The Olive Tree and Baptists

[Solparvus]

Perfectly willing, if only I knew how. Perhaps a mod can do it for us.

I’ll probably just quote it when I get time to reply.

 

[Solparvus]

Here, though, is where circumcision differs from baptism: it was a physical thing that visibly (well, withing the limits of modesty), distinguished those descended from Abraham from the heathen nations. They were uncircumcised--pretty easy to verify. God began with Abraham to paint a picture of a people apart, separated unto himself, that couldn't easily mingle with the heathen. But the picture was not the real thing, though some of those who were involved in that picture (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.) were truly partakers. "Circumcised in the heart."
In the NC, God's people is truly a people apart--not apart by living behind closed borders, but apart in the way they live and behave even though living among the heathen like wheat among tares. The AC is still, I believe, in force--but in a better way; a more real way; the way that the administration of circumcision was only an earnest of. So we who are Christ's are circumcised in the heart, but that is not a work of man but of God. And baptism is a visible testimony that that real circumcision--the one that really matters--has been performed by a sovereign work of grace.
But let me ask this: it keeps being stated that baptism testifies that saving grace is available to the person baptized if he will receive it. But don't we agree that saving grace is available to all who believe in Christ, whether previously baptized of not?

The Jews weren't the only ones who circumcised. Maybe there was some surprise that they circumcised infants, but it wasn't unique to them. Some African tribes circumcise as a rite of passage, and it was practiced in the European world during Jewish times.

But there's not much here you say against circumcision that you wouldn't also have to say against baptism.

Was circumcision physical? So is baptism.
Did circumcision mark out a holy people? So does baptism.
Did it separate them from heathen? See above, but so does baptism.
Was circumcision a work of man? So is baptism.
Was circumcision not the reality? Neither is baptism.
Did all who were circumcised have the reality? Neither do all those baptized.
Is baptism a sign of what has been done to the person baptized? So was circumcision to Abraham, and any Gentile wanting to join himself to the community (Psalm 50:16-23).

Neither did the Israelites live behind close borders. Foreigners were free to eat the Passover to the Lord so long as they were willing to be circumcised and be faithful to God. God said plainly that there would be one law for both natural Israelites and foreigners, and the foreigners were not to think they were lesser members because they were not Jews (Exod 12:48-49, Isaiah 56:3-5). Few came in, but they were welcome when they did.

As to the Abrahamic Covenant, I agree with you that it is in force in a much greater way, which is everything I'm saying in the "Finer Points of the New Covenant" thread. I guess we disagree on how.

You mentioned that God's true people would be marked as separate not by living behind closed borders, but by real holy living. So, my question from my post: Do you believe God had a way of winnowing out the unfaithful in the OC times? If so, was it really acceptable to God for there to be unbelievers in the covenant community?

And the answer to that has much to do with why I view the olive tree as the visible church.

And to answer your question, yes.

 

[Ben Zartman]

The Jews weren't the only ones who circumcised. Maybe there was some surprise that they circumcised infants, but it wasn't unique to them. Some African tribes circumcise as a rite of passage, and it was practiced in the European world during Jewish times.

But there's not much here you say against circumcision that you wouldn't also have to say against baptism.

Was circumcision physical? So is baptism.
Did circumcision mark out a holy people? So does baptism.
Did it separate them from heathen? See above, but so does baptism.
Was circumcision a work of man? So is baptism.
Was circumcision not the reality? Neither is baptism.
Did all who were circumcised have the reality? Neither do all those baptized.
Is baptism a sign of what has been done to the person baptized? So was circumcision to Abraham, and any Gentile wanting to join himself to the community (Psalm 50:16-23).

Neither did the Israelites live behind close borders. Foreigners were free to eat the Passover to the Lord so long as they were willing to be circumcised and be faithful to God. God said plainly that there would be one law for both natural Israelites and foreigners, and the foreigners were not to think they were lesser members because they were not Jews (Exod 12:48-49, Isaiah 56:3-5). Few came in, but they were welcome when they did.

As to the Abrahamic Covenant, I agree with you that it is in force in a much greater way, which is everything I'm saying in the "Finer Points of the New Covenant" thread. I guess we disagree on how.

You mentioned that God's true people would be marked as separate not by living behind closed borders, but by real holy living. So, my question from my post: Do you believe God had a way of winnowing out the unfaithful in the OC times? If so, was it really acceptable to God for there to be unbelievers in the covenant community?

And the answer to that has much to do with why I view the olive tree as the visible church.

And to answer your question, yes.

These objections show that you are now grasping at straws.
So what if circumcision was practiced elsewhere? The Jews called their enemies "the uncircumcised." It was clearly given to distinguish. Baptism was also practiced elsewhere in the NT ("why then do they baptize for the dead?"), but that does not negate it as a sign.
And yes, baptism is physical, but it's physical consequences are not permanent: water dries, but foreskins don't grow back. One of the failings of the Presbyterian system is that they equate too closely the two signs, when there are numerous differences between the two. Circumcision didn't signify being "buried with Christ, and raised to walk in newness of life"; it was not applied to females; it was a sign of the old administration, a mere type of the better sign to come, the sign of the New Covenant, founded on better promises, which promised better things!
I fail to see how neither circumcision nor baptism being the reality negates that one is different from the other. And baptism is NOT to be applied (say we Baptists) to those who do not have the reality.
Moving on, I never said the Isrealites lived behind closed borders; I said that their dietary and purity laws prevented their mingling with the heathen. Even today a Kosher Jew cannot attend a regular cocktail party--they are visibly separate and different. That was the point of OT Israel--a physical picture of a people palpably different and separate, signifying a NT people that while living physically mingled among the nations, are visibly different in their habits and behavior.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking with the question of whether God had a way of winnowing out the unfaithful. Are you asking whether I believe that God knows the hearts of men? Obviously God knew the regenerate--it was He who had elected them in eternity past! And of course it was within God's sovereignty that not every member of the OT covenant community was regenerate. Surely you don't think that God intended that every Isrealite born should come to faith, and that His intentions failed millions of times? That's pretty ludicrous.
I don't know why people stumble at the thought that God's covenant people in the past were typifying the present covenant people, and that the imperfect type has given way to the better thing, and that all will be perfected a the last day, when all of God's elect--not everyone who was circumcised or baptized, but everyone whom God regenerated, and only those--will be with Him in glory, and follow the Lamb whithersoever He goes.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

all who were actual members of this New Covenant would be regenerate. Why do you long to return to the types and shadows of the old covenant, wherein membership did not vouchsafe eternal life?

How do you understand passages like Hewbrews 10:
“26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Also, Can you explain the type and anti-type of covenantal status? You called covenantal status a “type and shadow”.

 

[Solparvus]

These objections show that you are now grasping at straws.
So what if circumcision was practiced elsewhere? The Jews called their enemies "the uncircumcised." It was clearly given to distinguish. Baptism was also practiced elsewhere in the NT ("why then do they baptize for the dead?"), but that does not negate it as a sign.
And yes, baptism is physical, but it's physical consequences are not permanent: water dries, but foreskins don't grow back. One of the failings of the Presbyterian system is that they equate too closely the two signs, when there are numerous differences between the two. Circumcision didn't signify being "buried with Christ, and raised to walk in newness of life"; it was not applied to females; it was a sign of the old administration, a mere type of the better sign to come, the sign of the New Covenant, founded on better promises, which promised better things!
I fail to see how neither circumcision nor baptism being the reality negates that one is different from the other. And baptism is NOT to be applied (say we Baptists) to those who do not have the reality.
Moving on, I never said the Isrealites lived behind closed borders; I said that their dietary and purity laws prevented their mingling with the heathen. Even today a Kosher Jew cannot attend a regular cocktail party--they are visibly separate and different. That was the point of OT Israel--a physical picture of a people palpably different and separate, signifying a NT people that while living physically mingled among the nations, are visibly different in their habits and behavior.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking with the question of whether God had a way of winnowing out the unfaithful. Are you asking whether I believe that God knows the hearts of men? Obviously God knew the regenerate--it was He who had elected them in eternity past! And of course it was within God's sovereignty that not every member of the OT covenant community was regenerate. Surely you don't think that God intended that every Isrealite born should come to faith, and that His intentions failed millions of times? That's pretty ludicrous.
I don't know why people stumble at the thought that God's covenant people in the past were typifying the present covenant people, and that the imperfect type has given way to the better thing, and that all will be perfected a the last day, when all of God's elect--not everyone who was circumcised or baptized, but everyone whom God regenerated, and only those--will be with Him in glory, and follow the Lamb whithersoever He goes.

Brother, didn't you argue the weakness of circumcision from the bases that I listed? At the very least, it was a physical sign pointing to a spiritual reality, but just being a picture? In all the things you mentioned, you must then cripple the force of baptism, if not negate it as necessary. Why not just say, "I don't need baptism because the spiritual realities are far greater than the symbol that represents them, baptism doesn't effect anything by itself, and the only testimony the world needs that I have been been washed, united to Christ, died to sin, and made live to righteousness are my faith, love and good works"?

You did talk about Israel living behind closed borders but said nothing about dietary laws, so the only connection I could make was the relative exclusion of Gentiles. That's how it sounded anyway, but ok. And you don't want to argue from modern Jewish practice. They don't even practice their Passover according to the Torah (eg. they don't go to Jerusalem, they allow uncircumcised Gentiles to observe or partake without asking personal questions, etc.).

My question is basically, was God okay with spiritual uncircumcision in the covenant community, and did He do anything about it when it occurred? Did God punish only for external acts, or did he punish for internal acts as well?

Or, here's a roundabout way to get to the answer (forgive my anachronistic terminology): were Gentile males coming in required to have a credible profession of faith before being given entrance into the covenant community?

Again, bringing this back around, this has to do with my view on the olive tree.

 

[Ben Zartman]

How do you understand passages like Hewbrews 10:
“26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Also, Can you explain the type and anti-type of covenantal status? You called covenantal status a “type and shadow”.

Hi Andrew,
I see it as rejecting Jesus as Messiah even though knowing that He is the only way to God. Whatever it means to have been sanctified in this context, doesn't mean he was saved and then becomes un-saved.
The Reformation Heritage Bible comments here: "From the context we can learn that the author means 'the sin of apostacy'. Having made some profession upon instruction...Those who apostatize from the blood of Christ have left themselves with no further remedy for sins."
This then has nothing to do with infant baptism, since the baptized child has not yet been instructed or is capable of making a profession. Everyone, paedo-baptized or not, who makes a profession (obviously a spurious one), who knows that Jesus in the only way to God, and who scorns to follow Him, is under this indictment.

As to your second question: Being physically born into the Old Covenant was a picture of being spiritually born into the new. How can we understand the meaning of 'new birth' if we haven't seen a ton of natural birth? Jesus' words to Nicodemus were telling him that though he had been physically born, he was still not yet alive unto God--he needed a New Birth. And since this New Covenant in called the "Kingdom of God" by it's mediator, who says you must be born again to see it, the sign of the New Covenant is to be applied only to those born--born again--into it.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Brother, didn't you argue the weakness of circumcision from the bases that I listed? At the very least, it was a physical sign pointing to a spiritual reality, but just being a picture? In all the things you mentioned, you must then cripple the force of baptism, if not negate it as necessary. Why not just say, "I don't need baptism because the spiritual realities are far greater than the symbol that represents them, baptism doesn't effect anything by itself, and the only testimony the world needs that I have been been washed, united to Christ, died to sin, and made live to righteousness are my faith, love and good works"?

You did talk about Israel living behind closed borders but said nothing about dietary laws, so the only connection I could make was the relative exclusion of Gentiles. That's how it sounded anyway, but ok. And you don't want to argue from modern Jewish practice. They don't even practice their Passover according to the Torah (eg. they don't go to Jerusalem, they allow uncircumcised Gentiles to observe or partake without asking personal questions, etc.).

My question is basically, was God okay with spiritual uncircumcision in the covenant community, and did He do anything about it when it occurred? Did God punish only for external acts, or did he punish for internal acts as well?

Or, here's a roundabout way to get to the answer (forgive my anachronistic terminology): were Gentile males coming in required to have a credible profession of faith before being given entrance into the covenant community?

Again, bringing this back around, this has to do with my view on the olive tree.

I must ask then: what force to you think Baptism has? Does it add any salvation to the regenerate person who approaches the waters of baptism? Does it make the child baptized closer to being saved? I hope you don't believe that sort of rubbish. Friend, it is nothing but a sign--it cannot confer saving grace, since it is something man does, and only God can save.
You ask, why not say, "I don't need baptism because the spiritual realities are greater than the symbol?" Because Our Lord in His wisdom was pleased to give us visible, tangible sacraments, knowing our frame, remembering that we are dust. Beyond that I cannot go in searching out the mind of God. But I can obey what he commands.

But it seems now to me that you are arguing not as someone who is on the fence, deciding whether credo or paedo, but as a hardened paedobaptist. I'm afraid I can't really make things clearer: I've explained the Baptist position to the best of my ability, and I apologize if that ability is small, and if my examples muddy the waters rather than clear them. In my head and conscience all these things make sense, but something must be being lost in the writing. I urge you again, talk to Pastor Nichols, think these things out carefully, and whatever conclusion you come to, be fully persuaded in your own mind.
Blessings in Christ Jesus,

 

[Solparvus]

You’ve discerned rightly that my position is now the paedobaptist position, convinced from Scripture.

Blessings to you too brother. May God bring us both to a brighter and clearer knowledge of His Word and will, to one day fully agree on baptism, and most of all grow in the experiential knowledge of Jesus Christ, the life of the olive tree.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Whatever it means to have been sanctified in this context, doesn't mean he was saved and then becomes un-saved.

No one has suggested such. Where did this come from? We are reformed.

And since this New Covenant in called the "Kingdom of God" by it's mediator, who says you must be born again to see it, the sign of the New Covenant is to be applied only to those born--born again--into it.

This is an assumption without actually dealing with the issue at hand.

Your claim was that all those who are in the NC are regenerate. I quoted it in my last post. However, you argued a point that no one brought up: “doesn't mean he was saved and then becomes un-saved”. This is your struggle in trying to understand the passage, not mine.

You’ve only told me what it doesn’t mean. So, what does Hebrews 10 mean when it says they were sanctified by the blood of the covenant?

 

[JTB.SDG]

Or, here's a roundabout way to get to the answer (forgive my anachronistic terminology): were Gentile males coming in required to have a credible profession of faith before being given entrance into the covenant community?

Jake, I know this isn't for me, but thought I'd chime in. We would say yes, but I would love to hear the Scriptures you would cite for this. Personally, I would go to Romans 4:11 and the nature of circumcision; and just as Abraham believed and was then circumcised, so is the pattern for the OT sign for adults (adult-circumcision for Abe; infant-circumcision for his sons). I would also go to Exodus 12, which you mentioned earlier in this post, which I see as a really important Scripture, verses 43-49, that speak of Gentiles celebrating the Passover. Before they can enjoy this spiritual meal, they must be circumcised. I suppose someone could argue that they didn't need to have faith before they were circumcised, but if you go to a Scripture like Ezekiel 44:7,9, you see the Lord condemning foreigner Gentiles who were uncircumcised in flesh AND uncircumcised in heart. So they go together. But again, I would love to hear what Scriptures you were thinking of.

 

[Solparvus]

Jake, I know this isn't for me, but thought I'd chime in. We would say yes, but I would love to hear the Scriptures you would cite for this. Personally, I would go to Romans 4:11 and the nature of circumcision; and just as Abraham believed and was then circumcised, so is the pattern for the OT sign for adults (adult-circumcision for Abe; infant-circumcision for his sons). I would also go to Exodus 12, which you mentioned earlier in this post, which I see as a really important Scripture, verses 43-49, that speak of Gentiles celebrating the Passover. Before they can enjoy this spiritual meal, they must be circumcised. I suppose someone could argue that they didn't need to have faith before they were circumcised, but if you go to a Scripture like Ezekiel 44:7,9, you see the Lord condemning foreigner Gentiles who were uncircumcised in flesh AND uncircumcised in heart. So they go together. But again, I would love to hear what Scriptures you were thinking of.

I never thought of using Abraham, but yes he would be the pattern, wouldn't he?

I had an interest in this question because Jeffrey Johnson in "The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism" asserted something to the effect that only circumcision was required to come into the covenant community and not faith, and many lived and died in the covenant community their whole lives as unbelievers.

I'll go a little bit beyond just a credible profession, but also that God demanded faith and internal obedience as well, whether they came in to the covenant community by birth or from the outside. The logic is that if God demands it from those on the inside, and disciplines/punishes them according to their disobedience, it is demanded of those coming in from the outside. And, the requisites are not different from what is demanded of a member in the New Covenant community. I think that view is consistent that God was routinely weeding out the Old Testament covenant community through death, plagues, invasions, exiles, cutting off peoples, etc.

Exodus 12 says that they keep it "to the Lord," which implies partaking with understanding and self-appropriation.

Deuteronomy 30:6 - "Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart and be no longer stiff-necked."

Psalm 50:16 - "What right have you to recite my statutes or take my covenant on your lips? For you hate my discipline, and you cast my words behind you."

Psalm 95:10-11 - For forty years I loathed that generation and said, 'They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways.' Therefore I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'"

The author of Hebrews then warns his audience, after quoting this text from Psalm 95, to beware of having an evil, unbelieving heart (Hebrews 3:12). Makes even more sense after reading the whole psalm.

Jeremiah 4:4 - "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts, o men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire."

Hebrews 3:19 - "So we see they were unable to enter because of unbelief."

This is all that I can do right now, but I've become convinced that it was not acceptable to God to only have external obedience, but He also demanded internal obedience, and rewarded/disciplined accordingly. So, if it wasn't acceptable inside the covenant, it was not acceptable for those coming in. So, credible profession necessary to enter Israel.

More later, maybe.

 

[Dachaser]

I never thought of using Abraham, but yes he would be the pattern, wouldn't he?

I had an interest in this question because Jeffrey Johnson in "The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism" asserted something to the effect that only circumcision was required to come into the covenant community and not faith, and many lived and died in the covenant community their whole lives as unbelievers.

I'll go a little bit beyond just a credible profession, but also that God demanded faith and internal obedience as well, whether they came in to the covenant community by birth or from the outside. The logic is that if God demands it from those on the inside, and disciplines/punishes them according to their disobedience, it is demanded of those coming in from the outside. And, the requisites are not different from what is demanded of a member in the New Covenant community. I think that view is consistent that God was routinely weeding out the Old Testament covenant community through death, plagues, invasions, exiles, cutting off peoples, etc.

Exodus 12 says that they keep it "to the Lord," which implies partaking with understanding and self-appropriation.

Deuteronomy 30:6 - "Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart and be no longer stiff-necked."

Psalm 50:16 - "What right have you to recite my statutes or take my covenant on your lips? For you hate my discipline, and you cast my words behind you."

Psalm 95:10-11 - For forty years I loathed that generation and said, 'They are a people who go astray in their heart, and they have not known my ways.' Therefore I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest.'"

The author of Hebrews then warns his audience, after quoting this text from Psalm 95, to beware of having an evil, unbelieving heart (Hebrews 3:12). Makes even more sense after reading the whole psalm.

Jeremiah 4:4 - "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts, o men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire."

Hebrews 3:19 - "So we see they were unable to enter because of unbelief."

This is all that I can do right now, but I've become convinced that it was not acceptable to God to only have external obedience, but He also demanded internal obedience, and rewarded/disciplined accordingly. So, if it wasn't acceptable inside the covenant, it was not acceptable for those coming in. So, credible profession necessary to enter Israel.

More later, maybe.

The New Covenant though has its supreme sign of one being actually included in it of being marked and indwelt by the promised Holy Spirit Himself, who only comes to those who have received Jesus as Lord through faith in Him.
This ties into the truth that not all in Israel were and are of Abraham, but only those who now have faith in the promised Messiah.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

The New Covenant though has its supreme sign of one being actually included in it of being marked and indwelt by the promised Holy Spirit Himself, who only comes to those who have received Jesus as Lord through faith in Him.

I’m not sure I understand this. Are you saying the sign is the Holy Spirit? Or that baptism is efficacious when it’s administered?

 

[Dachaser]

I’m not sure I understand this. Are you saying the sign is the Holy Spirit? Or that baptism is efficacious when it’s administered?

The mark of one being now included under the NC would be to have the Holy Spirit now indwelling them, and the outward visible sign to others would be the water baptism taken once now saved.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

The mark of one being now included under the NC would be to have the Holy Spirit now indwelling them, and the outward visible sign to others would be the water baptism taken once now saved.

Beside this being an assumption: are you saying the Holy Spirit did not regenerate OT saints?

 

[Dachaser]

Beside this being an assumption: are you saying the Holy Spirit did not regenerate OT saints?

No, rather that under the OC, there were both the saved and lost included, as many of the promises were of the physical nature, and so one could be blessed by God by being under the national Covenant with Israel, but not a sure sign that one was a saved Israelite.
I do see the Holy Spirit now working in a more full and completed fashion with us under the NC, as have read various summaries of this question, and that seems to be some reformed/Calvinists who did not see Him indwelling at all OT saints, others just indwelling those such as Kings/prophets/priests, and those seeing Him saving and indwelling them, but not yet in same way as He does now with us.

 

[Ben Zartman]

No one has suggested such. Where did this come from? We are reformed.



This is an assumption without actually dealing with the issue at hand.

Your claim was that all those who are in the NC are regenerate. I quoted it in my last post. However, you argued a point that no one brought up: “doesn't mean he was saved and then becomes un-saved”. This is your struggle in trying to understand the passage, not mine.

You’ve only told me what it doesn’t mean. So, what does Hebrews 10 mean when it says they were sanctified by the blood of the covenant?

Andrew,

I'm afraid I'm at a loss to explain Hebrews 10 to you in the manner you wish. I know what it does not mean, given the rest of the witness of Scripture. The commentators I've consulted take it to mean that a professing believer, who has joined the church, attended to the ministry of the word, received the sacraments, and knows that Jesus is the only way to God, who then rejects the Christ, cannot look for salvation anywhere else, since he knows where it is to be found.
But we do know that the blood of the covenant, the sign of which he wrongly partook of, was of no effect to him, being unmixed with faith.
But indulge me for a moment, and tell me what you take the passage in question to mean.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

The commentators I've consulted take it to mean that a professing believer, who has joined the church, attended to the ministry of the word, received the sacraments, and knows that Jesus is the only way to God, who then rejects the Christ, cannot look for salvation anywhere else, since he knows where it is to be found.

I don’t disagree with this.

But indulge me for a moment, and tell me what you take the passage in question to mean.

As you have even given, they have received baptism. “Sanctified” there in the passage points to this fact: they have been given a sign and seal of the covenant, I.e. baptism. This makes them apart of the covenant and covenant community. We distinguish between the external/internal membership of the covenant.

It is also of note to point out that verse 30 states the Lord will judge HIS people: “For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.” How can this judgment, in light of apostasizing, happen to God’s people, if they aren’t in some sense apart of the covenant?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

No, rather that under the OC, there were both the saved and lost included, as many of the promises were of the physical nature, and so one could be blessed by God by being under the national Covenant with Israel, but not a sure sign that one was a saved Israelite.
I do see the Holy Spirit now working in a more full and completed fashion with us under the NC, as have read various summaries of this question, and that seems to be some reformed/Calvinists who did not see Him indwelling at all OT saints, others just indwelling those such as Kings/prophets/priests, and those seeing Him saving and indwelling them, but not yet in same way as He does now with us.

It seems you are equating membership in the covenant with regeneration.

 

[Dachaser]

It seems you are equating membership in the covenant with regeneration.

you are indeed understanding my position on this issue correctly Brother.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I don’t disagree with this.



As you have even given, they have received baptism. “Sanctified” there in the passage points to this fact: they have been given a sign and seal of the covenant, I.e. baptism. This makes them apart of the covenant and covenant community. We distinguish between the external/internal membership of the covenant.

It is also of note to point out that verse 30 states the Lord will judge HIS people: “For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.” How can this judgment, in light of apostasizing, happen to God’s people, if they aren’t in some sense apart of the covenant?

As for the Lord judging His people, well, if we are to be judged, how badly will it go for an impostor posing as a sheep when he is not? That is what I take that to mean--there is no safety in hiding within the visible church if you will not repent and believe.
But thanks for the discussion, and I apologize if I haven't all the answers at my fingertips--some matters are too weighty for me.

 

[JTB.SDG]

I'll go a little bit beyond just a credible profession, but also that God demanded faith and internal obedience as well, whether they came in to the covenant community by birth or from the outside. The logic is that if God demands it from those on the inside, and disciplines/punishes them according to their disobedience, it is demanded of those coming in from the outside.

Your point is also explicitly affirmed by Scripture in that text in Exodus, in 12:49, where, in the context of circumcision, the Lord states that the same law for the native also applies to the foreigner who joins themselves to the people of God. So if God was not just commanding the sign but the reality it represented (IE, the texts you mentioned above) for ethnic Israel, it was the same for Gentiles.

Another noteworthy thing from Exodus 12--the foreigners who came near to celebrate the Passover, were not only to circumcise themselves, but they were to circumcise "all their males"; so not only was circumcision not an ethnic sign (since Gentiles were to be circumcised also); but those Gentiles were in turn to follow the same pattern: adult circumcision for them; infant circumcision for their children.

 

[Solparvus]

Your point is also explicitly affirmed by Scripture in that text in Exodus, in 12:49, where, in the context of circumcision, the Lord states that the same law for the native also applies to the foreigner who joins themselves to the people of God. So if God was not just commanding the sign but the reality it represented (IE, the texts you mentioned above) for ethnic Israel, it was the same for Gentiles.

Another noteworthy thing from Exodus 12--the foreigners who came near to celebrate the Passover, were not only to circumcise themselves, but they were to circumcise "all their males"; so not only was circumcision not an ethnic sign (since Gentiles were to be circumcised also); but those Gentiles were in turn to follow the same pattern: adult circumcision for them; infant circumcision for their children.

Then the conclusion is that when the apostles and preachers in the NT demand faith and repentance of those they preach to prior to baptism, they are not requiring anything different from what God requires in the OT prior to circumcision, so to point out the prerequisite of faith and repentance prior to baptism doesn’t prove anything.

So, it is not an argument to refuse baptism to the children of those who make a credible profession.

Going back to the olive tree, it’s one less reason to say the treatment of the branches in the NC differs from the OT, or that the membership structure has radically changed. God may still rightly count professing hypocrites as branches on the tree as He did before Christ, and later on cut them off if they prove to be fruitless. The whole history of Israel proves that God accepted Jews and Gentiles upon their profession, but would discipline and punish and even cut off when they proved barren despite all His efforts with them.

Similarly, in John 15 Christ counts branches that don’t bear fruit as being in Him (though He is not in them) yet cuts them off because they don’t bear fruit, which implies that even though Christ knows their hearts He bears with them for some time like He did with Judas. It’s also like the barren tree. The Lord tolerates the barrenness for some time, but eventually decided He will waste no more time on the barren tree—but even then, concedes to give that barren tree more time. Just like He did time after time in Israel.

So in that fashion, He deals with the natural and wild branches of the olive tree.

 

[JTB.SDG]

Similarly, in John 15 Christ counts branches that don’t bear fruit as being in Him (though He is not in them) yet cuts them off because they don’t bear fruit, which implies that even though Christ knows their hearts He bears with them for some time like He did with Judas. It’s also like the barren tree. The Lord tolerates the barrenness for some time, but eventually decided He will waste no more time on the barren tree—but even then, concedes to give that barren tree more time. Just like He did time after time in Israel.

We are doing a Bible study through 1 John, and yesterday we studied the passage that contains 1 John 2:19: "they went out from us", etc. I was thinking of John 15:2. 1 John tells us that they left the church; John 15 tells us why they left the church. On the one hand, they went out of their own accord, but ultimately, the reason they left is: "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away..."

I believe we have a striking example of this in OT in Genesis 36. Here Esau takes his entire household and moves away from the land of Canaan. The rest of the chapter is a detailed list of his offspring. Esau's decision had massive implications for his seed. They would now be raised outside of the church.

 

[Dachaser]

Then the conclusion is that when the apostles and preachers in the NT demand faith and repentance of those they preach to prior to baptism, they are not requiring anything different from what God requires in the OT prior to circumcision, so to point out the prerequisite of faith and repentance prior to baptism doesn’t prove anything.

So, it is not an argument to refuse baptism to the children of those who make a credible profession.

Going back to the olive tree, it’s one less reason to say the treatment of the branches in the NC differs from the OT, or that the membership structure has radically changed. God may still rightly count professing hypocrites as branches on the tree as He did before Christ, and later on cut them off if they prove to be fruitless. The whole history of Israel proves that God accepted Jews and Gentiles upon their profession, but would discipline and punish and even cut off when they proved barren despite all His efforts with them.

Similarly, in John 15 Christ counts branches that don’t bear fruit as being in Him (though He is not in them) yet cuts them off because they don’t bear fruit, which implies that even though Christ knows their hearts He bears with them for some time like He did with Judas. It’s also like the barren tree. The Lord tolerates the barrenness for some time, but eventually decided He will waste no more time on the barren tree—but even then, concedes to give that barren tree more time. Just like He did time after time in Israel.

So in that fashion, He deals with the natural and wild branches of the olive tree.

Do not refuse water baptism to children who have made a profession of faith in Christ, but not towards infants who cannot do that requirement.