Was Ishmael in the Abrahamic Covenant?

Discussion in 'Covenant Theology' started by pastorway, Feb 20, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    [b:e2ffe6e3ef]Genesis 17[/b:e2ffe6e3ef]
    19Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name [u:e2ffe6e3ef]Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant[/u:e2ffe6e3ef], and with his descendants after him. 20[u:e2ffe6e3ef]And as for Ishmael[/u:e2ffe6e3ef], I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and [u:e2ffe6e3ef]I will make him a great nation. 21[b:e2ffe6e3ef]But[/b:e2ffe6e3ef] My covenant I will establish with Isaac[/u:e2ffe6e3ef], whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year." 22Then He finished talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

    Ishmael received the sign of the covenant. But God says that Ishmael was not part of the covenant!

    Can a person receive the sign of the covenant without being in the covenant?

    Phillip
     
  2. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Moderator

    Which covenant? Redemption or Grace? :)
     
  3. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    In the context of Genesis 17 this is speaking of the [b:1ccfce65c1]Abrahamic Covenant[/b:1ccfce65c1].

    Phillip
     
  4. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Moderator

    [quote:7ccacc3131][i:7ccacc3131]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:7ccacc3131]
    Can a person receive the sign of the covenant without being in the covenant?
    [/quote:7ccacc3131]
    You answered your own question Pastor Way.
    [quote:7ccacc3131]Ishmael received the sign of the covenant. But God says that Ishmael was not part of the covenant! [/quote:7ccacc3131]
     
  5. kceaster

    kceaster Puritan Board Junior

    Phillip...

    [quote:196f47aa4d][i:196f47aa4d]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:196f47aa4d]
    [b:196f47aa4d]Genesis 17[/b:196f47aa4d]
    19Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name [u:196f47aa4d]Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant[/u:196f47aa4d], and with his descendants after him. 20[u:196f47aa4d]And as for Ishmael[/u:196f47aa4d], I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and [u:196f47aa4d]I will make him a great nation. 21[b:196f47aa4d]But[/b:196f47aa4d] My covenant I will establish with Isaac[/u:196f47aa4d], whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year." 22Then He finished talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

    Ishmael received the sign of the covenant. But God says that Ishmael was not part of the covenant!

    Can a person receive the sign of the covenant without being in the covenant?

    Phillip [/quote:196f47aa4d]

    Just because the covenant is [i:196f47aa4d]established[/i:196f47aa4d] with Isaac, does not necessarily mean that Ishmael was not in the covenant. He did receive the covenant sign. And, there is really no reason to exclude him from the gracious covenant since God did bless him.

    Paul says that the relationship of Abraham to Isaac and Ishmael is symbolic. But I don't believe he is saying that Ishmael was a covenant breaker. No doubt his descendants were. But I do not think that there is sufficient evidence to show that Ishmael was either inside or outside of the covenant, not like the evidence against Esau, anyway. The Bible really doesn't speak to his faith, whether he had any. I think everyone just assumes that because the covenant is not established with him, and because he is the son of a bondwoman, that he must not be a man of faith. Unless I am mistaken, I do not believe the Bible speaks to this.

    In Christ,

    KC
     
  6. Roldan

    Roldan Puritan Board Junior

    [quote:1dbdb6a977][i:1dbdb6a977]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:1dbdb6a977]
    [quote:1dbdb6a977][i:1dbdb6a977]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:1dbdb6a977]
    Can a person receive the sign of the covenant without being in the covenant?
    [/quote:1dbdb6a977]
    You answered your own question Pastor Way.
    [quote:1dbdb6a977]Ishmael received the sign of the covenant. But God says that Ishmael was not part of the covenant! [/quote:1dbdb6a977] [/quote:1dbdb6a977]

    Pastor?
     
  7. Tertullian

    Tertullian Puritan Board Freshman

    Hey PastorWay,

    I think Paul Jewett was on to something when he made this distinction within the Abrahamic Covenant,

    [quote:0f7a529e4a]" It is our conviction, to be specific, that the troubled waters of Paedobaptism can be rendered a clear and flowing stream if one recognizes that the promise of the seed made to Abraham has a twofold reference. In the age of type and anticipation, it embraced not only those who shared Abraham's faith but also the whole nation of Israel. In the age of fulfillment the promises embraces the true seed according to the Spirit, typified by the literal seed according to the flesh. This true seed of Abraham is "born, not of blood nore of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:13). If in the typical age of the Old Testament all the literal seed of Abraham are to be circumcised, then the age of fulfillment all those who answer to the type as the true seed of Abraham are to be baptized. And who are they? They New Testament gives an unequivocal answer: those who are of faith are the sons of Abraham (Gal 3:7). Therefore, those who are of faith are to be baptized - which is precisely believer baptism. Hence, then, is the Thesean thread that will lead us out of the labyrinth, while preserving the rich treasure of biblical thought stored in the perspective of "covenant theology. (Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, pg 236)" [/quote:0f7a529e4a]

    Therefore, if Jewett is right and I think he is, we can say that Ismael was included in the typicial aspect of the Old Covenant but that he was not part of the spiritual aspect of the Covenant, and the Spiritual aspect of the Covenant God established with Isaac, ultimatly the typical aspect of the Old Covenant has been done away with with the coming of Christ.

    Therefore Ishmael received the sign because he was a physicial desdent of Abraham and as such part of the typicial aspect of the Covenant.

    Hope this helps

    To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian
     
  8. kceaster

    kceaster Puritan Board Junior

    Tyler...

    [quote:61905c201f]
    Therefore, if Jewett is right and I think he is, we can say that Ismael was included in the typicial aspect of the Old Covenant but that he was not part of the spiritual aspect of the Covenant, and the Spiritual aspect of the Covenant God established with Isaac, ultimatly the typical aspect of the Old Covenant has been done away with with the coming of Christ.

    Therefore Ishmael received the sign because he was a physicial desdent of Abraham and as such part of the typicial aspect of the Covenant.

    Hope this helps

    To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:61905c201f]

    Unfortunately we are back to putting our eyes on the sign instead of the thing signified. Circumcision represents not only a physical aspect, but that of the spiritual as well. This is why circumcision and baptism are linked in Col 2.

    Why do we baptize? Why did they circumcise? What does the sign represent?

    If you keep your eyes on the sign you will always see the wall of separation between Israel and the Gentiles. But we should look at what the sign pointed to - a circumcised heart. It is the same thing baptism points to. Baptism is a sign of the flesh too. Do we see the Spirit descending like a dove on our baptisms? Tounges of Fire? No.

    Focus on what is signified by the sign. Then you'll understand.

    In Christ,

    KC
     
  9. Roldan

    Roldan Puritan Board Junior

    [quote:0207ceaa30][i:0207ceaa30]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:0207ceaa30]
    [quote:0207ceaa30]
    Therefore, if Jewett is right and I think he is, we can say that Ismael was included in the typicial aspect of the Old Covenant but that he was not part of the spiritual aspect of the Covenant, and the Spiritual aspect of the Covenant God established with Isaac, ultimatly the typical aspect of the Old Covenant has been done away with with the coming of Christ.

    Therefore Ishmael received the sign because he was a physicial desdent of Abraham and as such part of the typicial aspect of the Covenant.

    Hope this helps

    To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:0207ceaa30]

    Unfortunately we are back to putting our eyes on the sign instead of the thing signified. Circumcision represents not only a physical aspect, but that of the spiritual as well. This is why circumcision and baptism are linked in Col 2.

    Why do we baptize? Why did they circumcise? What does the sign represent?

    If you keep your eyes on the sign you will always see the wall of separation between Israel and the Gentiles. But we should look at what the sign pointed to - a circumcised heart. It is the same thing baptism points to. Baptism is a sign of the flesh too. Do we see the Spirit descending like a dove on our baptisms? Tounges of Fire? No.

    Focus on what is signified by the sign. Then you'll understand.

    In Christ,

    KC [/quote:0207ceaa30]

    YES! Now were getting the the heart of the matter.:bigsmile:
     
  10. Tertullian

    Tertullian Puritan Board Freshman

    [quote:f35f71b691][i:f35f71b691]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:f35f71b691]
    [quote:f35f71b691]
    Therefore, if Jewett is right and I think he is, we can say that Ismael was included in the typicial aspect of the Old Covenant but that he was not part of the spiritual aspect of the Covenant, and the Spiritual aspect of the Covenant God established with Isaac, ultimatly the typical aspect of the Old Covenant has been done away with with the coming of Christ.

    Therefore Ishmael received the sign because he was a physicial desdent of Abraham and as such part of the typicial aspect of the Covenant.

    Hope this helps

    To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:f35f71b691]

    Unfortunately we are back to putting our eyes on the sign instead of the thing signified. Circumcision represents not only a physical aspect, but that of the spiritual as well. This is why circumcision and baptism are linked in Col 2.

    Why do we baptize? Why did they circumcise? What does the sign represent?

    If you keep your eyes on the sign you will always see the wall of separation between Israel and the Gentiles. But we should look at what the sign pointed to - a circumcised heart. It is the same thing baptism points to. Baptism is a sign of the flesh too. Do we see the Spirit descending like a dove on our baptisms? Tounges of Fire? No.

    Focus on what is signified by the sign. Then you'll understand.

    In Christ,

    KC [/quote:f35f71b691]

    Baptism is a sign of the flesh and is identicial to circumicision in both respects? That is certainly not reformed teaching in either the Westminster or London Baptist confessions- where does it ever in either confession say "sign of flesh" or what verse ever taught that? Baptism is not a sign of flesh, it is a sign of regeneration and faith. Circumcision also signified regeneration but like Jewett argues it signified more.

    To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian
     
  11. kceaster

    kceaster Puritan Board Junior

    Tyler...

    What I meant was that baptism is done in the flesh.

    KC
     
  12. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    Let's take a break now and go back and read the verses I quote at the very beginning of this thread.

    In them, God Himself says to Abraham that He is making a covenant with him and with Isaac, and while He will bless Ishmael, He is NOT making Ishmael part of the covenant.

    "[b:b9959873b3]BUT[/b:b9959873b3] MY COVENANT I WILL ESTABLISH WITH ISAAC....."

    God says that Ishmael is not in the Abrahamic Covenant.

    Phillip

    [Edited on 2-22-04 by pastorway]
     
  13. kceaster

    kceaster Puritan Board Junior

    Phillip...

    [quote:2c86a217e0]
    Let's take a break now and go back and read the verses I quote at the very beginning of this thread.

    In them, God Himself says to Abraham that He is making a covenant with him and with Isaac, and while He will bless Ishmael, He is NOT making Ishmael part of the covenant.[/quote:2c86a217e0]

    Sorry, Ishmael is in the covenant. The Bible is silent on Ishmael's faith. He received the covenant sign. He even was with his brother when they buried their father. When he died he was gathered to his people.

    The covenant was not established with him. That is true. We cannot say that he was not in the covenant.

    The reason it is important to see that the covenant is not established with him is because he was the first born. The first born had (unless they gave up their birthright, or God intervened in some other way, like with Joseph's sons) a right to certain things, among which would be the establishment of their father's legacy. God made it clear in the Word that that legacy belonged to Isaac, not to Ishmael.

    But to say that Ishmael is outside of the covenant is to employ eisogesis. This cannot be gathered from Scripture.

    After all, he received the covenant sign. You seem to be fine with the reprobate in Israel being membered in the Mosaic (because the OC included the elect and non-elect according to your own words). Why should it be any different with Ishmael who we don't know about his faith.

    In Christ,

    KC
     
  14. luvroftheWord

    luvroftheWord Puritan Board Sophomore

    Kevin,

    I've been reading this thread and I'm a little confused as to what you believe. Do you believe that there can be unbelievers in the covenant of grace or no?
     
  15. kceaster

    kceaster Puritan Board Junior

    Craig...

    There can be unbelievers in the covenant of grace in its external administration, as Turretin puts it, or, the visible church as some would prefer.

    I am simply making the case for Ishmael. The Scriptures are silent as to whether or not he had faith, and I don't believe it is right to exclude him just because the covenant was not "established" with him. He was in it nonetheless.

    Now, it may be that he was in the visible church, but not the invisible. But, he was at least in the external administration of the covenant of grace because of his circumcision.

    In Christ,

    KC
     
  16. Preach

    Preach Puritan Board Sophomore

    Webmaster, any comment?
     
  17. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Moderator

    [quote:4a9f2c433a][i:4a9f2c433a]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:4a9f2c433a]
    Let's take a break now and go back and read the verses I quote at the very beginning of this thread.

    In them, God Himself says to Abraham that He is making a covenant with him and with Isaac, and while He will bless Ishmael, He is NOT making Ishmael part of the covenant.

    "[b:4a9f2c433a]BUT[/b:4a9f2c433a] MY COVENANT I WILL ESTABLISH WITH ISAAC....."

    God says that Ishmael is not in the Abrahamic Covenant.

    Phillip

    [Edited on 2-22-04 by pastorway] [/quote:4a9f2c433a]

    Then why do YOU think he was circumcised?
     
  18. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    He was circumcised because Abraham obeyed God's command to do so for every male in his household.

    However, I do not see that circumcision meant that a particular person who was circumcised was then automatically in the covenant.

    In the passage I quoted He specifically says that Isaac is in the Covenant, but indicates that Ishmael was not.

    There is more to being in covenant than just receiving an outward sign.

    [b:5d904c056e]Genesis 17[/b:5d904c056e]
    4"As for Me, behold, My covenant is [u:5d904c056e]with you[/u:5d904c056e], and you shall be a father of many nations.

    7And I will establish My covenant [u:5d904c056e]between Me and you and your descendants after you[/u:5d904c056e] in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8Also I give to [u:5d904c056e]you and your descendants after you[/u:5d904c056e] the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

    19.....you shall call his name Isaac;[u:5d904c056e] I will establish My covenant with him[/u:5d904c056e] for an everlasting covenant, and [u:5d904c056e]with his descendants[/u:5d904c056e] after him.

    Those who were in the covenant were to inherit the land.....Ishmael had no right to the land promise. And the descendents in the covenant clearly follow Isaac, not Ishmael.

    Ishmael did not receive any of the promises from the Abrahamic Covenant. He was given a separate blessing and not included in the covenant promises.

    Phillip
     
  19. kceaster

    kceaster Puritan Board Junior

    Phillip...

    [quote:ec43638b66][i:ec43638b66]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:ec43638b66]
    He was circumcised because Abraham obeyed God's command to do so for every male in his household.

    However, I do not see that circumcision meant that a particular person who was circumcised was then automatically in the covenant.

    In the passage I quoted He specifically says that Isaac is in the Covenant, but indicates that Ishmael was not.

    There is more to being in covenant than just receiving an outward sign.

    [b:ec43638b66]Genesis 17[/b:ec43638b66]
    4"As for Me, behold, My covenant is [u:ec43638b66]with you[/u:ec43638b66], and you shall be a father of many nations.

    7And I will establish My covenant [u:ec43638b66]between Me and you and your descendants after you[/u:ec43638b66] in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8Also I give to [u:ec43638b66]you and your descendants after you[/u:ec43638b66] the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

    19.....you shall call his name Isaac;[u:ec43638b66] I will establish My covenant with him[/u:ec43638b66] for an everlasting covenant, and [u:ec43638b66]with his descendants[/u:ec43638b66] after him.

    Those who were in the covenant were to inherit the land.....Ishmael had no right to the land promise. And the descendents in the covenant clearly follow Isaac, not Ishmael.

    Ishmael did not receive any of the promises from the Abrahamic Covenant. He was given a separate blessing and not included in the covenant promises.

    Phillip [/quote:ec43638b66]

    Calvin says this,

    [quote:ec43638b66]20. And as for Ishmael. He here more clearly discriminates between the two sons of Abraham. For in promising to the one wealth, dignity, and other things pertaining to the present life, he proves him to be a son according to the flesh. But he makes a special covenant with Isaac, which rises above the world and this frail life: not for the sake of cutting Ishmael off from the hope of eternal life, but in order to teach him that salvation is to be sought from the race of Isaac, where it really dwells.[/quote:ec43638b66]

    There is not sufficient evidence to exclude Ishmael. You are reading into the text.

    Further, because he was circumcised he was in the covenant. Verse 10 establishes the fact that circumcision, at that time, represented being in covenant with God. The language says that it is the covenant, just as under Moses, the law is the covenant as well.

    In context, God reminds Abraham that any son or male who is not circumcised will be cutoff from the covenant. Ishmael was circumcised, so he could not have been cutoff. Truly, he may not have been regenerate, but we cannot say that for sure. He was an external member. We can say no more or no less.

    Also, one of Ishmael's descendants was Jethro. Was he not in the covenant? How is it that Moses father-in-law was in the covenant? He was in the covenant because of Ishmael his direct descendant.

    In Christ,

    KC
     
  20. Halliday

    Halliday Inactive User

    The key word in the text is "established" (in Hebrew [i:8e9a0e5f19]Aram[/i:8e9a0e5f19] also means arise, restore). God is a predestining God. The covenant was planned from the beginning to be all-reaching because there is no limit on God. His covenant is to be our God. His will then is to be our God, even to the unelected. I say this because Romans 1 and 2 clearly dispute anyone from having an excuse to deny God. If everyone is without excuse than everyone is in covenant. That means Ishmael was in covenant with God. Ishmael clearly had no excuse. Ok, this is old testatment but the covenant was established and going to be brought into fullness through Isaac by God the Son. Our communion with God would be restored by God manifested through Isaac's line. Jesus being fully God and fully man came to "fulfill all righteousness" (justice). For the covenant to be brought into fullness man had to be justified. In other words God could not be a God to a depraved and reprobate people. Circumcision as is baptism is to fulfill all righteousness. It is the sign that God is our God and we are His people. Abraham was righteous (just) and obedient therefore he circumcised those he had authority over. He established God's will on earth because he recognized God's Lordship over all of life. We should also recognize God's Lordship and establish righteousness (justice- God's law) by baptizing our children. We are without excuse. God chooses. We are not God but we do have the great duty to establish His law on earth. To wait on fulfilling righteousness by waiting to baptize our children is to deny God is God and become a covenant breaker.
     
  21. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    [quote:10e8bd26bb]To wait on fulfilling righteousness by waiting to baptize our children is to deny God is God and become a covenant breaker.[/quote:10e8bd26bb]

    SO all Baptists deny that God is God, profane His name, and are covenant breakers who will receive only covenant curses as a result?

    It sounds as if you are saying that we will lose our salvation for failing to baptize our children?

    Is this what you are saying about Baptists?

    Phillip
     
  22. Halliday

    Halliday Inactive User

    Salvation is not the center of the meaning of baptism - that is just the point. There is nothing that we can do to earn our salvation. Abraham knew that life came from God alone hence the symbol of circumcision. Don't forget that Ishmael came back to bury Abraham with Isaac. Ishmael also died amongst his brethren. Abraham trusted in God for salvation.

    God's will is central to our faith and to baptism. We pray for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. His will has been determined before creation. It is being brought into fulness. His will is the restoration of ALL THINGS. "I make ALL Things new". In other words His will is the regeneration of the entire creation. Everyones salvation is already determined. You can not do anything to earn it or loose it. This is why God is God. Doing God's will is the power to become the children of God, the bearers of Glory, a light to the world. Our duty to spread the Gospel (Christ is Lord), teaching God's law, Baptising in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is "fulfilling all righteousness" (justice). It is the course of regeneration for the entire creation. When we limit salvation to man and make it central in our religion then we are denying that God is the God of all things. Jesus is not free fire and life insurance. He is God.
     
  23. Roldan

    Roldan Puritan Board Junior

    [quote:f65d22c53b][i:f65d22c53b]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:f65d22c53b]
    [quote:f65d22c53b]To wait on fulfilling righteousness by waiting to baptize our children is to deny God is God and become a covenant breaker.[/quote:f65d22c53b]

    SO all Baptists deny that God is God, profane His name, and are covenant
    breakers who will receive only covenant curses as a result?

    It sounds as if you are saying that we will lose our salvation for failing to baptize our children?

    Is this what you are saying about Baptists?

    Phillip [/quote:f65d22c53b]

    C'mon now Rev. , chill out, that's not what he is saying.

    Do we Paedo's believe baptist are DISOBEDIENT to the covenant? YES! but not Covenant breakers in the sense of eventually being cursed eternally.:wr50:
     
  24. Roldan

    Roldan Puritan Board Junior

    [quote:655bb66fc1][i:655bb66fc1]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:655bb66fc1]
    He was circumcised because Abraham obeyed God's command to do so for every male in his household.

    However, I do not see that circumcision meant that a particular person who was circumcised was then automatically in the covenant.

    In the passage I quoted He specifically says that Isaac is in the Covenant, but indicates that Ishmael was not.

    There is more to being in covenant than just receiving an outward sign.

    [b:655bb66fc1]Genesis 17[/b:655bb66fc1]
    4"As for Me, behold, My covenant is [u:655bb66fc1]with you[/u:655bb66fc1], and you shall be a father of many nations.

    7And I will establish My covenant [u:655bb66fc1]between Me and you and your descendants after you[/u:655bb66fc1] in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8Also I give to [u:655bb66fc1]you and your descendants after you[/u:655bb66fc1] the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."

    19.....you shall call his name Isaac;[u:655bb66fc1] I will establish My covenant with him[/u:655bb66fc1] for an everlasting covenant, and [u:655bb66fc1]with his descendants[/u:655bb66fc1] after him.

    Those who were in the covenant were to inherit the land.....Ishmael had no right to the land promise. And the descendents in the covenant clearly follow Isaac, not Ishmael.

    Ishmael did not receive any of the promises from the Abrahamic Covenant. He was given a separate blessing and not included in the covenant promises.

    Phillip [/quote:655bb66fc1]

    So NOONE but Abraham and Isaac were in the Covenant at that time until Isaac had children then to continue from there?

    No onone under Abraham's rule was in the Covenant? Not the males born is his house nor the males bought with money?

    Not even Sarah was in the Covenant, for according to your hermeneutics, God established His Covenant with Abraham and Isaac only until Isaac had children THEN the covenant continued with his (Isaacs) descendants.

    What you fail to realize is that the Covenant of Grace is ALSO called the Covenant of Circumcision in Acts 7:7-9.

    Which meant that because Ishmael was given circumcision he WAS placed in the Covenant of Grace and everyone else who was under Abraham's authority.

    I think that Kevin makes a good point:

    "In context, God reminds Abraham that any son or male who is not circumcised will be cutoff from the covenant. Ishmael was circumcised, so he could not have been cutoff. Truly, he may not have been regenerate, but we cannot say that for sure. He was an external member. We can say no more or no less."

    Roldan: To put it another way. How in the world can someone be cut off or break a Covenant that he is not in?


    Also for you to say that Ishmael or anyone at that, who recieved the sign of the Covenant but was not in the Covenant holds no weight biblically and to be honest is contradictory.

    :wr50:
     
  25. Halliday

    Halliday Inactive User

    I wanted to add that when paedo's baptize for salvation they are also on shaky ground. We have today a large majority of lawless unprincipled Christians worried about their own tail instead of "fulfilling all righteousness". This leads to humanism. If you deny that we are experiencing curses than you are blind or deceived by the "Rapture generation". The fulfillment of all righteousness (justice) is what brings blessings not the acceptance of Jesus as free fire and life insurance. The blessings of God's justice in force is a regenerated creation, the promised land, our inheritance. God is not to be limited to the spiritual realm. As a matter of fact He gives weight to life and life to the physical world. All things are to be renewed by regeneration and glorified. We are given the responsibility over the earth. This includes our children. This is why we are walking on dangerous ground if we do not baptize our children, get them out of lawless schools , teach them the tools of learning and life (the Word), and give them a work ethic that brings God's peace and rest. Ishmael was the eldest. His authority and influence could not be over Isaac. Isaac had to be taught the great responsibility he had. They were both in covenant. God did not abandon Ishmael or cast him aside. The Law was not given at that time so clarity was given through Moses. Fulfillment was brought by God the Son. Now the regenerate can bring forth the faith (God is our God, our children's God and we are His people, true justice). Salvation is in His hands.
     
  26. Roldan

    Roldan Puritan Board Junior

    [quote:ca936d70b2][i:ca936d70b2]Originally posted by Halliday[/i:ca936d70b2]
    I wanted to add that when paedo's baptize for salvation they are also on shaky ground. [/quote:ca936d70b2]

    To my knowledge no Reformed Presby here believes in Baptismal Regeneration. And is not the groundd for Baptism
     
  27. pastorway

    pastorway Puritan Board Senior

    [quote:24128c8424]Which meant that because Ishmael was given circumcision he WAS placed in the Covenant of Grace and everyone else who was under Abraham's authority. [/quote:24128c8424]

    Only the elect are in the Covenant of Grace. Surely you are not saying that everyone who was circumcised was elect, are you?

    Phillip
     
  28. Halliday

    Halliday Inactive User

    But other denominations that baptize their children do.

    [Edited on 2-26-2004 by Halliday]
     
  29. Roldan

    Roldan Puritan Board Junior

    [quote:e0d04159c4][i:e0d04159c4]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:e0d04159c4]
    [quote:e0d04159c4]Which meant that because Ishmael was given circumcision he WAS placed in the Covenant of Grace and everyone else who was under Abraham's authority. [/quote:e0d04159c4]

    Only the elect are in the Covenant of Grace. Surely you are not saying that everyone who was circumcised was elect, are you?

    Phillip [/quote:e0d04159c4]

    Of course not, this is where you must seperate the Patriarichal aspect from the spiritual. They were all placed in the Earthly covenant but were not all in the Spiritual Covenant, remember not ALL Israel was Israel.

    But let us not side step the questions I
    asked you. Thanx
     
  30. Roldan

    Roldan Puritan Board Junior

    [quote:2208183e25][i:2208183e25]Originally posted by Halliday[/i:2208183e25]
    But other denominations that baptize their children do.

    [Edited on 2-26-2004 by Halliday] [/quote:2208183e25]

    Yes, some, but none here.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page