The Sign of Circumcision: Symbolizing Justification, Regeneration, or Both?

Discussion in 'Covenant Theology' started by TheThirdandReformedAdam, Aug 7, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    If the named covenants are NOT under the C of G, then what covenant are they under? As I have said a number of times, there are only two major covenants in time. If these covenants were not gracious, how were men saved in those times?
     
  2. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    I appreciate the encouragement. I just hope my brothers here understand that I am not trying to be combative or disagreeable. I genuinely want to understand each position as best I can. Heck, I want to be a paedobaptist so that I feel I have better fellowship with those theologians whom I admire (Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, etc.), including those whom I admire on here. However, until I am convinced scripturally, I cannot subscribe to it, no matter how much I may want to.
     
  3. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    This is very important. Dispensational theology is a blinder for those wrestling with the issues until they come out of the issue.
     
  4. Tyrese

    Tyrese Puritan Board Sophomore

    Dispensationalist wouldn't recognize the language in Deennalt's book. Actually, we're accused of being closet Presbyterians. Fact is we're not closet Presbyterians nor are we dispensationalist.
     
  5. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    I believe this has been said ad nauseum at this point. Anyone who is ever saved is saved by virtue on the New Covenant—those in the Old Testament by believing the promise, those in the New Testament having the fully revealed New Covenant.
     
  6. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Well, not in the Ryrie, Scofield, Lehaye strain. However, for example, the Denault statement is dispensational (when you compare this to historic Christianity).

    I was saved in a Calvary Chapel and moved from there into a 'particular' baptist setting...

    it is not the same, but as I said above.
     
  7. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    So they had to be under the C of G as the NC is an administration of that covenant...there are only two covenants. ;)
     
  8. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    Again, the issue is faithfulness to Scripture, and that alone—not faithfulness to a doctrinal scheme. If my understanding of Scripture gets me labelled a Dispensationalist (again, an emotional non-argument; it simply isn't true no matter how many times one repeats it), then so be it. My only concern is faithfulness to the Scriptures, not the approval of a certain Christian sect.
     
  9. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    The idea that the Left Behind, Prophecy Today crowds, as dispensationalists, wouldn't recognize Denault's language, doesn't mean I don't recognize dispensational language.
    Regardless of whether ultra-dispensationalists would have ever recognized that, does not mean Denault has escaped the Dispensational camp. It just means he is more polished in his language.
     
  10. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    You simply are choosing to not read what is being said. Please, pick up a copy of Denault's book and read it.
     
  11. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Some, like Waldron, seek to explain their antipaedobaptism in terms of the covenantal theology of the Westminster Confession. Others, like Denault, have challenged that understanding, and have presented their antipaedobaptism in terms that deny there was any actual administration of the covenant of grace under the OT. In comparison with the former view the latter formulation is dispensational. If there is no actual administration of the covenant of grace under the OT, what are those OT covenants?
     
  12. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    But labels mean something, so the label Dispensational would be rather important in that way.

    For example, Jonathan Edwards did not want to be labeled an Arminian, and Calvin did not want to be labeled a Papist. Labels instantly tell the reader what one believes.
     
  13. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    I am reading was is being said; to which I am a bit shocked...it makes absolutely no sense. Men are saved by grace, but it's not under a gracious covenant, it's under a covenant that is a New Testament Phenomenon....which shows it's dispensationalism.
     
  14. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    Matthew,
    Exactly-I've asked this a number of times.
     
  15. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    I do not care what people choose to label me. I only care about being faithful to the Scriptures, not a theological scheme.
     
  16. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    And I've given you an answer at least a couple...

    Besides, where in Scripture does it say that individual covenants made between God and men have to fall under either the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace (extrabiblical terms, by the way).

    Part of the reason why this conversation is getting nowhere is because all the question begging.
     
  17. Tyrese

    Tyrese Puritan Board Sophomore

    Fair enough. However I will say this: I have nothing but the utmost respect for paedobaptist. In fact 99% of my books are authored by paedobaptist. that's how much I appreciate their (and your) perspectives on Scripture and related issues. But as our brother has said (or perhaps implied), infant baptism cannot be supported by Scripture. And not only that, each and every scripture used to defend that position comes up short. And that's an understatement. At the end of the day I think many of us just want to be heard and treated fairly. From experience I would tell you that many of our Reformed Baptist congregations are far more reformed than many Presbyterian Churches that I've been to, and I'm sure you would agree with me.
     
  18. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Adam and Christ contrasted, Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15; Hebrews 2.

    The Gentiles receive the blessings promised to Abraham by faith in Christ, Romans 4; Galatians 3.

    We are not at liberty to ignore what Scripture so clearly states and systematises. It is foolishness to ignore Scripture in seeking to understand Scripture.
     
  19. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritanboard Commissioner

    As I have said, many things are gotten to by good and necessary consequence or inference; the church at large over the centuries have come to solid conclusions on certain doctrines, to which we subscribe; and for good reason. I am sure you have no issue with:

    1) deleted as you aren't paedo...

    2) The Trinity

    3) The Covenant of grace and redemption

    4) The change in the sabbath from the last day of the week to the first day

    5) Woman taking the supper

    6) The local church vs the Universal Church

    7) The Regulative Principle

    8) Membership

    9) Baptism of adult children belonging to Christian parents

    10) Mode of baptism

    11) Church Polity
     
  20. Taylor Sexton

    Taylor Sexton Puritan Board Junior

    That is impossible when every conversation devolves into labeling (i.e., non-argumentation), as if orthodox truth was about conforming to a doctrinal scheme rather than the Scriptures.

    All I can say is to please pick up a copy of Denault's book and read it. It is very enlightening. You all don't have to agree with it, but you should read it, at least (if you desire to be fair, that is).

    As for me, I cannot spend any more time on this thread. I simply have too much school work to do.

    I enjoyed it, gentlemen, truly.
     
  21. C. Matthew McMahon

    C. Matthew McMahon Christian Preacher

    If Scott reads John Calvin, Beza, Oecolampadius, Augustine, William Ames, William Perkins, Thomas Hooker, Cornelius Burgess, William Strong, Michael Harrison, Richard Rawlin, Francis Taylor, Cuthbert Sydenham, John Ball, John Owen, Edmund Calamy, Peter Bulkeley, Francis Roberts, John Arrowsmith, Nathaniel Vincent, Thomas Blake, Samuel Rutherford, John Brinsley, Herman Witsius, Samuel Willard, Samuel Petto, and Francis Turretin (among just a few) - and then reads John Spilsbury, Henry Lawrence, Benjamin Keach, Hansard Knolleys, William Sherriff, Thomas Patient, John Bunyan, Edward Hutchison, and Nehemiah Coxe, would he really need to read Denault? Does Denault really matter at that point?
     
  22. Tyrese

    Tyrese Puritan Board Sophomore

    That's a good question brother. To be honest with you I haven't looked into Waldron's perspectives on Covenant Theology. However he does have a course on Covenant Theology at Covenant Baptist Theological Semianary that seems to endorse Dennaults perspective. Obviously that doesn't mean Dr. Waldron endorses this view, I just thought I'd throw that out there. I have two books on Covenant Theology and I think Greg Nicols book supports 'Some, like Waldron, seek to explain their antipaedobaptism in terms of the covenantal theology of the Westminster Confession.' I'm not 100% sure who's right, but I know 'the substance is of Christ', which is in the New Covenant, not the Old.
     
  23. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    The whole point of saying that the substance is Christ is that He was the substance under the "Old." That is, the grace of Christ was present in the Old Testament, though set forth under promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the Passover, and other types and ordinances. If I mistake not, this affirmation is retained in the 1689 Confession when speaking of the Mediator.
     
  24. Tyrese

    Tyrese Puritan Board Sophomore

    I'll be humble and tell you that your last comment is right and makes sense. :) However, you all have failed to explain the 'newness' of the new covenant. Why make a new covenant and call it new if its not really new?
     
  25. Tyrese

    Tyrese Puritan Board Sophomore

    Brother I also meant to ask you do you have any audio sermons on the net?
     
  26. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Consider Heb. 9:22, the "first testament" was dedicated with blood. Likewise the "new testament" in heaven itself. Again, Heb. 10:8-10, it is the second "will" requiring the death of Christ which replaces the first will requiring sacrifices and offerings. In each case it is the covenant considered as a "testament" or "will" that is new, not the covenant itself. The covenant itself is the same, otherwise Christ could not be called the substance and fulfilment of the covenant; and if Christ were not the substance and fulfilment of the covenant, the first testament would still be in operation, which would be contrary to the whole tenor and teaching of the New Testament.
     
  27. MW

    MW Puritanboard Amanuensis

    Sorry, I don't.
     
  28. Jeri Tanner

    Jeri Tanner Moderator Staff Member

    I've thought several times, in reading this thread, about John 15:1-2- "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." The branches that bear no fruit and are eventually taken away were said by Christ to be in him. This passage among others has helped me toward covenant theology and paedobaptism, since I see by it that biblically, one can be said to be in Christ, and so in the Covenant, in a temporary or external sense.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  29. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    Why I became Reformed after having been a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I defended the RB Position here for a few years even as a Moderator. The Substance of the Covenants matter.
    Just saying. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/

    I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.

    https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...chapter-19-the-law-and-the-covenant-of-works/

    Follow the links in blue of the blog post below if you really want to follow my thought process.

    https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/

    If you are a Reformed Baptist you can read most of my Reformed Baptist Arguments on my early Puritanboard blogs. I left them alone as I believe they support my findings through the years. There is a dichotomous view of the Law and Grace that is not supported as some theologize by making the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant different in substance and nature. I believed that. Thus making the Church of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to be different. One was made up of an invisible regenerate people and the other of non regenerate and regenerate. The Covenant of Grace only overshadowed the regenerate in the New Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was a mixed Covenant of those who were to submit to a Covenant of Works in some sense and a group who found faith. In other words the Mosaic Covenant administered both a New Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Salvation for eternity called the Everlasting Covenant. I have even left most of my Baptist arguments everywhere where I blogged. There are a lot of various ideas on these topics. But the 1644 and 1689 Baptist's, the 1646 Westminster, and Savoy Declarations hold the best prolific theologies handed down to us. I honestly believe that.

    The Substance of the Mosaic and the New Testament were my arguments against Paedobaptism and Covenant Theology for Particular Baptist Theology for many years. Around 2011 or 2010 that changed. I started looking away from John Tombes and Nehemiah Coxe because their theology was leading towards things I found out of bounds when I looked at the Doctrines of Grace in any age.

    https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/

    You also might want to read the Jeremiah passages with more light than assumption. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ovenant-a-better-mediator-of-the-word-of-god/

    If you have ever tried to defend your position of the Covenant of Circumcision and the Everlasting Covenant you should know that there is a lot of reading to do. I and many of the guys on this forum have done this. Some remain unmoved in their arguments and some of us have changed for various reasons. But I honestly believe we do hold the Word of God to be Central to our understanding. Some are just wrong. I hope I am not one of those. I can say that some declare to be of a Reformed Theology and they are not. It is new. That has to be declared. It is a new thing. It is an odd mix.
     
  30. Cymro

    Cymro Puritan Board Junior

    Interestingly we read this at family worship this morning, Jeremiah9:26,"Egypt, and Judah, and Edom the children of Ammon, and Moab,and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart." There was an external relationship by the sign and seal of the promise, that God would be a God unto them and to their children. So it first of all was a covenantal promise, but then indicated the need of an internal work of the circumcision of the heart, regeneration. Israel made the promise of none effect by their unbelief in the promises of God. So there was no differences between them and the uncircumcised nations. Ihe new covenant is the same covenant, but administrated in a new way, with enlarged privileges, and water replacing the cutting, but the promise remains and the necessity of an inward work of regeneration vital. Both are required, both are comprehended in both dispensations.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page