Romans 8 and Romans 9 padeo and credo

[T.A.G.]

Romans 8:5For(Z) you did not receive(AA) the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of(AB) adoption as sons, by whom we cry,(AC) "Abba! Father!" 16(AD) The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, then(AE) heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ,(AF) provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Romans 9
4They are(E) Israelites, and to them belong(F) the adoption,(G) the glory,(H) the covenants,(I) the giving of the law,(J) the worship, and(K) the promises. 5To them belong(L) the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ(M) who is God over all,(N) blessed forever. Amen.

How do you respond to the objection that is given by baptists that adoption of the New Testament is for only regenerate peoples while the Old Testament adoption was not.
Baptists will say something like "It seems to indicate that the Old Testament adoption is an adoption that is regenerate and non-regenerate while the New Testament seems to be an adoption that is just for the regenerate."

How would you respond?

 

[louis_jp]

Romans 9:6-8: "Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel... it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring."

Romans 11:4-7: "But what is God's reply to him? 'I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.' So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.... What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened."

1 Cor. 10:6, 11-12: "Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.... Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction... Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall."

Hebrews 3:16, 19; 4:2: "For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?... So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm confused by the question. Show me an actual (baptist) argument for whatever the issue is, or I think you're just spinning your wheels trying to get traction on heading some expected, inchoate fear off at the pass.

Is this just a variation on the old (credo-b.) theme, that the OT covenant-arrangements are mixed secular-and-spiritual; and the NT covenant is "purified" to spiritual-exclusively?

Either our bodies are vital to our religious life, in this world, still as ever they were before Christ; or they aren't.

Israel of old was an "adopted son," that is, the OT church had an embodied existence, which was also a typical existence. "Out of Egypt I called my son," which is applied perfectly to Christ, who is the One Faithful Israelite. He is "adopted" so far as his humanity goes, whereas according to his divinity he is the Eternal and Only Begotten Son.

There were countless believers under the ancient economy who were also "adopted" into the church from the Gentile world at large during its whole existence. The majority of them came in by faith.

Now, I would say that we could use "adoption" language today of people who come visibly into the church. We'd be speaking according to that which is "manifest" to us, that is, to our senses. The fallen alienation of that person appears to be overcome by the promise of God in the gospel, as a person is united to the "body" of Christ--a way of depicting union with the Person of Christ.

But it wasn't true to say that unbelievers were truthfully (deeply, soully) "adopted" by God under the old economy, any more than we'd affirm that such persons are adopted today, where faith is absent. We don't make hay out of realities that we can't observe.

Seems like a rabbit-trail to me.

 

[T.A.G.]

Bruce, I hope you are not for some reason upset

and here

Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

Romans 9:2-4, 8:15-17 "I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises." (Romans 9:2-4); "For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory" (Romans 8:15-17).

Note that under the Old Covenant (9:2-4), you could be adopted by God and yet be on your way to hell, in need of the very gospel which Paul proclaimed. This parallels the paedobaptist understanding of "covenant children" being in the "external covenant." But under the New Covenant (8:15-17), all those who are adopted by God have the Spirit of God within them, testifying to their adoption. Because they are children, they are heirs of God who will certainly share his glory. Thus the concept of adoption has been transformed in the New Covenant. New Covenant adoption involves election, regeneration, and the indwelling of the Spirit. Such indwelling was not necessary to Old Covenant adoption, although Old Covenant adoption was by the design of God. All this to say: the "covenant children" of Romans 9 (Old Covenant) are not the "covenant children" of Romans 8 (New Covenant). There are no "covenant children" (in the Romans 9 sense) any more.

 

[louis_jp]

Just because the word "adoption" appears in both passages, it doesn't mean that they are exactly parallel. It says to Israel belongs the adoption and the promises, not that every individual Israelite received such in a saving manner. On the other end, it is not addressing the covenant community as a whole, but only those who have the spirit of adoption, "if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you." (8:9). In other words, you could switch the references to the old and new covenants and it would still be true in both cases. Kind of typing in a rush here, so I'm not sure how clear that was.... but I agree with Rev. Buchanan... the argument is so poorly constructed that it almost doesn't even make sense.

 

[KMK]

For clarification, from WSC:

Q. 32. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?
A. They that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification, adoption, and sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them.

Q. 34. What is adoption?
A. Adoption is an act of God’s free grace,a whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges, of the sons of God.

The paragraph quoted is used by the author of the article to support this head: "Third, the New Covenant is made only with the elect, with those who have experienced these blessings."

As a Baptist, I would disagree with his use of Rom 9:4 to support that head. The adoption spoken of by Paul is not the reformed/theological benefit of being effectually called, but "that which was external and typical, and entitled them to the land of Canaan." (Matthew Henry)

I would not classify this as some kind of 'official' Baptist objection to paedobaptism.

 

[Peairtach]

There is a sense in which all those that are in God's providence placed within His visible family the Church are set apart, chosen for that and are outwardly adopted into His visible Church in His covenantal providence.

But we Presbyterians don't tend to emphasise that in order to avoid confusion. Clear distinctions must be made within the Covenant People.

Under and within the Old Covenant administration there were the Righteous and the Wicked, as can be seen from the Psalms, the Gospels and other parts of Scripture.

It must always be emphasised to the Covenant People that merely being under the administration of the CoG does not necessarily mean that you have the inner reality.

Of course the Visionistas go ahead and add confusion to confusion without distinction.

 

[T.A.G.]

For clarification, from WSC:

Q. 32. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?
A. They that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification, adoption, and sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them.

Q. 34. What is adoption?
A. Adoption is an act of God’s free grace,a whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges, of the sons of God.

The paragraph quoted is used by the author of the article to support this head: "Third, the New Covenant is made only with the elect, with those who have experienced these blessings."

As a Baptist, I would disagree with his use of Rom 9:4 to support that head. The adoption spoken of by Paul is not the reformed/theological benefit of being effectually called, but "that which was external and typical, and entitled them to the land of Canaan." (Matthew Henry)

I would not classify this as some kind of 'official' Baptist objection to paedobaptism.

I thought (though I could be wrong) that this objection was also in Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace?

 

[KMK]

For clarification, from WSC:

Q. 32. What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life?
A. They that are effectually called do in this life partake of justification, adoption, and sanctification, and the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them.

Q. 34. What is adoption?
A. Adoption is an act of God’s free grace,a whereby we are received into the number, and have a right to all the privileges, of the sons of God.

The paragraph quoted is used by the author of the article to support this head: "Third, the New Covenant is made only with the elect, with those who have experienced these blessings."

As a Baptist, I would disagree with his use of Rom 9:4 to support that head. The adoption spoken of by Paul is not the reformed/theological benefit of being effectually called, but "that which was external and typical, and entitled them to the land of Canaan." (Matthew Henry)

I would not classify this as some kind of 'official' Baptist objection to paedobaptism.

I thought (though I could be wrong) that this objection was also in Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace?

I haven't read it. My objection that this shouldn't be classified as an 'official' objection is also not 'official' if others find it objectionable.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Tyler, I'm not upset.

under the Old Covenant (9:2-4), you could be adopted by God and yet be on your way to hell...
Such indwelling was not necessary to Old Covenant adoption

Why should I buy the argument? I find it ridiculous (please pardon me). The allegation that God's ways prior to the New Covenant were mainly carnal, and only incidentally spiritual, sounds to me like some other religion, every time its repeated to me. If one rejects such a premise outright at the beginning, then the quoted statement (2nd part) is baldly false, and the whole argument folds like a house of cards.

What I see is a proposal that there is a concrete, worldly adoption that takes place in the Old Covenant. This is the level of reality, to which, a spiritual "overlay" is added, that reinterprets that carnal adoption in spiritual terms for those few Israelites who take it to another level.

In my Scriptures, the spiritual IS the reality, of which the worldly representations are ALWAYS analogues, having no essential value if separated from the spiritual meaning. This read is no less true for an OT reading as for a NT reading. Therefore, the adoption of the nation of Israel is entirely a moral lesson. In order to benefit from membership in the nation, one must have saving faith in the promises. Otherwise, there are no benefits.

Paul, speaking in Rom.9 is referencing Israel as the church under the Old Covenant. It is the church to whom belong such things as "adoption," "glory" (presence of God), covenant," "law" (written revelation), "service" (worship according to God's institution), and "promises" which were/are all in Christ Jesus. Thought of in those terms, what has changed under a new administration? Is it not true that to the church belong all those things? The national church situation is gone, obliterated since its functional usefulness has been superseded by realizing the purpose for its creation (Christ in the world, mission accomplished, ascension). Nevertheless, the church as an institution continues in the world.

the concept of adoption has been transformed in the New Covenant

But I dispute that you accurately described it so far as the Old Covenant was concerned. Those who actually were adopted by God in the Old Covenant were those of faith. I deny that anything doctrinal has been fundamentally transformed. The biggest difference between the eras is in the superabundant measure of the Spirit present for blessing in the church in our age, versus theirs. But of course the Spirit was even of old doing his regenerating work. Jesus talks to Nicodemus like he ought to have a working understanding of such things as the sovereign movements of the Spirit, John 3.

The problems inherent in a church that has unbelievers in it haven't disappeared. And nowhere this side of heaven is it possible to have a pure church. For one thing, as Calvin aptly pointed out, the most sanctified among us are ALL a little bit "unbeliever" until the day we die. But it is still to the church (the saints) that Paul speaks and talks about adoption and everything else.

 

[Peairtach]

Romans 9
4They are(E) Israelites, and to them belong(F) the adoption,(G) the glory,(H) the covenants,(I) the giving of the law,(J) the worship, and(K) the promises. 5To them belong(L) the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ(M) who is God over all,(N) blessed forever. Amen.

How do you respond to the objection that is given by baptists that adoption of the New Testament is for only regenerate peoples while the Old Testament adoption was not.
Baptists will say something like "It seems to indicate that the Old Testament adoption is an adoption that is regenerate and non-regenerate while the New Testament seems to be an adoption that is just for the regenerate."

How would you respond?

Baptists are dispensational with regard to baptism, and they along with Dispensationalists, need to remember that Israel is still here under the New Covenant, although the Old Covenant is gone.

Believers and their children, if they have them, are engrafted into Israel:

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, (Rom 11:17,ESV)

The mid wall of partition has been broken down so that both Jews and Gentiles stand together in Israel/the Church on an equal footing, with the same promises for the children of Gentile believers, as for the children of Jewish believers:

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,(Eph 2:14-15)

For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6:15)

remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Eph 2:12)

The Old Covenant has fallen away but Christ is incorporating all nations into His Israel, even those of the Jews that were cut out of the Covenantal Abrahamic Olive Tree.