairtach]

Jo, no one is arguing that receiving the sign in the old or new covenants means that person is regenerated. But it does set the children of believers apart to God in a sense. Just as those who received the old covenant sign are held to a higher accountability so are those who receive it in the new covenant.

People who sprinkle their babies believe it brings them into the New Covenant. (It does not.) The New Covenant is made up only of those who ‘believe’ and have repented of their sin. (These are the true circumcision). Their entrance into the New Covenant is conferred upon them by the circumcision of the heart.....a work of God, not of man. Entrance into the New Covenant is not by outward sprinkling or natural birth, but by inner cleansing and spiritual new birth.

Why do you think Col. 11 is followed by: "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

To be buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through faith, is to be circumcised in the heart, not sprinkled with water as a baby. The Biblical ordinance of water baptism which follows this circumcision of the heart, pictures that burial and the raising up with Christ from the dead. If you believe that the water baptism of babies symbolizes this (being buried with Christ and raised with Him through faith) then you must believe that the babies of New Covenant believers are in fact regenerate and possess that required faith, yet you have said they are not! A baby is not buried with Him and raised with Him ‘through the faith of their New Covenant parent/s’. They must first have personal faith.

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,"

‘as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith’ Whose faith? His faith or his parents faith?

‘to make him a father of all who believe without being circumcised’ Personal belief is essential.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12

"And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21

Baptism is not a ritual or the mere removing of dirt from the flesh but is an appeal to God for a good conscience. How can a baby appeal to God for a good conscience? Baptism is the outward expression of an inward appeal to God. This can only happen when true faith is present in the one being baptized. If water baptism is applied to a baby (who cannot make this inward appeal, through personal faith) or to a false professor, then it avails absolutely nothing at all. To think otherwise would certainly appear superstitious and Peter quite plainly does away with any superstition people might have pertaining to it.

You are saying that the sign, water baptism, should only be applied to those who already have the thing signified, regeneration.

The correct teaching is that the sign should be applied to those who profess faith, whether they are really regenerated or not, and their children, whether they are really regenerated it not. In those who are regenerate and those who are unregenerate, God the Holy Spirit can bless the sign to them with His Word.

You're assuming that God the Holy Spirit can only bless the sign if it's applied after someone has received the thing signified. The power and grace of God are not so limited.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Hemustincrease]

Jo, no one is arguing that receiving the sign in the old or new covenants means that person is regenerated. But it does set the children of believers apart to God in a sense. Just as those who received the old covenant sign are held to a higher accountability so are those who receive it in the new covenant.

People who sprinkle their babies believe it brings them into the New Covenant. (It does not.) The New Covenant is made up only of those who ‘believe’ and have repented of their sin. (These are the true circumcision). Their entrance into the New Covenant is conferred upon them by the circumcision of the heart.....a work of God, not of man. Entrance into the New Covenant is not by outward sprinkling or natural birth, but by inner cleansing and spiritual new birth.

Why do you think Col. 11 is followed by: "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

To be buried with Him in baptism and raised with Him through faith, is to be circumcised in the heart, not sprinkled with water as a baby. The Biblical ordinance of water baptism which follows this circumcision of the heart, pictures that burial and the raising up with Christ from the dead. If you believe that the water baptism of babies symbolizes this (being buried with Christ and raised with Him through faith) then you must believe that the babies of New Covenant believers are in fact regenerate and possess that required faith, yet you have said they are not! A baby is not buried with Him and raised with Him ‘through the faith of their New Covenant parent/s’. They must first have personal faith.

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,"

‘as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith’ Whose faith? His faith or his parents faith?

‘to make him a father of all who believe without being circumcised’ Personal belief is essential.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:12

"And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21

Baptism is not a ritual or the mere removing of dirt from the flesh but is an appeal to God for a good conscience. How can a baby appeal to God for a good conscience? Baptism is the outward expression of an inward appeal to God. This can only happen when true faith is present in the one being baptized. If water baptism is applied to a baby (who cannot make this inward appeal, through personal faith) or to a false professor, then it avails absolutely nothing at all. To think otherwise would certainly appear superstitious and Peter quite plainly does away with any superstition people might have pertaining to it.

You are saying that the sign, water baptism, should only be applied to those who already have the thing signified, regeneration.

The correct teaching is that the sign should be applied to those who profess faith, whether they are really regenerated or not, and their children, whether they are really regenerated it not. In those who are regenerate and those who are unregenerate, God the Holy Spirit can bless the sign to them with His Word.

You're assuming that God the Holy Spirit can only bless the sign if it's applied after someone has received the thing signified. The power and grace of God are not so limited.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

I assume nothing.

The correct teaching is that the New Covenant is a community of circumcised people. There is no back door for the natural born children of the true circumcision. There is one way and one way only. It is not a sprinkling with water. It is a Person and His name is Jesus.

I rejoice in the better promises of the New Covenant and am very, very glad, that I am not merely looking forward to the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham, but am living in the glorious fulfillment and blessings and reality and benefits of it today. To the one who sealed me with His blood, to become a true child of the promise, I give all the glory and to Him, I point my children. Away from all thought of natural privilege and to the necessity of the new birth.

 

[Logan]

I assume nothing.

The correct teaching is that the New Covenant is a community of circumcised people. There is no back door for the natural born children of the true circumcision. There is one way and one way only. It is not a sprinkling with water. It is a Person and His name is Jesus.

Jo, I feel as though in your eagerness to argue against the confessional presbyterian position, you still have not taken the time to understand it. Both sides make assumptions. Both try very conscientiously to hold to scripture. Both seek to exalt Christ as the only way to salvation. We should be careful of talking past each other.

Do you know, for example, that our baptized children are not allowed to the communion table without a profession of faith? There is no "back door" here, as you speak of. Yet at the same time, we lay hold of God's promise to be a God to us and to our children.

Do you think you would you be able, as an exercise, to argue the presbyterian position?

 

[timmopussycat]

I would also remind you that you should peer at Jeremiah 31 with Jeremiah 32. One problem we have is dividing the scriptures into parts when they shouldn't be. It gives us lop sided understanding when we parse too much.

Agreed that we can get into trouble when we divide the scriptures wrongly. It is worth noting however that Jeremiah 31 seems to be part of a larger section that starts at 29:1 which seems to have taken place rather early in Zedekiah's reign. Jer. 32 on the other hand is dated to Zedekiah's tenth year, thus we may not too quickly assume that the two chapters are linked.

Thanks Tim. You are correct. At the same time though I am seeing the promises in the following chapters to be very relevant and similar. God will be their God. Their hearts are turned toward the Lord. Their sin is forgiven. The difference seems to come to light in the topic of mediator and who has the privilege of knowing God and how he is known. In the Old the Levites were privileged and responsible for the people's knowledge of God. They were the mediators in that capacity. What is promised and different in the New is the mediator. Now everyone (from the least to the greatest) has direct access through Christ. Now there is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Similarities are the same God declaring his ownership of a people. Forgiveness is apparent. A heart for God seems apparent. Plus, the Everlasting Covenant is pronounced as it was long before. What is apparent is what was and what is. And I believe our Children play a significant part in this. I don't see that has changed as the context in these passages have to do with the least to the greatest.


Anyways, I hope I have helped you understand what I have seen and what I understand whether I be correct or not. I sure hope I am. ;^)

Jer 32:38    And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
Jer 32:39    And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
Jer 32:40    And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
Jer 33:6    Behold, I will bring it health and cure, and I will cure them, and will reveal unto them the abundance of peace and truth.
Jer 33:7    And I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them, as at the first.
Jer 33:8    And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.
Jer 33:9    And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it.

Yes the promises of the later passage reflect those present in the passage where the New Covenant is first promised and amplify it. But neither passage says anything about the mediator. What is mentioned is the conditions of the covenant itself. And on that note I need to make two points which I forgot last night.
1) Normally when a covenant comes into force all of it comes into force immediately unless a delay is expressly specified for particular provisions to take effect. Nothing is said of any delay affecting any NC provision. So all who are truly in the New Covenant must 'know God' in the sense that the writers of Jeremiah and Hebrews intended from the moment they entered the covenant.
2) Wherever the NC of Jeremiah is referred to in Hebrews, part or all of Jer. 31:31-4 is quoted. When the writer to the Hebrews quotes the Jeremiah passage he uses a word that translates as "new" not "renew". Now it is known that the NT writers feel free on occasion to make their own translations of OT texts under the leading of the Holy Spirit Had our writer thought of what happened at Calvary as a renewed covenant he could have used the word for 'renew' as Paul does in Rom. 12:2. But the writer of Hebrews translates Jeremiah "straight."

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

When the writer to the Hebrews quotes the Jeremiah passage he uses a word that translates as "new" not "renew"

I believe you are incorrect Tim. I could be wrong but my point above in post 102 was that the book of Hebrews does not use the word neos (new) but Kainos (refresh / renew). On the other issue I plainly see that when we take the Hebrews 8 passage and the Jeremiah 31 passages to heart the subject of better mediator is quite significant.

 

[PaulMc]

I assume nothing.

The correct teaching is that the New Covenant is a community of circumcised people. There is no back door for the natural born children of the true circumcision. There is one way and one way only. It is not a sprinkling with water. It is a Person and His name is Jesus.

I rejoice in the better promises of the New Covenant and am very, very glad, that I am not merely looking forward to the fulfillment of the promise given to Abraham, but am living in the glorious fulfillment and blessings and reality and benefits of it today. To the one who sealed me with His blood, to become a true child of the promise, I give all the glory and to Him, I point my children. Away from all thought of natural privilege and to the necessity of the new birth.

It seems to me, reading through the points you are making, is a main point of disagreement is that the meaning of circumcision (it is a sign) is spiritual (pointing to spiritual circumcision i.e. salvation) just as the meaning of baptism is spiritual (pointing to spiritual baptism and salvation, i.e. washing of sin etc).

Regarding who is in the new covenant, the confusion in understanding seems to be that paedobaptists assume an external administration of the covenant (hence Heb 10:29 etc) as well as the true internal covenanting, which no-one would deny is with the regenerate alone. See Louis Berkhof - 'Dual Aspect of the Covenant' in his Systematic Theology for the paedo understanding of this.

 

[PaulMc]

Bruce's comparison chart of circumcision and baptism is excellent, and I also very much appreciate Randy's reposting of Matthew Winzer's explanation of the context and meaning of Hebrews 8.

 

[timmopussycat]

When the writer to the Hebrews quotes the Jeremiah passage he uses a word that translates as "new" not "renew"

I believe you are incorrect Tim. I could be wrong but my point above in post 102 was that the book of Hebrews does not use the word neos (new) but Kainos (refresh / renew).

BAGD does not give "renew" as a possible meaning for kainos in anything other than a person who has been converted in Eph 4.24, and even there the case could be argued that "new" is a better fit in a sentence where "the new self which, in the likeness of God, has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth." As far as I know no Bible translation has translated "kainos" as "renew" anywhere in the NT. Certainly the KJV doesn't. Also the NASB and ESV definitely do not translate the word as "renew" at any point when the subject is the New Covenant. In view of this evidence, I suggest that anyone who suggests that the "kainen diatheken" should be translated "renewed covenant" has the obligation to demonstrate why the latter reading is superior. Lacking such evidence, there is a fairly strong case that translating "kainen" by "renew" is an example of eisegesis.

On the other issue I plainly see that when we take the Hebrews 8 passage and the Jeremiah 31 passages to heart the subject of better mediator is quite significant.

There is absolutely no question that the better mediator of the new covenant is a point of very significant import. But the mediator is not mentioned in either the Jeremiah passage nor its quotation in Hebrews where what is mentioned are specific details by which the New Covenant is superior to the Old.

 

[Hemustincrease]

Do you know, for example, that our baptized children are not allowed to the communion table without a profession of faith?

Yes, I do know that that is how many Presbyterians practice their doctrine, but I also know that it is inconsistent practice (why should a baptized New Covenant member, a child of the promise, be refused admission to the Lord’s table?) and there are those who plainly see that inconsistency........some of those practice paedo communion (which is at least consistent with everything else they teach, even though it is as unbiblical as infant baptism) and others would prefer to practice it but are not permitted to do so by higher rulings within the church. Then there are those such as yourself, who baptize their babies but believe it right to refuse them admission to the Lord’s table.

I grant that from the brief posts I am able/wish to make on this forum, it might appear that I am coming at this subject from a position of ignorance but this is not the case.

If somebody told me that they believed the sky was pink with yellow spots, I would be able to understand what they believe (the sky is pink with yellow spots) and could maybe even deliver a fine argument (all based on falsehood of course) to support what they believe, but their actual belief would remain utterly incomprehensible. This is pretty much how it is with paedobaptism.

My desire is not to argue against something as much as contend ‘for’ the faith. This subject is crucial isn’t it? If we have the wrong understanding of baptism, we have the wrong understanding of the Gospel. That renders it something which I am passionate about as a result of being passionate about the Gospel. Are paedobaptists without passion for the Gospel, for the truth, for Christ? Of course not, but I believe, without shadow of a doubt, that their passion is misplaced and their understanding built upon very faulty foundations.

 

[timmopussycat]

Missed this on the first passing through this thread.

I don't know if I am the "you referred to in the following, but I'll answer anyway.

So you would agree with these two statements :

the old covenant was made with people who were physical descendants of Abraham no matter if they had faith or not.

Yes the Sinaitic covenant was made with all of national Israel.

Now those who are in the covenant are only those who possess faith, but that hasn't always been the case.

If you mean "Now, i.e. in the New Covenant those who are . . .," I answer yes. If by the Covenant you mean the Old Covenant, I answer no.

My question to you is this: doesn't Paul's definition of Abraham's children in Galatians 3 disprove this?

No, for those children of Abraham who lived under Sinai and had faith were included in both covenants but those who either did or do not have faith whether under the Old Covenant or in the era of the New are not children of Abraham.

And when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again Jesus scolds him for being Israel's teacher and not knowing this. Why should Nicodemus know something that hasn't yet occurred?

Because Christ was rebuking him for a failure to understand something else.

As Don Carson has shown (Exegetical Fallacies p. 48), Ezekiel prophesied a time of eschatological cleansing (36:25-27) in which God gives a new heart and a new spirit. In his view "birth" or "begetting of water and spirit" is "thus not a hendiadys but a reference to the dual work of the spirit who simultaneously purifies and imparts God's nature to man." And it is this that Nicodemus should have understood, and it was for his failure to understand this point that Christ chided him.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

On the other issue I plainly see that when we take the Hebrews 8 passage and the Jeremiah 31 passages to heart the subject of better mediator is quite significant.

There is absolutely no question that the better mediator of the new covenant is a point of very significant import. But the mediator is not mentioned in either the Jeremiah passage nor its quotation in Hebrews where what is mentioned are specific details by which the New Covenant is superior to the Old.

I don't mean to be disrespectful Tim but are we reading the same passages in Hebrews 8? The whole premise is about Christ's priesthood.

(Heb 8:1) Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

(Heb 8:2) A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.


(Heb 8:3) For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.


(Heb 8:4) For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:


(Heb 8:5) Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.


(Heb 8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.


(Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.


(Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:


(Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.


(Heb 8:10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:


(Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.


(Heb 8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.


(Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

 

[littlepeople]

Just to point out a quick something which makes a huge difference:

People who sprinkle their babies believe it brings them into the New Covenant.

This is not the case. The confessional belief is that they belong to the covenant because they were born to believing parents. They are baptized because it is their right as covenant members.

from the DPW

That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized

Brennan, Good for you for taking the commands of God so seriously. I (like most of us here I'm sure) waded through the same texts as you are now, and I got to know God's word much better and loved Him more. I can recommend picking up a little book called "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology"– by C. Matthew McMahon - the proprietor of this website.

One little nugget from that book which helped me was this: consider Acts 21:17-26 - Paul's actions here make a clear case for infant inclusion in the early christian church. So either Paul is wrong here, and he misunderstood the teaching of Jeremiah. OR Jeremiah doesn't mean what credo's think it means, and infants are included in the new covenant administration. Just something to think about.

Enjoy your pursuit - it was fun for me - hope it is for you too.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

When the writer to the Hebrews quotes the Jeremiah passage he uses a word that translates as "new" not "renew"

I believe you are incorrect Tim. I could be wrong but my point above in post 102 was that the book of Hebrews does not use the word neos (new) but Kainos (refresh / renew).

BAGD does not give "renew" as a possible meaning for kainos in anything other than a person who has been converted in Eph 4.24, and even there the case could be argued that "new" is a better fit in a sentence where "the new self which, in the likeness of God, has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth." As far as I know no Bible translation has translated "kainos" as "renew" anywhere in the NT. Certainly the KJV doesn't. Also the NASB and ESV definitely do not translate the word as "renew" at any point when the subject is the New Covenant. In view of this evidence, I suggest that anyone who suggests that the "kainen diatheken" should be translated "renewed covenant" has the obligation to demonstrate why the latter reading is superior. Lacking such evidence, there is a fairly strong case that translating "kainen" by "renew" is an example of eisegesis.

Okay Tim. BAGD is not the all in all although it is a very important useful work.

Here is Walter Kaiser an Old Testament Scholar on this topic and he isn't known as an adherent to Covenant Theology.

The Uses of the Old Testament in the New

By Walter C. Kaiser. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New - Walter C. Kaiser - Google Books

In 2 Corinthians 5:17 Christians are noted to be new creatures in Christ. Obviously the person is the same person but is new (Kianos) in Christ. We are being made into a new man. We can also look at the (kainos) new man of Ephesians 2:15 which has its root in the Israelite's or the new man which is renewed in Colossians 3:10. We can go back and forth on this topic but I will just leave it at this. I believe you have failed to understand the positions I am only trying to help you understand that I hold to and why I hold to them. I don't expect you to change and I am only trying to help you understand why I believe what I do and why. May God bring us both closer to him.

 

[Hemustincrease]

There is no sense in depriving infants of the means in the fear they might profane them; the means of grace are the means God uses to save them from profanity.

So, are you saying that God uses water baptism as the gracious means to save uncircumcised (faithless) babies from profanity......but they could grow up and resist that grace and be profane anyway?
How is this ‘better’ than the Old Covenant?
How is a sprinkled baby any ‘better' off than a circumcised Esau or an uncircumcised Gentile?
How is a baby that could grow up to resist grace and be profane (condemned/outside of Christ etc) a child of the (New Covenant) promise?
What part of the promise is theirs for certain? What do they actually inherit as ‘New Covenant children’ if not eternal life?

Of course, we then come almost full circle. To you, a child of the promise is equally an Esau or a Jacob an Ishmael or an Isaac for all had the outward sign applied. To me, a child of the promise can only ever be an Isaac or a Jacob for only they were inwardly circumcised.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” ! Peter

The New Covenant proclaims promises such as these! No wonder it is called the ‘Gospel’. Wonderful, glorious promises which every single member of the New Covenant can know for certain apply to them. Yet baptized babies cannot own these promises can they? After all, they might grow up to be an Esau. So which promise/s are paedobaptists saying their natural children can be certain of, if any?