One must believe to be in the covenant.

[Andrew P.C.]

I was reading a discussion between Richard and Paul about baptism, but something else was being discussed within that thread. The point that childeren cannot be in the covenant unless they believe. One thing to make clear, (I don't think this was being done) it almost seemed as if Paul was seperating the NC from the promises(As the infants are part of the NC but which makes it irrelevant for them to have the promises). You cannot have the pormises unless you are in the NC.

Now, my argument comes from Gal 3:22

"22But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."

1) The promises are given to us when we have faith in Christ.("the promise by faith in Jesus Christ".)

2) Only those who "believe" will recieve these promises.("given to those who believe.")

Now, my question is, how do you know if your child truly believes? Notice I am not talking about baptism directly, but CT teaches baptizing those who are in the covenant AKA infants, so how can an infant believe?

 

[Herald]

Andrew - I am not not going to be drawn into a baptism discussion, but I will respond to your question:

how do you know if your child truly believes?

Let me answer you question with a question.

How do you know if a person truly believes?​

You look for the evidence(s) of repentance and faith. A hatred for sin, desire for God's word, good works etc.
[bible]2 Peter 1:5-9[/bible]

Semi-Pelagians have turned sola fide into solo fide. Sola fide does not exist independent of repentance and the evidence(s) of faith. James said it best:

[bible]James 2:26[/bible]

Andrew - so the issue isn't how one can be in the New Covenant independent of repentance and faith. The issue is that repentance and faith is required for entrance into the New Covenant.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Andrew,

You wrote:

Now, my argument comes from Gal 3:22

"22But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."

1) The promises are given to us when we have faith in Christ.("the promise by faith in Jesus Christ".)

2) Only those who "believe" will recieve these promises.("given to those who believe.")

Your argument flows from false premises. You need to do better than quote a verse at the end of Paul's argument. You need to back way up in Galatians and find out why he's making that statement.

His point is that the promise of Abraham stood firm and that the Law, given hundreds of years later, could not void that promise. Here he is explaining why the Law was given. The reason, in Gal 3:22 is to fulfill the promise made to Abraham!

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Andrew - I am not not going to be drawn into a baptism discussion, but I will respond to your question:



Let me answer you question with a question.

How do you know if a person truly believes?​

You look for the evidence(s) of repentance and faith. A hatred for sin, desire for God's word, good works etc.
[bible]2 Peter 1:5-9[/bible]

Semi-Pelagians have turned sola fide into solo fide. Sola fide does not exist independent of repentance and the evidence(s) of faith. James said it best:

[bible]James 2:26[/bible]

Andrew - so the issue isn't how one can be in the New Covenant independent of repentance and faith. The issue is that repentance and faith is required for entrance into the New Covenant.

Right.

Here is something I read:

"According to Romans 9:6 "... not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." The question arises: Who does Paul mean by the first "Israel" and who does Paul mean by the second "Israel"? It is evident from the passage that "all who are descended from Israel" are all of Jacob's physical descendants or as Romans 9:8 puts it "the natural children". So then the verse becomes "... not all who are the physical descendants of Jacob are Israel." Romans 9:8 contrasts "natural children" with "children of the promise" but equates "God's children" with "Abraham's offspring". Since we have already stated that "natural children" is the same as the physical descendants of Jacob, we can say that the second Israel of Romans 9:6 are God's children and Abraham's offspring [both Jews and Gentiles]. According to Galatians 3:29, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Here we see that "seed" means "Christian". Similarly, John 1:12,13 teaches that "to those who believed in his name, he [Christ] gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." Note again the contrast of "natural descent" with "children of God" and "born of God". It is clear, then, that the second Israel of Romans 9:6 means those who belong to Christ, that is, the church [from the time of Adam forward - Jews and Gentiles]. It is also evident that many in this passage who part of the covenant community in Israel and, by extension) the Church are not necessarily children of promise." -Andrew Wheatley

"the Church are not necessarily children of promise"... how can this be true when Eph. 5 tells us that Christ(the one who the promises were to) died for the church and is the savior of the church?(This isn't directed toward you brother, it's a question to all. I just used your post.)

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Andrew,

You wrote:

Your argument flows from false premises. You need to do better than quote a verse at the end of Paul's argument. You need to back way up in Galatians and find out why he's making that statement.

His point is that the promise of Abraham stood firm and that the Law, given hundreds of years later, could not void that promise. Here he is explaining why the Law was given. The reason, in Gal 3:22 is to fulfill the promise made to Abraham!

Right... but is that verse not clear?

Maybe to best understand where I am coming from is from that quote.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I don't know "how" except I know that God saves infants, and everyone has to be saved by believing (faith). The infant simply needs spiritual "sight" and the right "object" (person) to see, namely Christ. He has an inborn God-awareness, however undeveloped, and the natural response of a saved heart to God is faith. The Bible tells us specific examples of regenerated infants, even when they didn't die in infancy. So, there are definite examples of the principle at work.

Now, there is yet another issue here. Certainly an elect person must believe in order to have the promises effectual. You have to be "in" by faith to havethem. But, 1) this has always and forever been true, not just in the NC. And, 2) when does God make those promises to his elect? Does he only make those promises to him after he saves him? Didn't he love him from all eternity, and promise to save him then? If so, then even the elect infant has those promises reserved for him until he by faith receives them. Baptism is a public declaration of God's promise: "I will save you to the uttermost--believe my word."

For the person already regenerated when he's baptized (whether by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion) the promise really doesn't change at all, so far as PB theology goes. But I think a lot of people tend to see it not as God's promise, but fundamentally as a human statement of declaration: "God, you saved (past tense) me by what this depicts," and as appropriation: "I promise to follow you, God."

Now, do false professors get any of the blessings? No, at least not the substance. There are outward blessings. They participate in those. And so do children of believers who may not be saved. But just because of where they are, and who they are, they are surrounded by the means of grace. God uses those means to bring them to faith in Christ.

Baptists do not believe (I state this advisedly, having now had many conversations with them) in an outward adminstration of the New Covenant, the New Testament Covenant of Grace administration. So, they don't believe that anyone unsaved is even outwardly in the covenant. We PB say there is, and they are. If they believe, then of course they will have both the outward and the inward blessings. If they refuse to believe, or reject the truth, or repudiate their profession, they are covenant breakers, and are judged for apostasy and rebellion and sins against light and grace. But for baptists, there is no NT covenant-breaking. There can't be, because there is no one in the NC who is not saved. There is no outward administration.

 

[Herald]

"the Church are not necessarily children of promise"... how can this be true when Eph. 5 tells us that Christ(the one who the promises were to) died for the church and is the savior of the church?

It is possible to be part of the visible church but not be part of the invisible church. Consider this passage:

[bible]Hebrews 6:4-6[/bible]

What did our Lord say?

[bible]Matthew 7:21[/bible]

So it would be correct to say, "Not everyone in the visible church is a child of promise, but all who are part of the invisible church are children of the promise."

 

[Herald]

Baptists do not believe (I state this advisedly, having now had many conversations with them) in an outward adminstration of the New Covenant, the New Testament Covenant of Grace administration. So, they don't believe that anyone unsaved is even outwardly in the covenant. We PB say there is, and they are. If they believe, then of course they will have both the outward and the inward blessings. If they refuse to believe, or reject the truth, or repudiate their profession, they are covenant breakers, and are judged for apostasy and rebellion and sins against light and grace. But for baptists, there is no NT covenant-breaking. There can't be, because there is no one in the NC who is not saved. There is no outward administration.

Yep. This is one of the more pronounced differences between Presbyterians and Baptists. To use one of my favorite quotes:

"It is what it is."

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Rev. Bruce, I see your point.

Baptism is a public declaration of God's promise: "I will save you to the uttermost--believe my word."

Why would you profess something, when in fact, you do not know the outcome?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Right... but is that verse not clear?

Yes it is clear to me but No it does not mean what you concluded it meant

Maybe to best understand where I am coming from is from that quote.

Well, if you want to abandon your original argument based upon Galatians 3:22 then we can proceed from there.

I don't really have time to break down the quote in detail. I don't see the great incompatibility between the Abrahamic promise and Galatians 3 and Romans 9 that Baptists thrust upon it. One needs to always keep in mind that Paul is not introducing new concepts here but is explaining things and correcting misunderstandings. The Abrahamic promise was never a promise according to the flesh. Indeed, Paul says in Romans 2, that if some didn't believe does that make the promise of God of no effect?

Too often I see Baptists restricting the Abrahamic promise to fleshly significance when it is precisely what Paul is trying to combat against the Judaizers doing to it.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

It is possible to be part of the visible church but not be part of the invisible church. Consider this passage:

[bible]Hebrews 6:4-6[/bible]

What did our Lord say?

[bible]Matthew 7:21[/bible]

So it would be correct to say, "Not everyone in the visible church is a child of promise, but all who are part of the invisible church are children of the promise."

Right, and I would agree with you. But that's not his argument(the quote). His argument is this: "Who does Paul mean by the first "Israel" and who does Paul mean by the second "Israel"?"

The text is clear. One is the physical and the other spiritual. He goes from this question to make his point.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Yes it is clear to me but No it does not mean what you concluded it meant

So believers are not given the promises through Christ?

Is this argument about the promises still not in chapter 3?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Why would you profess something, when in fact, you do not know the outcome?

Do you have God-like knowledge that you cannot apostatize? I'll answer that question: No, you don't. You only know you were/are/will be saved by your present perseverance in the faith. Only the delusional think they can live in sin and have assurance of salvation.

So, the question turns back on yourself. Why do you profess to believe in Christ, when you don't know that next year you will think this was all just a "phase" that you grew out of?

Next point: What isn't true and accurate about the statement regarding the infant (or adult) getting baptized? If he believes, will he not be saved? Not "You believed, therefore were saved," because actually NO ONE can know whether the profession of anyone is real and permanent this side of heaven. No, the promise is "Believe, and I will save." You can't do it once, and then rest. When you first believed was significant, but not the end of the story.

Someone asks me: "when did you put your faith in Christ?"
My answer: "When did I? I can't ever afford to stop!"

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm not a dispie brother. Lol.

I'm not saying you're a dispensationalist (at least fully). Nevertheless, even when Reformed Baptists reject the notion of infant baptism they do so by undermining the spiritual significance of infant circumcision by turning it into a physical rite vice a sign of promise. In so doing they actually are "physicalizing" (made up word) circumcision in a way that Paul is arguing against in his polemics.

It is very common for Baptists to quote portions of Galatians 3 and use them in a manner that Paul was never intending them to be used. In fact, your OP is an example of it.

I'm pointing this out not to beat you about the head and shoulders but to help you understand where I'm coming from. I really don't think Galatians is a terribly hard book to read from start to finish and this would help Baptists at least stop misusing Paul's words regarding circumcision in Galatians 3 and cheapen its spiritual significance.

 

[Herald]

Andrew - I guess I'm having a difficult time ascertaining your question(s). I would concur with Paul. The first Israel is physical, the second Israel spiritual. The second Israel would be the invisible church.

It is clear, then, that the second Israel of Romans 9:6 means those who belong to Christ, that is, the church [from the time of Adam forward - Jews and Gentiles]. It is also evident that many in this passage who part of the covenant community in Israel and, by extension) the Church are not necessarily children of promise."

Based on this quote, I would agree with the writer. Not all who profess possess.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Do you have God-like knowledge that you cannot apostatize? I'll answer that question: No, you don't. You only know you were/are/will be saved by your present perseverance in the faith. Only the delusional think they can live in sin and have assurance of salvation.

So, the question turns back on yourself. Why do you profess to believe in Christ, when you don't know that next year you will think this was all just a "phase" that you grew out of?

Next point: What isn't true and accurate about the statement regarding the infant (or adult) getting baptized? If he believes, will he not be saved? Not "You believed, therefore were saved," because actually NO ONE can know whether the profession of anyone is real and permanent this side of heaven. No, the promise is "Believe, and I will save." You can't do it once, and then rest. When you first believed was significant, but not the end of the story.

Someone asks me: "when did you put your faith in Christ?"
My answer: "When did I? I can't ever afford to stop!"

Pastor.

I was teaching on Romans 2 this past week and I started talking about our Baptism. Now, technically, I was teaching a bit unconfessionally on the subject of baptism as a Baptist would understand it but I was teaching it the way we would understand it: as sign of something external to ourselves.

I was teaching them how the strength of my faith can waiver. Satan can come to me when it waivers and say to me: "You didn't really believe when you were baptized did you?" If my Baptism is no more significant than how well I believed then it is something that can be sifted like wheat. I enjoined them that God's promise, however, cannot be shaken. He swears by Himself that He will save by way of promise. That is unmovable. Let God be true and every man be a liar.

I've had a young brother in that Church that has struggled mightily with sin. We were talking later and he was still talking about how much that was a revelation to him and what a great comfort that was to him.

There is a real Gospel strength to Baptism when we stop viewing it as something that points inward. It is the power of believing that God saves us and we can be battered by Satan and Christ comes to us and says: "Do you believe?" and we answer in our utter need: Lord I believe! Help thou my unbelief!

 

[Herald]

I really don't think Galatians is a terribly hard book to read from start to finish and this would help Baptists at least stop misusing Paul's words regarding circumcision in Galatians 3 and cheapen its spiritual significance.

Rich, I'm probably missing it, but where in Galatians 3 is Paul referring specifically to circumcision? I do read about the promises made to Abraham. Would you say that circumcision is inferred in the text?

 

[Herald]

Pastor.

I was teaching on Romans 2 this past week and I started talking about our Baptism. Now, technically, I was teaching a bit unconfessionally on the subject of baptism as a Baptist would understand it but I was teaching it the way we would understand it: as sign of something external to ourselves.

I was teaching them how the strength of my faith can waiver. Satan can come to me when it waivers and say to me: "You didn't really believe when you were baptized did you?" If my Baptism is no more significant than how well I believed then it is something that can be sifted like wheat. I enjoined them that God's promise, however, cannot be shaken. He swears by Himself that He will save by way of promise. That is unmovable. Let God be true and every man be a liar.

I've had a young brother in that Church that has struggled mightily with sin. We were talking later and he was still talking about how much that was a revelation to him and what a great comfort that was to him.

There is a real Gospel strength to Baptism when we stop viewing it as something that points inward. It is the power of believing that God saves us and we can be battered by Satan and Christ comes to us and says: "Do you believe?" and we answer in our utter need: Lord I believe! Help thou my unbelief!

Rich - speaking as a Baptist, I have never viewed my baptism as a strength or a weakness in regards to my faith. My faith is strengthened by the object, namely Christ. [bible]2 Timothy 1:12[/bible] In other words, the invisible trumps the visible.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, I'm probably missing it, but where in Galatians 3 is Paul referring specifically to circumcision? I do read about the promises made to Abraham. Would you say that circumcision is inferred in the text?

My point is not to argue that Galatians is a good book to go to in order to establish infant baptism per se. It is, nevertheless, often used by Baptists (esp Gal 3:29) to establish that circumcision is a fleshly thing.

Here are three places that explain my criticism:

http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/10/03.15.01
http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/11/22.34.41
http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/09/14/00.43.29

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich - speaking as a Baptist, I have never viewed my baptism as a strength or a weakness in regards to my faith. My faith is strengthened by the object, namely Christ. [bible]2 Timothy 1:12[/bible] In other words, the invisible trumps the visible.

Bill,

What does your baptism signify?

How do you look to your baptism for strength?

 

[Herald]

My point is not to argue that Galatians is a good book to go to in order to establish infant baptism per se. It is, nevertheless, often used by Baptists (esp Gal 3:29) to establish that circumcision is a fleshly thing.

Here are three places that explain my criticism:

http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/10/03.15.01
http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/11/22.34.41
http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/09/14/00.43.29

Rich - I appreciate your links. My question was directly tied to what I perceived as your attempt to link circumcision to Galatians 3. You wrote:

...this would help Baptists at least stop misusing Paul's words regarding circumcision in Galatians 3.

I took your words to indicate that Paul had words regarding circumcision in Galatians 3. Perhaps I read it wrong or that is not what you meant to say.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich - I appreciate your links. My question was directly tied to what I perceived as your attempt to link circumcision to Galatians 3. You wrote:

I took your words to indicate that Paul had words regarding circumcision in Galatians 3. Perhaps I read it wrong or that is not what you meant to say.

Sorry for the confusion. I hope I clarified but if I didn't then I meant to say:

Baptists should read Galatians follow Paul's argument from beginning to end. It might not change their mind about credo-baptism but they should at least stop mis-applying passages that have the word circumcision in them.

 

[Herald]

Bill,

What does your baptism signify?

The sufferings of Christ
Mark 10:38-39
Luke 12:50

Efficacy of Christ's death for believers
Romans 6:4

The Ressurrection
Romans 6:5-11
Col. 2:11

Spiritual Baptism

Eph. 4:5
1 Peter 3:21

Basically, it signifies the now and future aspects of the gospel. This is the New Covenant.

How do you look to your baptism for strength?

What is more valuable, the "X" that marks the spot, or the treasure beneath the "X"? The "X" is indespensible in marking the place where the treasure resides. Likewise my baptism "marks the spot" where Christ resides. This is what I tried to explain in my previous post. My strength (faith) is in the object...the treasure...Jesus Christ. Baptism is a reminder of the treasure.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

OK, that's more full orbed than "...it's an outward sign of an inward reality...".

 

[Herald]

OK, that's more full orbed than "...it's an outward sign of an inward reality...".

I'm always looking for a full orbe.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Thanks for your posts.

Rich, how would you interpret "Law" in Galatians 3? (Keeping in line with Romans 4.)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Which part?

Paul's theme with the law is this:

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[e] 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”[f] 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”[g]

In short, man cannot be justified by keeping the law. Man will ultimately fail in this attempt. The Judaizers were in essence telling the Gentiles: "OK, you have baptism and you have belief in God but this you lack: circumcision and the law of Moses; do these and you'll be complete...."

Paul is telling them that this is a basic denial of not only the Gospel but it is a foundational error as to the purpose of the law: the law was never given as a standard by which men could "do and live". Those who try to "do and live" only bring curse to themselves if they are looking to their own strength. That the idea "do and live" can only bring curse is evident because man fails to do. Thus:

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[h]), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Christ is cursed for the "not doing" and, in fact, brings the blessing of Abraham ("the just shall live by faith") to the Gentiles as they receive the promise. Indeed, opposed to the dispensational view, the law never replaces or supercedes the promise:

15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ,[j] that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Emphasis mine. Clearly, the law could not annul a promise. Paul is saying that not even a contract made by two men can be set aside by a new contract. The parties are bound by the original pact. The law came after the promise and how much more is God true to the original promise.

So now people might be wondering how God could even introduce something like the law that has a character that seems very much different than the promise. It's not only not of the character of promise but it also comes after the promise that God has bound Himself to. It almost seems like Paul is arguing that the law served no point at all. On the contrary:

19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Paul explains that the Law served the purpose of preserving the Covenant people and binding them up in a prison as it were. There are rigid requirements that will be broken by sinful men. In fact, the requirements make men's sinful heart sin all the more before they had specific rules they could rebel against. But sacrifices, seasons, and feasts are added. Prophets, Priests, and Kings are added. They are all added to point to the fulfillment of the promise. They were never meant to be the end of the journey but signs that pointed beyond themselves and guides to the coming of the Seed. What does a man who is in prison long for? A deliverer. What does a child long for? The age of maturity. Indeed, the Judaizers were asking the Galatians to step inside of a prison whose time had passed. They were asking them to go from being adults to being children with a tutor again. Such things are unnatural and impossible. They were also never the nature intended for the shadows.

In other words, the promise that the "just shall live by faith" was an unbreakable promise that would dawn with Christ. It was in effect during the law itself. Christ came and now the promise was fulfilled. The Gentiles were already heirs of the promise. There was nothing that ethnic heirs possessed now that the Gentiles didn't possess in their baptism. There was no difference between Jew and Gentile believer. There was no reason for Gentiles to envy Jews. There was no reason for Jews to be arrogant before Gentile believers.

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.