- Aug 20, 2006
- 2,529
- 134
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
Hi Judson,
I enjoyed your last post, it was remarkably clear and helpful in the discussion. Unfortunately, family matters have kept me from being active on CF for the last few days, so my response is a bit late. Also, I am going to have to say upfront that I dont think that I will be able to match your clarity, though I will do what I can to convey my points.
I understand what youre saying. Your point is that infant initiation was specific to Abrahams covenant before Christ because it was designed to point forward to him as the true offspring. Therefore, when Christ came, the practice was obsolete. Do I correctly understand you? I believe that this view does not take into account the full import of the covenant and misses the point of the children themselves.
The Abrahamic promise is one that entails Gods working through faithful families for the propagation of the gospel as parents raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) and train them up in the way they should go (Prov. 22:6). Indeed one of the main purposes of marriage is for the raising up of a godly seed (Mal. 2:15). This promise is not just embedded somewhere in the covenant but is explicit several times in Gen. 17 and is essential to the covenant, not tangential (Ezek. 37:24-26). This is illustrated by the inclusion and participation of children as part of the household in the sacramental life of the covenant community (Ex. 12:24-27; Lev. 3; 6; Deut. 12; 16). They were included in this way because of the familial promises given in Gen. 17; it made sense. The basis for exclusion from the covenantal feasts was if one was outside of the covenantal administration (Ex. 12:43-49). Ultimately it is only those of Abrahams faith who are in union with Christ, but the visible administration of the covenant is familial and ecclesiastical.
You write that I am stressing that Paul's interpretation of Abraham in light of the New Covenant turns upon the hinge of faith. We are descendants of Abraham and heirs of the covenant because we are of the faith of Abraham and we believe in the Seed that was promised to him. I am confident that we agree on this. You are certainly correct that we agree on this. What I am stressing is that Pauls interpretation of Abraham presents a perfect continuity in Gods plan of redemption and Gods people, united to Him in the faith of Abraham. In other words, if you are going to say that there is a big change, and the change is that now Abrahams children are heirs because of their faith, then the flip side of that is saying that previously, Abrahams descendants were not heirs because of their faith, but because of something else. But both the Old Testament and the New Testament make it abundantly clear that such is not the case, salvation has always been by grace through faith. Pauls statements are not reinterpretation that changes the meaning, they are a clarification of what has always been true for the purpose of countering the claims of the Judaizers. So my point is that downgrading the status of covenant children, as it had been understood for roughly 2,000 years, represents a significant disruption in the flow of redemptive-history. This inconsistency is especially heightened because it is at the point where the administration of the gospel is expanding to all nations and people groups, including those who were once far off from Christ and the promises of the gospel (Eph. 2:11-14). Recall that the promises that God will show grace and mercy to the children of believers on account of a shared faith is not only stated in the exchange with Abraham, but is repeated often and in different ways throughout the Old Testament including the warning for covenant breakers (Ex. 20:6; 34:7; Deut. 7:9-10; Ps. 79:13; Jer. 32:18). We cannot argue that they did not refer to the actual children of believers.
When Christ came, the familial aspect of the administration of the gospel covenant was not rescinded. Now that the blessing of Abraham has come to the Gentiles, it has been expanded to all nations as God still uses the families of believers for the propagation of the gospel. The expansion of the gospel across nations and cultures does not logically lead to a narrowing of the promise regarding the family. If children were suddenly removed from the covenant administration, imagine what it would say to the parents. How could the first Christians, who were Jews that knew their Old Testament, understand this in any other way than God changing His mind and leaving the children to fend for themselves? I would find the Baptist case to be more convincing if there werent significant evidence in the New Testament that shows a harmony with that of the Abrahamic Covenant regarding the family and the place of children (1Cor. 7:14; Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20; Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14-16; Luke 18:15-17; Acts 2:37-39). Interestingly enough, that particular view of the family coincides nicely with Pauls emphasis on the believers continuity with Abraham and his promise.
I believe that I have similar questions about your view of circumcision and the household. In what way are Abrahams children circumcised because their affiliation with Abraham if that affiliation has nothing to do with an interest in the covenant of Abraham? The fact that both testaments actually refer to circumcision as the covenant (Gen. 17:10, 13, 14; Acts 7:8) illustrate the already clear point that circumcision symbolized that very covenant. (And I know that to a certain extent we agree on that point.) In light of this I am having trouble with your statement that The departure is happening due to your argument that circumcision marks off those who have an interest in the covenant promises. Are we to say that circumcising a child said nothing about him, that parents performed this rite for two millennia without any hope that Gods saving promise would graciously extend to their very own children? Are we to say that the children are complete outsiders to the covenantal administration even though they received its sign? It seems to me that the view youve articulated creates this radical decoupling of the promise and the sign. The Presbyterian would say that they received the sign that signifies the promise to Abraham and to his descendants after him as a seal of Gods objective covenant and marks off the childs inclusion in the covenant community (i.e., the visible administration of the Covenant of Grace).
It is actually beside the point if we think that administering the sign to children in this way creates ambiguity regarding the actual status of the children because it is the way that God has chosen to administer His covenant, and it is what He commanded Abraham to do. The Presbyterian view recognizes the eternal decree of God as being necessarily invisible, but the earthly administration of the gospel being necessarily visible. God creates and calls a people to Himself. This gathered people, who are set apart for Gods elective purposes, meet together to proclaim His word audibly, read His word visually and receive His confirming sacraments physically. When God commissions Abraham and institutes His covenant with him, He is furthering the establishment of a people which also requires a covenantal administration. This covenantal administration consists of the basic unit of families, including their children, as stated in many passages already referenced. I dont believe that the Baptist solution of restricting children eliminates this ambiguity, for we all know that there are unfortunately those who make professions of faith and are baptized who are actually unbelievers. This is the nature of a visible administration that does not exactly coincide with Gods unknowable decree.
Weve talked earlier about the circumcision of Ishmael. I think that this case does not fit with the Baptist paradigm. If the sign is only a pointer towards the Messiah and is empty of any other theological and redemptive significance regarding the actual subjects of circumcision, if it is only a genealogical sign, then why would it be given to someone who is outside of that messianic lineage? Im afraid I dont know what affiliation with Abraham means in this case. The Baptist view requires a reductionistic view of circumcision, not accounting for it as a sign for faith, regeneration, cleansing from sin, and union with God. The OT continuously points to the inward nature of circumcision (Lev. 26:40 42; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 9:25-26). Ezekiel later explains that the re-gathering referred to in Deuteronomy 30 coincides with a spiritual rebirth (Ezek. 36:24-27). Jeremiah and Ezekiel describe circumcision as a sign of what Paul calls the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new man (Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 44:7; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:5-14) which is regeneration. It also seems that the Baptist view does not allow for the parallel symbolisms between baptism and circumcision that are clear in the NT and it reinterprets statements by Paul and Peter that strips them of the redemptive-historical import that God had been developing for millennia.
My concern is that refusing the covenant sign to covenant children does not confess the coming of Christ, but denies an enduring aspect of the blessing of Abraham come to the Gentiles. We need an indication regarding the status change of covenant children because God clearly commanded it under our father Abraham. You mention that Presbyterians are looking for the big abrogation and my response would be, yeah I would hope so! In other words, if we are sola scriptura people, then the New Testament must be the delimiter of how its administration differs from that of prior generations. It clearly points out that the Mosaic administration expired with the work of Christ, but indicates just the opposite of the Abrahamic gospel covenant (Gal. 3). We do not have the freedom to say that we are undoing that part of the covenant by appealing to Pauls arguments with the Judaizers which, as you say, doesnt address the issue. It would also help if there were at least some secondary evidence of this change, such as a person being baptized upon profession of faith that was raised in a believing household. The New Testament period stretches some 60 years after the ascension of Christ, which was at least several generations at that time in history, plenty of time for such a phenomenon to be recorded in Scripture.
Another NT concern that I have is that I dont believe a Baptistic theology could have produced the oikos baptisms recorded for us in the book of Acts and the epistles, nor would it speak of believers children in covenant terms (I Cor. 7:14), nor would it give a satisfactory explanation of Jesus view of children in the Kingdom (Mark 10 and related passages). However, it certainly seems to reflect the theology of someone who could echo the Abrahamic promise and declare baptism as the new sign of the covenant, complete with family solidarity (Acts 2:38-39).
Jesus had covenant children brought to him for a blessing and said that the Kingdom belongs to them (Matt. 19:14). Jesus also declared that whoever receives a child in his name receives him and the Father (Mark 9:36-37). If it was right for them to be brought to him for blessing, is it not right for us to bring them to him for baptism? How can the church refuse those whom Christ received? If we refuse them this sign, are we receiving them in his name?
Wow - sorry for the length and somewhat disorganized thoughts!
Ken
I enjoyed your last post, it was remarkably clear and helpful in the discussion. Unfortunately, family matters have kept me from being active on CF for the last few days, so my response is a bit late. Also, I am going to have to say upfront that I dont think that I will be able to match your clarity, though I will do what I can to convey my points.
I understand what youre saying. Your point is that infant initiation was specific to Abrahams covenant before Christ because it was designed to point forward to him as the true offspring. Therefore, when Christ came, the practice was obsolete. Do I correctly understand you? I believe that this view does not take into account the full import of the covenant and misses the point of the children themselves.
The Abrahamic promise is one that entails Gods working through faithful families for the propagation of the gospel as parents raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) and train them up in the way they should go (Prov. 22:6). Indeed one of the main purposes of marriage is for the raising up of a godly seed (Mal. 2:15). This promise is not just embedded somewhere in the covenant but is explicit several times in Gen. 17 and is essential to the covenant, not tangential (Ezek. 37:24-26). This is illustrated by the inclusion and participation of children as part of the household in the sacramental life of the covenant community (Ex. 12:24-27; Lev. 3; 6; Deut. 12; 16). They were included in this way because of the familial promises given in Gen. 17; it made sense. The basis for exclusion from the covenantal feasts was if one was outside of the covenantal administration (Ex. 12:43-49). Ultimately it is only those of Abrahams faith who are in union with Christ, but the visible administration of the covenant is familial and ecclesiastical.
You write that I am stressing that Paul's interpretation of Abraham in light of the New Covenant turns upon the hinge of faith. We are descendants of Abraham and heirs of the covenant because we are of the faith of Abraham and we believe in the Seed that was promised to him. I am confident that we agree on this. You are certainly correct that we agree on this. What I am stressing is that Pauls interpretation of Abraham presents a perfect continuity in Gods plan of redemption and Gods people, united to Him in the faith of Abraham. In other words, if you are going to say that there is a big change, and the change is that now Abrahams children are heirs because of their faith, then the flip side of that is saying that previously, Abrahams descendants were not heirs because of their faith, but because of something else. But both the Old Testament and the New Testament make it abundantly clear that such is not the case, salvation has always been by grace through faith. Pauls statements are not reinterpretation that changes the meaning, they are a clarification of what has always been true for the purpose of countering the claims of the Judaizers. So my point is that downgrading the status of covenant children, as it had been understood for roughly 2,000 years, represents a significant disruption in the flow of redemptive-history. This inconsistency is especially heightened because it is at the point where the administration of the gospel is expanding to all nations and people groups, including those who were once far off from Christ and the promises of the gospel (Eph. 2:11-14). Recall that the promises that God will show grace and mercy to the children of believers on account of a shared faith is not only stated in the exchange with Abraham, but is repeated often and in different ways throughout the Old Testament including the warning for covenant breakers (Ex. 20:6; 34:7; Deut. 7:9-10; Ps. 79:13; Jer. 32:18). We cannot argue that they did not refer to the actual children of believers.
When Christ came, the familial aspect of the administration of the gospel covenant was not rescinded. Now that the blessing of Abraham has come to the Gentiles, it has been expanded to all nations as God still uses the families of believers for the propagation of the gospel. The expansion of the gospel across nations and cultures does not logically lead to a narrowing of the promise regarding the family. If children were suddenly removed from the covenant administration, imagine what it would say to the parents. How could the first Christians, who were Jews that knew their Old Testament, understand this in any other way than God changing His mind and leaving the children to fend for themselves? I would find the Baptist case to be more convincing if there werent significant evidence in the New Testament that shows a harmony with that of the Abrahamic Covenant regarding the family and the place of children (1Cor. 7:14; Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20; Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14-16; Luke 18:15-17; Acts 2:37-39). Interestingly enough, that particular view of the family coincides nicely with Pauls emphasis on the believers continuity with Abraham and his promise.
I believe that I have similar questions about your view of circumcision and the household. In what way are Abrahams children circumcised because their affiliation with Abraham if that affiliation has nothing to do with an interest in the covenant of Abraham? The fact that both testaments actually refer to circumcision as the covenant (Gen. 17:10, 13, 14; Acts 7:8) illustrate the already clear point that circumcision symbolized that very covenant. (And I know that to a certain extent we agree on that point.) In light of this I am having trouble with your statement that The departure is happening due to your argument that circumcision marks off those who have an interest in the covenant promises. Are we to say that circumcising a child said nothing about him, that parents performed this rite for two millennia without any hope that Gods saving promise would graciously extend to their very own children? Are we to say that the children are complete outsiders to the covenantal administration even though they received its sign? It seems to me that the view youve articulated creates this radical decoupling of the promise and the sign. The Presbyterian would say that they received the sign that signifies the promise to Abraham and to his descendants after him as a seal of Gods objective covenant and marks off the childs inclusion in the covenant community (i.e., the visible administration of the Covenant of Grace).
It is actually beside the point if we think that administering the sign to children in this way creates ambiguity regarding the actual status of the children because it is the way that God has chosen to administer His covenant, and it is what He commanded Abraham to do. The Presbyterian view recognizes the eternal decree of God as being necessarily invisible, but the earthly administration of the gospel being necessarily visible. God creates and calls a people to Himself. This gathered people, who are set apart for Gods elective purposes, meet together to proclaim His word audibly, read His word visually and receive His confirming sacraments physically. When God commissions Abraham and institutes His covenant with him, He is furthering the establishment of a people which also requires a covenantal administration. This covenantal administration consists of the basic unit of families, including their children, as stated in many passages already referenced. I dont believe that the Baptist solution of restricting children eliminates this ambiguity, for we all know that there are unfortunately those who make professions of faith and are baptized who are actually unbelievers. This is the nature of a visible administration that does not exactly coincide with Gods unknowable decree.
Weve talked earlier about the circumcision of Ishmael. I think that this case does not fit with the Baptist paradigm. If the sign is only a pointer towards the Messiah and is empty of any other theological and redemptive significance regarding the actual subjects of circumcision, if it is only a genealogical sign, then why would it be given to someone who is outside of that messianic lineage? Im afraid I dont know what affiliation with Abraham means in this case. The Baptist view requires a reductionistic view of circumcision, not accounting for it as a sign for faith, regeneration, cleansing from sin, and union with God. The OT continuously points to the inward nature of circumcision (Lev. 26:40 42; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 9:25-26). Ezekiel later explains that the re-gathering referred to in Deuteronomy 30 coincides with a spiritual rebirth (Ezek. 36:24-27). Jeremiah and Ezekiel describe circumcision as a sign of what Paul calls the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new man (Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 44:7; Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:5-14) which is regeneration. It also seems that the Baptist view does not allow for the parallel symbolisms between baptism and circumcision that are clear in the NT and it reinterprets statements by Paul and Peter that strips them of the redemptive-historical import that God had been developing for millennia.
My concern is that refusing the covenant sign to covenant children does not confess the coming of Christ, but denies an enduring aspect of the blessing of Abraham come to the Gentiles. We need an indication regarding the status change of covenant children because God clearly commanded it under our father Abraham. You mention that Presbyterians are looking for the big abrogation and my response would be, yeah I would hope so! In other words, if we are sola scriptura people, then the New Testament must be the delimiter of how its administration differs from that of prior generations. It clearly points out that the Mosaic administration expired with the work of Christ, but indicates just the opposite of the Abrahamic gospel covenant (Gal. 3). We do not have the freedom to say that we are undoing that part of the covenant by appealing to Pauls arguments with the Judaizers which, as you say, doesnt address the issue. It would also help if there were at least some secondary evidence of this change, such as a person being baptized upon profession of faith that was raised in a believing household. The New Testament period stretches some 60 years after the ascension of Christ, which was at least several generations at that time in history, plenty of time for such a phenomenon to be recorded in Scripture.
Another NT concern that I have is that I dont believe a Baptistic theology could have produced the oikos baptisms recorded for us in the book of Acts and the epistles, nor would it speak of believers children in covenant terms (I Cor. 7:14), nor would it give a satisfactory explanation of Jesus view of children in the Kingdom (Mark 10 and related passages). However, it certainly seems to reflect the theology of someone who could echo the Abrahamic promise and declare baptism as the new sign of the covenant, complete with family solidarity (Acts 2:38-39).
Jesus had covenant children brought to him for a blessing and said that the Kingdom belongs to them (Matt. 19:14). Jesus also declared that whoever receives a child in his name receives him and the Father (Mark 9:36-37). If it was right for them to be brought to him for blessing, is it not right for us to bring them to him for baptism? How can the church refuse those whom Christ received? If we refuse them this sign, are we receiving them in his name?
Wow - sorry for the length and somewhat disorganized thoughts!
Ken
Upvote
0