Non-elect infants in the CoG - Christ as mediator

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Baptism at its simplest is supposed to bring the child into covenant with God, though there is no text that indicates that this is so.

Wrong.

In the OT, flesh-circumcision was the sign, and heart-circumcision was the thing signified.

In the NT, water-baptism is the sign, and Spirit-baptism is the thing signified.

Check Galatians 3:27, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 1:13, etc. --- If Spirit baptism brings people in the invisible church, then water baptism brings them into the visible church. If the Spirit is the seal of the invisible membership in the covenant, then the water is the seal of the outward membership in the covenant.

With respect, you have not produced any text that shows that infants are brought into the New Covenant by baptism. That is because there is no such text. You have also quoted various texts out of context. Gal 2:26-27. 'For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.' It is by faith that one comes into the Church of Christ. Baptism is the outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly- the sign that one has already trusted in Christ for salvation and is therefore admitted into church fellowship. 1Cor 12:13 and Eph 1:13 also speak of faith as that which brings us into the covenant. I reject the concept of a 'visible' and 'invisible' church. It is deeply unhelpful. We are to strive for a pure church (2Cor 11:2 ) and while we may not achieve it, we should bring into the Church only those who make a credible confession of faith.

What did circumcision signify? Well, to Abraham it was 'The seal of the righteousness of faith which he had while still uncircumcised.' However, it cannot have meant that to the male infants who were circumcised at eight days old. It was a sign of the promise made to Abraham of the Seed who should come (Gal 3:16 ). Abraham is the father of all who believe, not of all who are circumcised (John 8:39, 44 ), nor therefore of those who are baptized without faith.
Colossians 2:11-12 is important here too. Just as heart circumcision is analgous to Spirit baptism, so is flesh circumcision analgous to water baptism.
That is not what the text says. It says that those who are Christ's have the true circumcision, which is not of the flesh but of the heart. Again, v12 shows us that baptism without faith is meaningless.
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
However some paedo-baptists presume either the election or regeneration of the infants of believers.

Jesus said the kingdom of God belongs to infants who are covenant members (cf. Luke 18:15-16).
You omit v17 here, which is the clue to the proper interpretation of the text. It is those who come to the Lord with child-like faith, setting aside their human wisdom and worldly philosophies who enter the kingdom. Jesus certainly blessed the little children; what He did not do was baptize them.

One practical problem with not baptizing infants is that they are raised to doubt, and are raised to believe a lie: that they are not covenant members with God. All covenant members are supposed to be baptized, so you force your children to be disobedient to God (by not being baptized) until they finally choose to get baptized on their own.

God tells adults that they have to be like little children to enter the kingdom of Heaven. But you turn Luke 18:17 on its head, and suggest that a child has to become more like an adult before he/she can be saved.

See above for Luke 18:17. Infants do not become covenant members by having water splashed on them. They become members as and when they become regenerate and put their trust in Christ (John 6:45; Heb 8:11). God may have another plan for imbeciles and those who die in infancy (Gen 18:25b), but for the rest of us: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh'. By nature, we are all children of wrath, and unless we are born again by the Spirit of God, we shall not so much as see the Kingdom of God, much less enter it.

I do not want to give the impression that I am necessarily pessimistic about the prospects for the children of believers. Not at all! My position would be, Presumptive depravity; hopeful salvation. It is a huge privilege to be raised in a Christian home, to be brought to church as a child, to have the Scriptures taught to you and to have an example of godly living. However, as I have said elsewhere, the most important thing that we can do for our children is to pray for them, earnestly and fervently: 'We gave them life in the flesh; You, Father, must give them life in the Spirit!' Like Scott, I have adult children who are unregenerate (though paradoxically, I had them baptized as infants in my foolishness). I certainly do not lose hope for them. 'The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man (that is, one whom God has declared righteous) avails much.' (James 5:16 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

What did circumcision signify? Well, to Abraham it was 'The seal of the righteousness of faith which he had while still uncircumcised.' However, it cannot have meant that to the male infants who were circumcised at eight days old.

Martin, if this is the way you are going to deal with the texts, then I don't know if a fruitful discussion with you is going to be possible. You admit what Romans 4:11 says about circumcision, but since you just can't handle the fact that every OT circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, you unilaterally decide that it must only mean that for Abraham, and not for anyone else circumcised. You have created a double-standard which Scripture does not create, just so you can force Romans 4:11 to somehow fit into your credobaptistic worldview. The Bible never says that physical circumcision had one significance for some Israelites, and other significances for others. The whole point of circumcision was UNITY of sign; but you destroy this fact by suggesting that Abe's circumcision had an entirely different meaning that Ishmael's and Isaac's circumcisions. You are turning the text on its head, and adding unbiblical notions to it, just so you can grasp at the straws of your credobaptistic ideas.

One thing is encouraging to me, though. You obviously recognize how damaging Romans 4:11 is to your position, if just taken at face value. That, at least, is a step in the right direction.

". . . the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith . . ."
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
With respect, you have not produced any text that shows that infants are brought into the New Covenant by baptism.

Actually, the water baptism itself is not what brings them into covenant with God. Rather, children are automatically born covenant members (cf. Gen. 17:14), and the covenant sign is applied to them because they are already covenant members.
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

What did circumcision signify? Well, to Abraham it was 'The seal of the righteousness of faith which he had while still uncircumcised.' However, it cannot have meant that to the male infants who were circumcised at eight days old.

Martin, if this is the way you are going to deal with the texts, then I don't know if a fruitful discussion with you is going to be possible. You admit what Romans 4:11 says about circumcision, but since you just can't handle the fact that every OT circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, you unilaterally decide that it must only mean that for Abraham, and not for anyone else circumcised. You have created a double-standard which Scripture does not create, just so you can force Romans 4:11 to somehow fit into your credobaptistic worldview. The Bible never says that physical circumcision had one significance for some Israelites, and other significances for others.

You are entirely mistaken, Joseph. Read through this slowly and carefully.

Rom 4:9-11. 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. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also are of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

Abraham is the father of those who believe while uncircumcised (v11 ) and the father of those who are circumcised and have the same faith he had when he wasn't circumcised (v12 ). He is not the father of those who are or were circumcised but do not share his faith. The Jews of our Lord's time on earth thought they were Abraham's children, and were told by Him in no uncertain terms, "You are of your father, the devil!" (John 8:44 ). Were their circumcisions the 'sign and seal of the righteousness' of their faith?

[BTW, Rom 4:11 is the only place where circumcision is described as a seal. The Old Testament does not describe it as such]

The whole point of circumcision was UNITY of sign; but you destroy this fact by suggesting that Abe's circumcision had an entirely different meaning that Ishmael's and Isaac's circumcisions. You are turning the text on its head, and adding unbiblical notions to it, just so you can grasp at the straws of your credobaptistic ideas.

Abraham knew for an absolute fact that Ishmael was not in the covenant before he circumcised him (Gen 17:18-19; 23 ). Isaac is the child of promise and entered the same covenant as his father (Gen 26:3-4 ) for he had the same faith (Gen 26:18 ). You need to read Isaiah 54 and compare it with Gal 4:21-31.
One thing is encouraging to me, though. You obviously recognize how damaging Romans 4:11 is to your position, if just taken at face value. That, at least, is a step in the right direction.

". . . the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith . . ."

On the contrary, Romans 4 establishes the baptistic position as I have demonstrated.

Grace & Peace,

Matin
 
You are entirely mistaken, Martin. Read through this slowly and carefully.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Abraham is the father of those who believe while uncircumcised (v11 ) and the father of those who are circumcised and have the same faith he had when he wasn't circumcised (v12 ). He is not the father of those who are or were circumcised but do not share his faith. The Jews of our Lord's time on earth thought they were Abraham's children, and were told by Him in no uncertain terms, "You are of your father, the devil!" (John 8:44 ). Were their circumcisions the 'sign and seal of the righteousness' of their faith?

No, just as Romans 4:11 says, their circumcisions were a 'sign and seal of the righteousness' of the faith of Abraham. Circumcision, from Abraham to Christ, was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, for *everyone* who was circumcised, with no exceptions. Circumcision could not be a sign and seal of one thing to Abraham, and a sign and seal of something different for everyone else.

However, when the wicked (such as the unbelieving Pharisees you mentioned) failed to exercise the faith signified by their circumcisions, they demonstrated themselves as apostate covenant breakers, and the wrath of God was upon them.

I encourage you to take a very close and thoughtful look at Genesis 17:14. If any physical child of Abraham (including Ishmael) failed to be circumcised, then he would automatically be a covenant breaker. But how can a person possibly be a covenant breaker without first being a covenant member? Thus, Ishmael and Esau were covenant members, just as much as Isaac and Jacob. These 4 circumcisions did not bring any of them into the covenant, because all 4 of them were already automatically in the covenant.

Ishmael was a covenant member. You are ignoring Genesis 17:14, and you are making an unwarranted leap from Genesis 17:19-21. When God "establishes" His covenant with Isaac, that does not mean that Ishmael is left outside the covenant. (In fact, Genesis 17:14 does not permit him to be left outside the covenant.) Rather, in Genesis 17:19-21 God is pointing out that the ultimate covenant promises (especially the coming of Christ) would happen through Isaac. God just said He would "establish" His covenant with Isaac. He did not say that Ishmael would be left out. (Otherwise, you are pitting verse 19 against verse 14, but the Bible doesn't contradict itself!)

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

(BTW, Rom 4:11 is the only place where circumcision is described as a seal. The Old Testament does not describe it as such)

Aha. I can see your dispensationalism shining through. Does it matter whether the verse is found in Romans or Isaiah or Revelation or the Pentateuch? It's all the Word of God, right? If the Word of God says that circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, all the way back in Abraham's time, then that is just what it was. That God chose to explicitly reveal that fact in Romans 4:11 doesn't change anything.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
you need to read Isaiah 54 and compare it with Gal 4:21-31.

"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise" (Galatians 4:28)

Excellent. I fully agree. And Isaac circumcised both of his kids, both Esau and Jacob, right? Yeah, I thought so.

Likewise, since I, as a believer, am of the children of promise, I will have all my children baptized. I'm just "walking in Isaac's footsteps", if you will.
 
infant baptism

Martin



--Abraham knew for an absolute fact that Ishmael was not in the covenant before he circumcised him (Gen 17:18-19; 23 ). Isaac is the child of promise and entered the same covenant as his father (Gen 26:3-4 ) for he had the same faith (Gen 26:18 ). You need to read Isaiah 54 and compare it with Gal 4:21-31.--


Did Issac have the same faith as Abraham at 8 days old? Or did He grow in that faith?

According to what I'm understanding you to be saying, there is no way Issac could have had the same faith of Abraham, so therefore the circumcision would have been moot at 8 days old. I mean, why circumcise someone you don't know for a fact will come into the Covenant Family by faith? But, your saying he knew for a FACT he was a Covenant Child, how did He know this? Because of His Faith, so are you saying Parents can't have the same faith now, that their children are also part of the Covenant family? If so, then wouldn't dedicating them to God also be moot?

If Abraham knew for a fact Ismael was not part of the covenant family, why bother having him circumcised at all? I mean wouldn't that be moot?

Abraham walked in faith, just as we are supposed to do, so if one has an infant Baptisted in (their own) FAITH, just as Abraham circumcised in His OWN FAITH, why the debate? What difference does it matter? Is it wrong to Baptise an infant in their Parents Faith that God will one day call them to Him? I don't think so, I don't think it is any different than having a Child Dedicated to the Lord as an infant. As either way, it is done so, in my own faith in God, not in my Childs faith, that God will one day call my Child to Him.

The Bible does say that "if you train up a child in the way He should go when He is old He will not depart from it." Do some depart even for a season? sure they do. But are they departing from their faith? or are they departing from the Church Buildings for some reason?
 
:welcome:


Welcome to the Puritanboard, BJ!

Congratulations on jumping into one of the biggest :worms: on this board: credo vs. paedo

This is one of my very favorite spots on the board. Enjoy! ;)
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
:welcome:


Welcome to the Puritanboard, BJ!

Congratulations on jumping into one of the biggest :worms: on this board: credo vs. paedo

This is one of my very favorite spots on the board. Enjoy! ;)

LOL, Thank you.

I found this site doing a search on the topic of Infant Baptisim, for a discussion I was having with a friend, and felt compelled to jump right in.
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
"what argument can the anti-paedobaptist bring against us that could not have been brought against Abraham?" -John Calvin

:amen: :up:

Great quote, Paul!


It is that vein of thinking that helped me better understand passages like Romans 9:6-7, for instance. What if Sarah had said, "Abe, you can't do that! Ishmael is not your child! Only those of faith are your children, so only circumcise them." "In fact, Isaac is not your son either, since he is way too young to profess faith. So we need to presume him unregenerate just like Ishmael. Don't circumcise him until he's old enough for us to know whether he really has faith or not. Oh yeah, and forget all about God's command to circumcise on the eighth day . . . He didn't really mean for you to do that . . . you're only supposed to put the covenant sign on your real children, and your only real children are by faith . . ."

You said it, Paul. (Or rather, Calvin.) There is not a single antipaedobaptist arguement that can't be turned right back onto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob themselves. Romans 9:6-7 (or any similar text) says that only those of faith are Abraham's children, but if that has any bearing whatsoever on who receives and doesn't receive the covenant sign, then Abraham has a lot of explaining to do! After all, God said that circumcision was the covenant itself (cf. Gen. 17:10). And Abraham circumcised Ishmael, thus proving he was a covenant member.



I'd like to hear Martin's explanation for these verses in conjunction with each other:

"I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you." (Genesis 17:7)

"This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised." (Genesis 17:10)

"Then Abraham took Ish'mael his son and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him. " (Genesis 17:23)


If I just quoted verses 7 & 10 above, then Martin would no doubt invoke Romans 9:6-7. But then verse 23 would make his entire argument fall apart, wouldn't it? :detective:
 
Hello BJ!
:welcome: aboard!
You wrote in answer to me:-:-

Originally posted by BJClark
--Abraham knew for an absolute fact that Ishmael was not in the covenant before he circumcised him (Gen 17:18-19; 23 ). Isaac is the child of promise and entered the same covenant as his father (Gen 26:3-4 ) for he had the same faith (Gen 26:18 ). You need to read Isaiah 54 and compare it with Gal 4:21-31.--


Did Issac have the same faith as Abraham at 8 days old? Or did He grow in that faith?

According to what I'm understanding you to be saying, there is no way Isaac could have had the same faith of Abraham, so therefore the circumcision would have been moot at 8 days old. I mean, why circumcise someone you don't know for a fact will come into the Covenant Family by faith? But, your saying he knew for a FACT he was a Covenant Child, how did He know this? Because of His Faith, so are you saying Parents can't have the same faith now, that their children are also part of the Covenant family? If so, then wouldn't dedicating them to God also be moot?
Abraham's faith was established long before Isaac was born (Gen 15:6 ). However he knew beyond a doubt that Isaac was in the covenant (and that Ishmael wasn't) because God told him so (Gen 17:19 ).
If Abraham knew for a fact Ismael was not part of the covenant family, why bother having him circumcised at all? I mean wouldn't that be moot?
Because God told him to (Gen 17:10ff).
Abraham walked in faith, just as we are supposed to do, so if one has an infant Baptisted in (their own) FAITH, just as Abraham circumcised in His OWN FAITH, why the debate? What difference does it matter? Is it wrong to Baptise an infant in their Parents Faith that God will one day call them to Him?
Yes it is, because we have no command from the Lord to do so as Abraham had. BTW, you are supposing that circumcision and baptism are the same thing, which you have not established.
I don't think it is any different than having a Child Dedicated to the Lord as an infant. As either way, it is done so, in my own faith in God, not in my Childs faith, that God will one day call my Child to Him.
Many Reformed Baptists do not practise baby dedications. Those who do, do so (as they see it) in response to Matt 19:14. They are bringing the child before the Lord and asking Him to bless it. They are not supposing that the child is in the Covenant.
The Bible does say that "if you train up a child in the way He should go when He is old He will not depart from it." Do some depart even for a season? sure they do. But are they departing from their faith? or are they departing from the Church Buildings for some reason?

Those who have truly trusted in Christ will never wholly fall away (John 10:27ff). But there are those who suppose they are Christians because their church and their parents tell them so, who are never told that they are sinners in need of a Saviour, who may one day hear the Lord tell them, "I never knew you!" But for the grace of God, I would have been such a one.

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 
Hello Joseph,
I am sorry that you did not take my advice to read Gal 4 and Isaiah 54 through carefully.
You wrote:

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
You are entirely mistaken, Martin. Read through this slowly and carefully.

I have.
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Abraham is the father of those who believe while uncircumcised (v11 ) and the father of those who are circumcised and have the same faith he had when he wasn't circumcised (v12 ). He is not the father of those who are or were circumcised but do not share his faith. The Jews of our Lord's time on earth thought they were Abraham's children, and were told by Him in no uncertain terms, "You are of your father, the devil!" (John 8:44 ). Were their circumcisions the 'sign and seal of the righteousness' of their faith?

No, just as Romans 4:11 says, their circumcisions were a 'sign and seal of the righteousness' of the faith of Abraham. Circumcision, from Abraham to Christ, was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, for *everyone* who was circumcised, with no exceptions. Circumcision could not be a sign and seal of one thing to Abraham, and a sign and seal of something different for everyone else.

Joseph, read the following with Rom 4:9ff in front of you.

Let's consider four sets of people:-
1. Those who are circumcised and have the faith of Abraham.
2. Those who are not circumcised, but have the faith of Abraham.
3. Those who are circumcised, but do not have the faith of Abraham
4. Those who are not circumcised and do not have the faith of Abraham.

Now we can dismiss No. 4, but do you not see that Abraham is described as the father of Nos. 1 & 2, but not of No. 3? Now No.1 is represented by Isaac, but how does No. 2 square with your obsession with Gen 17:14? And what of No. 3, which is typically represented, I suggest, by Ishmael, of whom it is written, 'Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman' (Gal 4:30; cf. Gen 21:10 )?

The answer is that there are two covenants (Gal 4:24 ) in view. There is one to the physical descendants of Abraham who receive a physical sign (Gal 17:14 ). This covenant promised to Abraham a great nation who would experience temporal blessings in an earthly promised land. This covenant has been fulfilled in every particular (Josh 21:45, 23:14 ). This represents No.3 above.

The other covenant is to those who are the sons of Abraham by faith, who are in union with the true Seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16 ). They receive 'a better, that is a heavenly country', 'a Kingdom that cannot be shaken.' And to them, who are 'in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation'. They are the spiritual heirs and thay receive 'the circumcision made without hands.' They represent Nos 1 and 2 above, the division between them being broken down in Christ (Eph 2:14-18 ).

I think that covers all your other points, except this one.
You wrote in answer to me.
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

(BTW, Rom 4:11 is the only place where circumcision is described as a seal. The Old Testament does not describe it as such)

Aha. I can see your dispensationalism shining through. Does it matter whether the verse is found in Romans or Isaiah or Revelation or the Pentateuch? It's all the Word of God, right?

Ignoring your cheap shot, I can say :amen: It is indeed, all the word of God. You miss the point again. The only place in the Bible where circumcision is described as a seal is Rom 4:11 and it applies exclusively to Abraham.

Rom 4:11. 'And he [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he [Abraham] might be the father of all who believe.'

Surely this is clear enough!? Physical circumcision is not the seal of anything to anyone but Abraham, because no one else but he is the father of all who believe. If it were, it would surely be found somewhere else in the entire Bible. And of course baptism is never described as a seal. The seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13 etc).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
your only out is to say that Heb 10:30 is saying what Deut is saying.

So, my only way out is to show that the author of Hebrews doesn´t flip Moses´ words on their head? (Ok, so that was a bit sarcastic, but of course, you get my point)




Originally posted by Paul manata

1. I don't grant this premise (that you asserted, btw).

Of course you don´t grant the premise (yet, hopefully). In fact, the only reason we´re discussing Heb. 10 is because you raised it as an objection to my initial argument. I then provided my exegesis of the passage. You made an assertion on what you think the text means, but provided no exegesis, and, even in your response here, have provided no counter-exegesis to my position.


Originally posted by Paul manata
2. I think Calvin, Henry, et al. see that this cannot be done, but that doesn't bother you. Here's Calvin, anyway

Rather than re-post your Calvin quote, I´ll simply ask you to provide a quote where Calvin, Henry et al. provide an exegesis that actually deals with the quotations of the Old Testament texts and argue from this passage why we ought to take a 180 degree turn from the OT meaning. Maybe that's the case, but let it be shown from the text. This brings me to another point you made:


Originally posted by Paul manata
if the same language is used in the OT then we interpret the NT as meaning what the OT means (a hermeneutical fallacy, btw, but I'll let it slide for my purposes, because it works in my favor).

This is supposed to be my hermeneutical principle? Of course it´s a fallacy; that is why it is not my hermeneutical principle. Rather, it is you who are affirming the consequent by concluding that if I interpret one NT quote of an OT text such that the OT context is kept, that I must then interpret all such NT passages the same way. Context, context, context. If the context of the NT passage gives us precedence to interpret it such that the quotation drops the OT context, then we let the NT writer do so and interpret him accordingly. This, however, must be shown to in fact be the context of the NT passage before we decide how the NT writer utilizes a quotation. This is a sound hermeneutical principle which apparently you, Calvin, Henry, et al. have decided to ignore for this passage. I think I can demonstrate your failure to apply this hermeneutic by looking again at your exposition of this passage:




Originally posted by Paul manata
the whole context of the word "judge" in Hebrews 10:27-30 is a "firery judgment that consumes the enemies of God."

You´ve assumed that since v. 27 uses "œjudge" in the bad sense that v. 30 does as well. How do you know "œjudge" has the same meaning in both verses? What is your exegetical basis, especially in light of the fact that Moses´ context uses the term is the highest positive sense for God´s favor over His covenant people?


Originally posted by Paul manata
The whole passage is speaking of X who are going to be judged by P. Now, in V.30 you have arbitrarily said, in effect, "well this time it isn't talking about what the WHOLE passage has been building up to." What you have to do is to show that the whole chain of thought (i.e., judging X with P) changes at V. 30. This is far from clear.

Where am I guilty of arbitrariness in my exegesis? I provided exactly what you asked for. Where have I erred in following the author´s flow of thought?

Originally posted by Paul manata
The author WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT X in v.29.....right? He said that they have done something bad...right? Above he said that because X did bad they would be judged with a fierce fire...right? Now, we have ZERO change in V.30.

This amounts to a restatement of your original assumption. Still, no exegetical basis provided.

Originally posted by Paul manata
The author doesn't say, "now Im changing the group I have JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT and also changing the type of judgment,

I´d say he does just that by the OT passage he selected. I provided my exegesis for why I think this is the case.


Originally posted by Paul manata
in V.29 we are told, "How much worse punishment will X recieve?" Why? Why Mr. Author? How do we know they will receive a worse punishment? Well, we know it because we know Him who said, "VENGANCE IS MINE, and again, the Lord will JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."

You´re not justifying your position. You´re simply asserting it.

Originally posted by Paul manata
Well, that's good enough for me. If God said he will judge them I must believe Him,

That´s like me saying "œ"˜And their sins I will remember no more´ --- well, God said he doesn´t remember the sins of the new covenant people. I must believe Him."

Originally posted by Paul manata
I like what Greg Strawbrideg has to say on the subject and so I'll leave it with him:
I appreciate Dr. Strawbridge´s frustrations. However, let me offer the same sentiment from a Baptist (as expressed already in this long discussion). I say, look at Heb. 10:14-18
for by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Objection: But you see, that can´t mean that Christ offered Himself for every new covenant member because that would mean every new covenant member has a propitiation. We know that can´t be right because Heb. 10:27-30 says there are some new covenant members who will not have God´s wrath propitiated for them.

No doubt the apostate passages are disputed. Obviously, we don´t set them aside because they disputed, as if they´re irrelevant to the discussion. Surely many Baptists have done this in the way of arguing for regenerate New Covenant membership. However, there are surely many Presbyterians who are guilty of arguing in the same way. Let's deal with the apostate passages. Lets deal with my origional argument, and let´s set the caricatures aside and deal with the text.

If you have a quote from Calvin, Henry, or anyone else who has provided has a meaningful exegetical reason to believe Moses´ context is turned upside down, then quote away. Otherwise, name dropping only serves to further draw the distinction between our ultimate authorities in this matter.

[Edited on 9-10-2005 by Monergism]
 
Physical circumcision is not the seal of anything to anyone but Abraham,

This contradicts this:

because no one else but he is the father of all who believe.

Why? This is the heart of divorcing meaning from the signs/seals and modern individualism Vs. federal/covenant representation. Because if the seal is to Abraham who is the father of all who believe then this same seal is still the same seal to all who receive it. For this seal is not empty and meaningless to the successive receivers of it but rather holds before their very eyes that God is salvation and Him alone. It, like baptism, signifies and seals the election of the Father, the reconciliation of the Son and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. This is where they both rest and find their validity, truth and very being. This is why they ARE and nothing else, nor does anything else negate them. It is not as if the word of God fails if people deny them.

It is similar to all of God´s signs and seals like in Joshua 4:6-7, "Let this be a sign among you, so that when your children ask later, saying, 'What do these stones mean to you?'
then you shall say to them, 'Because the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD; when it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off ' So these stones shall become a memorial to the sons of Israel forever." In this we see that such signs (and seals by extension) are held out before successive generations to communicate what God has done for them. It is a physical communication of faith and a gracious condescension of God to our level so that we may believe.

A sign points to a reality it represents and this too is in circumcision and baptism. But they are also a seal which is an authentication. In this case Whose? God´s alone. To say the seal of circumcision is not the seal of anything to anyone but Abraham is in essence saying, "œGod´s authentication (circumcision in this case) is not really God´s authentication." The seal itself finds its authentic ground not in whom it is given but by Whom it is given (God) and by the Word of His mouth that says so. It would be quite surprising to hear from the mouth of Abraham to his own children who might ask, "œwhy was I circumcised father?" And Abraham answering, "œOh Isaac, don´t think anymore of that as it was only a sign and seal to me, it has absolutely no bearing on you that you should remember or ponder it."

ldh
 
Larry,
with resect you are confusing signs and seals. Circumcision was certainly a sign to Abraham's descendants of his faith, and so the Lord used it. As it is written:-

'Listen to Me, you who follow after righteousness, you who seek the LORD: Look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the hole from which you were dug. Look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah who bore you: for I called him alone, and blessed him and increased him.' (Isiaah 51:2 ).

Thus circumcision was a sign to the Israelites. "Daddy, why have I been circumcised?" "Well, Sonny, Abraham, the father of our nation, was a man who trusted God, and our circumcision points us back to him and to his obedient faith. It also reminds us that one of the seed of Abraham is going to be the Saviour of the world (Gen 12:3 )." Alas, such witness did not seem to work with the Israelites, but that does not change the reality of the sign.

However, circumcision was a seal to no one else but Abraham, and so the Scripture teaches. No amount of rationalizing can change the plain words of Rom 4:11, and they are the only words we have on the matter.

Likewise baptism is a sign to the party baptized of his faith in Christ and his ingrafting into the Church. It is also a sign to his unbelieving friends and relations that he no longer a member of this world, but of the one to come.

But baptism is not a seal of the new covenant. It is never described as such. The Holy Spirit is that which seals the truth of our faith in our hearts (Rom 8:15-16 ).

Martin
 
Martin,

You are ignoring key passages in Genesis 17. I repeat:


I'd like to hear your explanation for these verses in conjunction with each other:

"I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you." (Genesis 17:7)

"This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised." (Genesis 17:10)

"Then Abraham took Ish'mael his son and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him. " (Genesis 17:23)


If I just quoted verses 7 & 10 above, then you would no doubt invoke Romans 9:6-7. But then verse 23 would make your entire argument fall apart, wouldn't it?



You see, Martin, you can quote all you like from Galatians 4, Romans 4, Romans 9, etc. And I love those passages. But before you can logically use such passages as if they could somehow negate infant inclusion in the covenant, you first need to simply deal with the plain message in Genesis 17. And you have not done that yet. And if the foundation of your argument is weak or misplaced, then so is your entire argument.

Pay very close attention to the verses quoted above. God told Abraham that His covenant was "to be God to you and to your descendants" in verse 7. Then, in verse 10, God equates that covenant to circumcision. Finally, in verse 23, Abraham circumcises Ishmael according to God's command.

This scenario makes perfect sense according to my reckoning of the covenant and the covenant sign. But it makes no sense at all according to your reckoning.

What does it mean in verse 7 where God says that He will be God both to Abraham and to Abraham's descendants? If you want to invoke Romans Romans 9:6-7 here, to say that the covenant in Genesis 17:7 is only with those who are Abraham's children by faith, then you have a lot of explaining to do in Genesis 17:10,23! In verse 10, God makes physical circumcision the sign of this very covenant, and in verse 23, Ishmael gets this covenant sign. Thus, Ishmael is part of the covenant spoken by God in verse 7!

In short, God said that the covenant was "to be God to you and to your descendants", and Ishmael was part of that very covenant. (And so was Esau.)

But that clear Scriptural fact just does not jive well at all with credobaptistic theology.




[Edited on 9-10-2005 by biblelighthouse]
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Thus circumcision was a sign to the Israelites. "Daddy, why have I been circumcised?" "Well, Sonny, Abraham, the father of our nation, was a man who trusted God, and our circumcision points us back to him and to his obedient faith. It also reminds us that one of the seed of Abraham is going to be the Saviour of the world (Gen 12:3 )." Alas, such witness did not seem to work with the Israelites, but that does not change the reality of the sign.

And baptism is a sign to the church. "Daddy, why have I been baptized?" "Well, Jesus was the Messiah, and our baptism points us back to Him and to the the washing of regeneration He gives to those with faith." Alas, such witness does not seem to work with some, but that does not change the reality of the sign.
 
Martin,

Thank you for the welcome :) They need a thank you icon...



No, as I've said, I don't see the Baptism of infants any different than I see the Dedication of Infants. Both, are like the Circumcision based on the Parents faith, not the faith of the Child.

And trust me I know the difference between Circumcision and a (infant) Baptism, however, even with those differences they are both outward signs of the 'faith' of the Parents, and have nothing to do with the faith of the child.

If we really wanted to get technical about the circumcision being about making the child part of the convenant family, there are many people today who should NOT be circumcised at all. Many who are circumcised today do not even know what it represented thousands of years ago, to be about being in the covenant family.

This is same arguement Paul had with those at the Church in Rome, it wasn't about the Physical Circumcision, nor is it about infant baptism today, it's about the Circumcision of the heart at some point in the child's life. Does it matter if they were circumcised? No. Does it matter if they are Baptised? No. But, like Abraham, parents step out in their own faith and have their child Dedicated or Baptised.

If Baptism was that important even after salvation in following Christ, then Jesus would have told the thief on the Cross, you have to follow me in Believers Baptism before you can be with me in Paradise. Yet, He did not.

Was the woman at the well baptised? Was the Adultress woman ever baptised? We don't know, but there is the assumption they were.
It's not recorded in the Bible that Jesus even told them they must now be Baptised. So even in that there are assumptions being made. (to my knowledge and it's possible I've just not paid attention to it, but the bible doesn't mention women being Baptised at all) So are we to assume, women should not be Baptised because the Bible doesn't mention it? I don't think so.

But yet, the Bible speaks of Men being Baptised, and it speaks also of Men and Boys being circumcised, but nothing of women or baby girls being circumcised, so are we to assume women and baby girls were not considered part of the Covenant family because this was not required of them? I think Not!!!

I believe it was assumed by all, that babies born into a Covenant family, be they boys or girls were PART of the Covenant Family, and if that was not the intent of God, surely He would have required baby girls and women to also be circumcised or SOMETHING to show they were also a part of the Covenant family. Lest we ALL be making a HUGE ASSUMPTION that women and girls are part of such.

So yes, I make the assumption that My children are included in the Covenant Promise as infants, to assume otherwise would be to say to my daughters that because they are girls they are NOT included in such, and it would also tell me as a Woman, I would not be included in that Covenant Promise either. And well, I just don't see God excluding an entire Gender, based on an outward sign of a Covenant that He made.


--Those who have truly trusted in Christ will never wholly fall away (John 10:27ff). But there are those who suppose they are Christians because their church and their parents tell them so, who are never told that they are sinners in need of a Saviour, who may one day hear the Lord tell them, "I never knew you!" But for the grace of God, I would have been such a one.--

Then that , my dear brother was possibly the failure of their parents and their church in their teachings of the Scripture, or maybe even within their assumptions (understanding) of their teachings. If 'they' assume one thing and the church is really teaching something else.

Did your pastors or parents ever teach "ALL" Have sinned? And 'ALL' Are in need of a Savior?? Are you not considered part of the 'ALL'??

I know in most every church I have been in both as a Child, going to church with my grandparents and elderly neighbors, as well as in my adult life, I have been taught "ALL" have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. When I hear the word ALL, I know that means including everyone, not excluding any, and I am part of the everyone, so therefore I too have sinned and need a Savior. And Just because someone is raised going to Church doesn't mean they are excluded from the ALL.

I've known many people to be dunked in water in many churches, who have no desire after that point to even step foot in a church or learn anything about Christ beyond that point, they have only been dunked in water and gotten wet, much like an infant baptism I suppose, the only difference being, in my opinion is one Baptism is based on FAITH (even if the faith of their Parents) and the other is done under an assumption that, that is all that they need to do in order to show a belief they say they have.

So what, Should we now postpone ALL Baptisms until there is some sort of fruit in their lives? Be they infants or adults? I don't think so, as only God knows the heart of each person and God already knows whom He has called, who His children are and who will be His in the Future. Psalm 139:13-18; Romans 8:29-29; Romans 9:15-18.

WE, do not know, but God Himself knows whom He has called, which could be part of why Jesus Himself said, "Let the Little Children come, and do not forbid them for such is the Kingdom of Heaven." Not just that we come as Children in understanding and faith, but also because God knows whom He has called, even before they were even Born.

If a Church or Parents are truely teaching 'just because you go to church you are saved' then they are teaching falsely, and if people are believing they are saved just because their parents are saved, or that they are saved only because they were baptised as infants, then again the Pastors and Parents are not teaching the TRUE Gospel to them as Children, and that is the failure of those who were supposed to be teaching them. And they will be judged accordingly, per Scriptures on those who are teachers being judged harshly.


Bobbi Clark
Covenant Member
Pinewood Pres. (PCA) Middleburg

{edited for missing sig}

[Edited on 9-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Here is one of many articles--

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Infant_Baptism.html

Where Does the New Covenant Teach Infant Baptism?

From the point of view of the Covenant, every command to baptize, is a command to baptize the children of believers.

Because the promise of the Covenant, God is a God not only to adult believers, but also to their children. That is why, in 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul said that children of believers are "holy." Paul deliberately used Old Covenant, ceremonial, language to teach the Corinthians that their children shouldn't be considered outside of the visible people of God. To use Old Covenant language, children of believers are "clean," and therefore have a right to share in the blessings of being a part of the visible people of God, including baptism.

Jesus made the same argument in Mark 10:14. He says that the Kingdom of God "belongs" to children of believers. In Acts 2:39, Peter specifically includes children in the fulfillment of the promise. In Ephesians 6:1 Paul addresses children as if they were in the covenant people of God .60


The Apostles Baptized the Children of Believers

In both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, God speaks to households and "saves" them. In the language of the Bible, one's house does not refer incidentally, but primarily to the children.61 The emphasis on "household" or "family" points to a continuity between the Old Covenant corporate view-point and that of the New covenant.62 Children are viewed as being part of a covenant household, a covenantal unit. The sign, in Scripture, is applied to the whole household unit.63

Scripture uses this household formula in several clear passages which show a great deal of unity between Old Covenant practice and New Covenant (baptismal) practice.64 We know that when Luke wrote Acts he was selective in his reporting. So it is important to note that proportionally, when we compare the number of household baptisms to other baptisms in Acts, household baptisms are common. In Acts, as with circumcision in the Old covenant, baptism is a household affair and the household texts prove it.

Lydia, the Jailer and Crispus.

In Philippi, in a "place of prayer," Paul and his co-workers met Lydia, a Gentile who was called "a God-fearer," i.e. someone on the fringes of the synagogue but not a full-member.65 After hearing the gospel, "the Lord opened her heart" and "she and the members of her household were baptized." It cannot be argued reasonably that there were no children in this "household." 66

Paul was jailed for his ministry to a demon possessed girl. Jesus delivered them from jail by sending an earthquake. Their jailer hears the gospel and professed his faith.

Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized....he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God -he and his whole family (Acts 16: 33,34).

As in the case of Lydia, Luke communicated the covenantal nature of baptism through the use of the oikos (household formula).

After Paul had been rejected by the synagogue in Corinth he went "next door" to the house of Titius Justus, another "God-fearing" Gentile. There "Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized" (Acts 18:8).

These patterns were identical with what occurred in Israel for 2000 years: The adult Gentile converts were circumcised along with their male children in accordance with Genesis 17:10-14. Certainly those adult converts had to confess their faith.67 Both believing adults and their children are described by the word "household."68
 
...

Originally posted by Paul manata
[quote:104de97c2a]
He Mediates the New Covenant in His blood
[/quote:104de97c2a]

And Hebrews 10:29 says that people count as unholy the blood of the covenant which sanctified them.

[post moderated by admin]

David,
Check thyself.

Scott



[Edited on 9-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by just_grace
Originally posted by Paul manata
[quote:104de97c2a]
He Mediates the New Covenant in His blood
[/quote:104de97c2a]

And Hebrews 10:29 says that people count as unholy the blood of the covenant which sanctified them.





This is completely uncalled for.........

[moderated by admin]



[Edited on 9-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Thus circumcision was a sign to the Israelites. "Daddy, why have I been circumcised?" "Well, Sonny, Abraham, the father of our nation, was a man who trusted God, and our circumcision points us back to him and to his obedient faith. It also reminds us that one of the seed of Abraham is going to be the Saviour of the world (Gen 12:3 )." Alas, such witness did not seem to work with the Israelites, but that does not change the reality of the sign.

And baptism is a sign to the church. "Daddy, why have I been baptized?" "Well, Jesus was the Messiah, and our baptism points us back to Him and to the the washing of regeneration He gives to those with faith." Alas, such witness does not seem to work with some, but that does not change the reality of the sign.

I take it from this post that you have conceded my major premise that circumcision was not a seal to anyone else but Abraham.

One difference between between circumcision and baptism is that baptism leaves no permanent mark. The Israelite carried around with him the sign of his inclusion into the 'First' (Mosaic) Covenant (the Abrahamic is different as I shall show later). Since baptism leaves no mark, it is meaningless as a sign unless accompanied by faith.


I am not ignoring your request for comment of the verses you quoted from Gen 17. I will deal with them in the next few days, but things are a wee bit busy for me just at present and keep me from doing a long post.

Blessings,

Martin
 
Martin Marprelate

"I take it from this post that you have conceded my major premise that circumcision was not a seal to anyone else but Abraham."


Actually, it was to Abraham AND His Descendants

"One difference between circumcision and baptism is that baptism leaves no permanent mark. The Israelite carried around with him the sign of his inclusion into the 'First' (Mosaic) Covenant (the Abrahamic is different as I shall show later). Since baptism leaves no mark, it is meaningless as a sign unless accompanied by faith."

This is true that it leaves no visable sign, so why Baptise anyone, including adults who go forward one Sunday morning in a Church Service until after you have seen them living their Faith? Because even then you don't know if they have faith or if they are going forward because their parents are 'pressuring' them, or fit into the Crowd, or trying to please some pretty girl or handsome boy they are dating, or if they were raised in the Church and 'everyone' get's baptised to show they are 'Christians' and well, if I don't get "baptised" what will people think?

I know many people including Pastors Children who go forward for Baptism because 'its what people who go to Church do' they do all the outward things required of them, yet they don't have a real faith.

I imagine Judas Iscariot was such a person, though no where in the Bible does it say he was Baptised, He was still 'set apart' for God's Service, even though that service was to betray Christ, He was still doing God's will for HIS life. So because the Bible doesn't say specifically that Judas was not baptised, do we assume he wasn't just because he was the one who betrayed Christ? Or would it be reasonable to assume, that because 'everyone' who was anyone in Christ's service was being baptised, He too was baptised, because that's what all those close to Christ did?

Even though, it may not leave an outward 'mark' like circumcision does, does not automatically mean it's not a seal, or even a sign that they are 'set apart' for God's service, even if we don't know what that Service is.

[Edited on 9-12-2005 by BJClark]
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

I take it from this post that you have conceded my major premise that circumcision was not a seal to anyone else but Abraham.

Wrong. Read Genesis 17 again. Circumcision was the covenant, and was to be given to both Abe and his descendants. You cannot logically make it mean one thing for him, and something else for everyone else. It was the sign and seal for everyone. In any case, I don't really care to argue the sign/seal distinction with you. If you agree that circumcision was the sign for Abe and his crew, and that baptism is the sign for the NT church, then great. I'm not sure what is to be gained at this point by arguing over the "seal" portion of circumcision's significance. I think there are greater differences for us to work through first.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

One difference between between circumcision and baptism is that baptism leaves no permanent mark. The Israelite carried around with him the sign of his inclusion into the 'First' (Mosaic) Covenant (the Abrahamic is different as I shall show later). Since baptism leaves no mark, it is meaningless as a sign unless accompanied by faith.

Very very wrong. I don't have to see some mutilation of my body to know that I was baptized years ago. I know that I was baptized at the age of 19, and that knowledge has left an indelible mark on me internally. The same goes for those baptized in infancy (like Martin Luther, for example). As a kid grows up, the parents of the baptized child remind him of his baptism. And every time he sees a baptism in his church, he is reminded that he too was baptized. Baptism leaves an indelible mark in oneself internally: every time we remember our baptism, we are reminded that we are in covenant with the King.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I am not ignoring your request for comment of the verses you quoted from Gen 17. I will deal with them in the next few days, but things are a wee bit busy for me just at present and keep me from doing a long post.

No problem, my brother! I certainly understand. There are many times I just don't have time to give long responses either. That is why I too occasionally don't respond, or only respond shortly.

Blessings,
Joseph
 
Martin,

I appreciate that sentiment and likewise with much resect returned.

To clarify; I am not confusing signs and seals, hence I defined them. In short: A sign points to a greater reality than itself and thus it guides the "eye" of the soul to Christ. A seal authenticates it as official, thus that which is pointed to is authentic and not immitated by men.

My wedding ring is a sign that points to a reality which is the reality signified by the sign and that being my wife's covenant to me. Yet, the ring is a seal and is authentic, it was not given by any other than my wife.

The sign of circumcision must point to the greater reality that salvation is of the Lord alone and that of Christ alone. And this it must be to those who "see" the sign. And it must by necessity be a seal or authentic to the same, hence the promise is to you and your children and all those who are far off. The promise signified is authentic and must be if it is to be believed, trusted and rested upon. It is a gospel sign and seal and so is baptism, and thus it must communicate.

Side note on which we appear to disagree, at least in today's modern language being used: Abraham's faith was sheer trust apart from obedience to works and this alone was "the righteousness of faith". Yet, this living faith yeilded the fruit of good works. There is an infinite chasm between "obedient faith" and "living faith which yields true fruit and true good works". To be very clear, there is an infinite difference between "obedient faith" and "the obedience of faith" (Romans 1). The former is false faith while the later is true living faith of which James spoke of.

ldh

[Edited on 9-13-2005 by Larry Hughes]
 
Hello Larry,
You wrote:-
The sign of circumcision must point to the greater reality that salvation is of the Lord alone and that of Christ alone. And this it must be to those who "see" the sign. And it must by necessity be a seal or authentic to the same, hence the promise is to you and your children and all those who are far off. The promise signified is authentic and must be if it is to be believed, trusted and rested upon. It is a gospel sign and seal and so is baptism, and thus it must communicate.
Scripture please.

Martin
 
First a little calibration: 3 + X = 7. Can I know X without it being explicit per se? Yes, solve for X.

Now, all rapped up in a nice package sign, thing signified which leads to seal visible and seal Spiritual and the link:

Col. 2:11-13, "œand in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,"

Romans 2:29, "œBut he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."


Ldh
 
Hello Joseph,
Finally I have time to deal with Gen 17.
You wrote:-
I'd like to hear your explanation for these verses in conjunction with each other:

"I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you." (Genesis 17:7)

"This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised." (Genesis 17:10)

"Then Abraham took Ish'mael his son and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him. " (Genesis 17:23)

If I just quoted verses 7 & 10 above, then you would no doubt invoke Romans 9:6-7. But then verse 23 would make your entire argument fall apart, wouldn't it?

You see, Martin, you can quote all you like from Galatians 4, Romans 4, Romans 9, etc. And I love those passages. But before you can logically use such passages as if they could somehow negate infant inclusion in the covenant, you first need to simply deal with the plain message in Genesis 17. And you have not done that yet. And if the foundation of your argument is weak or misplaced, then so is your entire argument.

I find it amusing that it was only on Friday that you were telling e that Romans 4 decimated the Baptist position. Now that I´ve produced exegesis on Romans 4, instead of coming back and discussing that, you have shifted your position and are trying another tack. Never mind; it´s no problem.

If I look at these three verses strictly in isolation, then it appears
1. That faith plays no part in God´s covenant since it is not mentioned or even hinted at.
2. That God will be God only to the physical descendants of Abraham.
3. That circumcision is the only way to God, and that therefore
4. The Moslem Arabs, being descendants of Abraham through Ishmael and observing circumcision, are saved and all those who are Gentiles like you and me, are lost out of hand. But if we become slaves of Jews or Moslems and are circumcised, then we can be saved.

Obviously, it is a nonsense therefore to treat these words in isolation; we must look at the Bible as a whole. This is what Louis Berkhof says ("˜Principles of Biblical Interpretation´):-
While the OT contains but a shadowy representation of spiritual realities, the NT presents them in the perfect light of the fullness of time. The one contains types, the other, antitypes; the one, prophecy; the other, fulfilment. The more perfect revelation of the NT illumines the pages of the Old. Sometimes NT writers furnish explicit and striking explanations of OT passages, and reveal striking depths that might easily have escaped the interpreter. Cf. Acts 2:29-31; Matt 11:10; 21:42; Gal 4:22-31; and the whole Epistle to the Hebrews.

That is not at all to say that we should ignore the OT, but we must interpret it in the clearer light that the Holy Spirit has provided in the New Testament.

Now the first question is, with whom was the Abrahamic Covenant made? Gen 17:10 tells us that it was made between God and Abraham and his descendants. Now again, if that means his physical descendants, it is of no interest whatever to me, since as far as I know, I have no Semitic blood in me. But the Hebrew word "˜zera´ which is translated "˜descendants´ or "˜seed´ is singular, and whilst it is usually a collective noun, it also can refer to a single seed or descendant (Gen 4:25; 21:13; 1Sam 1:11 etc). The Holy Spirit tells us, via Paul, that it speaks in Gen 17 of Christ, and by implication, those in Him.

Gal 3:16, 26, 29.
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say, "œAnd to seeds" as of many, but as of one, "œAnd to your Seed," who is Christ"¦"¦"¦"¦.For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus"¦"¦.And if you are Christ´s, then you are Abraham´s seed, and heirs according to the promise.


So the covenant is not in fact with the physical descendants of Abraham, but with those who are "˜in Christ´ by grace through faith. "˜Just as Abraham "œbelieved God and it was counted to him as righteousness", therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham´ (Gal 3:6-7 ). It appears therefore that the covenant is not made with those who share Abraham´s genes, but with those who share his faith.

The question therefore arises, what is the significance of circumcision, and why is it made mandatory for Abraham´s physical progeny? Well, it has nothing to do with justification. Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised (Gen 15:6; Gal 4:3 ).

Gal 4:9-10.
Does this blessedness [non-imputation of sin] come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised but while uncircumcised.


So circumcision had nothing to do with justification or righteousness, either for Abraham or anyone else. Otherwise Paul´s argument falls to the ground. Abraham, like Abel, like Enoch, like Noah, knew the blessings of God´s grace while uncircumcised. Melchizedek also, who is "˜beyond all contradiction´ greater than Abraham (Heb 7:7 ) was not circumcised so far as we know.

What then is the significance of circumcision? Or as Paul puts it,
"˜What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God´ (Rom 3:1-2 ). So the main benefit of circumcision was the receiving of the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul later points out some subsidiary benefits (Rom 9:4-5 ), but he goes on to point out that these benefits were of no effect to "˜Israel after the flesh´, but applied only to "˜the children of promise.´ What is never said of circumcision is that it is "˜a seal of the righteousness of faith´ to anyone but Abraham (Rom 4:11 ). I´m sorry if that messes up your theology, but that is the plain reading of the text as I have pointed out before.

So we see that there are two seeds of Abraham: a physical seed ("˜Israel after the flesh´ ) represented typologically by Ishmael (cf. Gen 17:20; Gal 4:25 ), and "˜the children of promise´ represented by Isaac, the miracle child (Gen 17:19, 21; 25:5,11; Isaiah 54:1; Gal 4:28 ). Now you will say, "˜but Isaac was circumcised!´ So he was, but Paul says to the Galatians, whom he is telling NOT to be circumcised, "˜Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.' Isaac represents the true Israelite who appears in these verses:-

Rom 2:28-29.
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Sprit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Phil 3:3.
For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.


And with much respect (sic) to Larry, Colossians 2:11-12 is saying the same thing. The true Israelite, the child of the promise, in other words, the Christian, needs no physical circumcision, since he has what circumcision symbolizes, a penitent circumcised heart. And his baptism symbolizes what has already happened to him; he has died to sin and risen again to life through his God-given faith in the resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom 10:9 ).

You wrote:-
Pay very close attention to the verses quoted above. God told Abraham that His covenant was "to be God to you and to your descendants" in verse 7. Then, in verse 10, God equates that covenant to circumcision. Finally, in verse 23, Abraham circumcises Ishmael according to God's command.

This scenario makes perfect sense according to my reckoning of the covenant and the covenant sign. But it makes no sense at all according to your reckoning.
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense to me. God was indeed a God to Abraham´s fleshly descendants. He brought them out of Egypt, he gave them the law to worship Him by, made a great nation of them, and punished them for their wicked ways. "˜And you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God spoke concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one word of them has failed´ (Josh 23:15 ).

But the covenant made with Israel after the flesh was not the Covenant of Grace, as your own Confession makes clear.
Larger Catechism
Q.31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
Ans. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.
And to his elect, the miraculous children of the barren woman, God invokes a covenant even older than the Abrahamic; one in which circumcision plays no part.

Isaiah 54:9-10
"œFor this is like the waters of Noah to Me; for as I have sworn that the wates of Noah would no longer cover the earth, so I have sworn that I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you. For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but My kindness shall not depart from yopu, nor shall My covenant of peace be removed," says the LORD who has mercy on you.


You wrote:-
What does it mean in verse 7 where God says that He will be God both to Abraham and to Abraham's descendants? If you want to invoke Romans 9:6-7 here, to say that the covenant in Genesis 17:7 is only with those who are Abraham's children by faith, then you have a lot of explaining to do in Genesis 17:10,23! In verse 10, God makes physical circumcision the sign of this very covenant, and in verse 23, Ishmael gets this covenant sign. Thus, Ishmael is part of the covenant spoken by God in verse 7!
Joseph, you just need to read Gen 17:18-21 to see that Ishmael is not in the same covenant as Isaac. Just look at the plain text! The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman (Gen 21:10; Gal 4:30 ). But New Testament Christians are exclusively sons of the free woman (Gal 4:28, 31 ), and to them, "˜Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation´ (Gal 6:15 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 
Hello Bobby,
I'm sorry that I haven't had time to address all of your points, but I think you'll find that most of them have been debated here before, especially the so-called 'oikos' formula. I also think you'll find that even Presbyterians such as R.C.Sproul concede that the 'household baptisms' do not constitute evidence for infant baptism.

However, if you'd like to debate this, or 1Cor 7:14, why not open another thread so as to avoid getting this one cluttered?

Every blessing,

Martin
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
But the covenant made with Israel after the flesh was not the Covenant of Grace, as your own Confession makes clear.

Larger Catechism
Q.31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
Ans. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.

If I hear one more person use this ridiculous argument, I am going to insist that he be instantly thrashed and thrown into the stocks for a fortnight.

Stop using this false argument! It is nonsense, apparently born from an unwillingness to study the entire confession.

The Westminster Confession of Faith plainly says that infants are included in the Covenant of Grace, just like their parents:

CHAPTER XXVIII.
Of Baptism.

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Churchy until the end of the world.


IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top