Covenant Children

[heymikey80]

Should we baptize unbelieving servants [for those who can afford them] as well just because they're in the household?

If you bought them and made them minors in your household (as both ancient and Roman law specified), yes, absolutely. Though in my country there are amendments and laws you'd be breaking.

If you've simply employed them, they are effectively their own household even if they have a room in your house.

Putting up someone in your house does not make them true parts of your family. They're merely employees. They don't inherit your goods on your death, they don't hold any recognizable interest in your kinship. Scripture says nothing about requiring all your employees to be baptized -- in fact it says something quite different there.

 

[heymikey80]

You shouldnt be baptizing ANYONE.... The ONE and ONLY baptism today that God recognizes is the ONE baptism of Eph. 4:5. It is a SPIRIT baptism and places on IN the Body of Christ. NONE other is necessary nor required, in fact to ADD to the ONE that God provided would be to make the Cross of NONE EFFECT.

THOSE instructions you are seeking to apply to yourself were given to another audience at another time who were under another gospel.

Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, Ep 5:26
​

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Mk 16:16
​

And Paul baptized, though he was worried that some some would cause division over it.

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 1 Cor 1:14-15
​

 

[eph3Nine]

Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, Ep 5:26​

Yep...the water we are being washed with is identified FOR us IN the verse...it is the WORD of God.


​

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. Mk 16:16

Yep, this is Israels program (we can tell by the address in the gospels) and under that program BELIEVING and being water BAPTIZED was REQUIRED for the Nation of PRIESTS. Peter preached "REPENT and be baptized " Christ preached it as well...

Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;Acts 2:38

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

These were ALL instructions to the NATION of ISRAEL who had to believe FIRST, so that she could lead all other nations to Christ. The BODY of CHRIST was not in existance yet, but still part of the MYSTERY, Hid in God, and KEPT SECRET since the world began. So this cannot be speaking to US, but is being addressed to the ONLY church in town...the KINGDOM church of JEWS.


​

And Paul baptized, though he was worried that some some would cause division over it.

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 1 Cor 1:14-15

​

Yes, in Pauls early ministry he DID indeed baptize with water....but you will notice it was ONLY a few. The revelation he received was PROGRESSIVE and when he did realize that water baptism was NOT part of the revelation given to him for US, he STOPPED the practice. It is then that we find him saying "For Christ sent me NOT to baptize, but to preach the gospel..."

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Eph 9,

Thanks for your posts, but in this thread we are discusssing Covenant Theology and paedobaptism. We are not talking of your particular view of dispenstionalism and its relationship to baptism. I hope you don't mind if we not get off on a rabbit trail and follow you in where your headed.

You are free to start a thread on that subject, but it should not hijack this discussion.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Msortwell, TubaFour, JM and HeyMikey,

Y’all are having a nice discussion and I am sorry that I have not been able to continue in it after my first two posts.

I would like to add to some of the points Mikey has made so far. The first think I want to mention is that the Early Church Scriptures were only the Old Covenant Scriptures. Where did the Bareans go to check out Paul’s preaching? They read the Old Testament, which is steeped in covenant thought.

Remember the promise in the New Covenant is the same as the Old. It is still to “You and to your children.” Where did they look to see what that meant? The Old Covenant.

On Pentecost the Jews, who had been living in a Covenantal thought paradigm for thousands of years, heard the promise of their Scriptures repeated by the lips of Peter. After he says “Repent, and be baptized” he repeats the 2,000 year old covenant promise “the promise is unto you, and to your children.”

How could a first century Jew, who is filled to the brim with a covenant mind set, understand that now his children would be cut off from the covenant sign, until the child made a profession, with no explanation that the covenant sign was no longer to be applied to children?

I don’t think the Jews on Pentecost, who repented and believed, could have thought in individualistic non-covenant terms toward their children, without a good deal of explanation. We seem to forget that they lived in a non-individualistic/covenantal paradigm.

To use modern jargon, they would have to have been thinking “outside the box” with no help from Peter’s sermon that was couched in OC promises.

What of saints? Should all saints be baptised? I think, yes they should. Paul in 1 Cor. 7, that the child of even one believer is a saint (holy).

Mikey pointed out that we have four (out of nine) statements about folks in the apostolic church being baptised, follow the covenant/familial pattern of the Old Covenant. We should expect this if recipients of the covenant sign were to include the children of parents who are covenant members, and that is exactly what we find.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[twoedge]

This phrase gets bandied about in reformed circles, and especially paedobaptist circles. What does it mean? Who qualifies to be a "covenant child" and what implication does it have to the child, his or her salvation, the parents and the church in general?

I've read a bit about the topic but, I find myself getting lost in the minutae of Old Testament figures and promises as applied to our new testament economy. Many times I fail to see the connection between the OT economy and the reasoning behind the NT application.

Any help or guidance on this topic would be appreciated.

Thanks.

aL

Al,

I have read a very good book called ' The Biblical Doctrine of Infant baptism' by Pierre Ch. Marcel. Very thorough but not exactly a light read.

2e

 

[msortwell]

Where does the text imply that the OT children of the flesh are the children of the promise? And yet they receive the sign because they're his natural children:

Gen 17:10 "every male among you shall be circumcised."

Gen 17:18-19 And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!" But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son

Gen 17:20-21 "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him ... But My covenant I will establish with Isaac"

Gen 17:23 Then Abraham took Ishmael his son, ... and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the very same day, as God had said to him.
​

What's God's treatment of all this?

Rom 11:28b ... from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers​

And it's very much the same with me. I think credobaptists are misinterpreting Scripture on this matter. Is it a condemnable thing? No. It's just a misinterpretation.

Now you're starting to sound like a dispensationalist!

Go back to the main Theology page, up one line, and you will find many there that fully endorse your response.

You can't have it both ways. Either the NT sheds new light, providing a clearer understanding of the OT text or it does not. You need to come up with a better rebuttal if you are going to remain faithful to a reformed hermeneutic.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[msortwell]

I don’t think the Jews on Pentecost, who repented and believed, could have thought in individualistic non-covenant terms toward their children, without a good deal of explanation. We seem to forget that they lived in a non-individualistic/covenantal paradigm.[/SIZE][/FONT]

To use modern jargon, they would have to have been thinking “outside the box” with no help from Peter’s sermon that was couched in OC promises.

. . . and much of that mindset would have been challenged by the message delivered by Paul. Much of the reformed explanation regarding the "Israel of God" and those who are "real Jews" seems to be in tension with the arguments offered in support of infant baptism.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

. . . and much of that mindset would have been challenged by the message delivered by Paul. Much of the reformed explanation regarding the "Israel of God" and those who are "real Jews" seems to be in tension with the arguments offered in support of infant baptism.

Blessings,

Mike

Hey Mike,

Thanks for the comment to my last post. There is certainly tension in the Scriptures - to live is to die - to die is to live - God is on and three - Jesus is fully God and fully man - etc...

Now back to the point I was attempting to make, On Pentecost Peter very specifically repeated the ancient promise, with now amendment regarding the generational aspect of the promise.

Saints (those who are holy/set apart) should be baptised and Paul says that our children are saints (holy-set apart).

Circumcision, a sign and seal of faith is applied to Abraham and all of his house.

Baptism, a sign and seal of faith is applied to house holds of believers in the New Covenant Scriptures.

Circumcision is an outward sign of what should also be an inward reality (circumcised heart).

Baptism is an outward sign of what should also be an inward reality (washed clean).

There is more but we can discuss these first.

In christ,
Kenith

 

[msortwell]

Kenith,

First I want to repeat that it is not my desire to attempt to prove the paedobaptist position to be incorrect. Any attempt would be unsuccessful. I would also offer that any attempt to prove the covenantal Baptist position to be wrong would also fail. This may seem odd to some, but I actually presented a message at our church explaining the biblical basis for the orthodox paedobaptist view at our church. We are predomininantly Baptists, but planted the church with the conviction that it would be open to all that hold a reformed view, independent of the conviction relative to the mode and subject of baptism. If courious you can read of our position on the matter at www.rbchurch.net.

. . . Saints (those who are holy/set apart) should be baptised and Paul says that our children are saints (holy-set apart).

I am not sure where you want to go with this. The NT argument would be the same for baptizing the unbelieving spouses of believers. Is that what you would advocate? I trust not. So why bring it into the discussion?

Circumcision, a sign and seal of faith is applied to Abraham and all of his house.

Baptism, a sign and seal of faith is applied to house holds of believers in the New Covenant Scriptures.

This certainly is the paedobaptist position. I cannot recall. Is there a bible verse, series of verses, or inference from which this position is derived or is it a straight conclusion from the "cicumcision is equivalent to baptism" theorem?

There is scriptural account of the baptism of the household of believers. But those accounts are, as you know, silent regarding the age or spiritual condition of the members of the household.

Circumcision is an outward sign of what should also be an inward reality (circumcised heart).

Baptism is an outward sign of what should also be an inward reality (washed clean).

You'll have to help me out here. This tips the argument away from credo and toward paedo because . . .?

Blessings,

Mike

 

[JM]

Abraham's seed: "In Romans 4, where Abraham is called "the father of us all," we find that God has fulfilled His promise to him to become the father of many nations by defining his "seed" as those who are "of the faith of Abraham" (v. 16). Whether they are uncircumcised or circumcised, his "seed" are those who possess "the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised" (v. 11,12). There is no mention of the physical descendants of believers as included in the New Covenant fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant; rather, it is only those who actually have obtained "the righteousness of faith" by receiving Jesus Christ (cf. Jn. 1:12,13)."

Fred A. Malone

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/string.html



More quotes to discuss: "Look at these five, I’ll just run them by quickly:

1. Cornelius’ house—Acts 10. The gospel was preached by Peter, Cornelius heard it…it says, "They all heard the Word…they believed it…the Spirit fell…they were all baptized." All heard, all believed, the Spirit came on all, they were all baptized.

2. In the jailer’s house—Acts 16 is the next one…Philippian jailer. Paul, you remember, gave him the gospel, it says, "All heard the gospel…all were baptized."

3. Chapter 18, it was in the house of Crispus, "All believed…all were baptized."
The other two occur in I Corinthians. The other two are the account of Lydia and Stephanas—Lydia is in the book of Acts.

4. But, in the case of Lydia, it’s the same thing. We must understand the same thing must have occurred—they heard, they believed, they were baptized.

5. Stephanas: They heard, they believed, they were baptized.

I mean, it’s all basically the same pattern. They all hear the gospel, they all believe, they all receive the Spirit, they all are baptized. That excludes infants because infants can’t hear and believe. The "household" then is defined—it is defined as "those capable of hearing, understanding, believing." That’s the definition of the "household."
In Stephanas’ household, which is in I Corinthians, chapter 1, "All who were baptized," it says, "All who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints." Babies can’t be devoted to the ministry of the saints. It says, "All who were baptized were helping in the spiritual work of the church."

It’s impossible for infants.

In the case of Lydia, in Acts, "her heart was opened when she heard the gospel. The gospel was preached and her heart was opened," it says. So, we understood she heard the gospel, she believed…others must have heard the gospel, their hearts were opened, and they believed and they were baptized. By the way, to assume there were children in the house is maybe stretching it since, apparently, she had no husband. She, apparently, was a single person.

In John 4, in verse 53, it says about a nobleman—you know, whom Jesus talked with and He healed his son—it says about that man, "He himself believed and his whole household." They all believed. Household belief, then household baptism. Where there is no faith, there is no baptism.

In Acts 2:38—let me show you this. Turn in your Bible for a minute to Acts 2:38. Here is another Scripture which they use to defend infant baptism. Acts 2:38—Peter is closing the sermon on the day of Pentecost and he says, in verse 38, "Repent…let each of you be baptized!" So, we see the sequence: repent, be baptized. "And, you’ll receive forgiveness and you’ll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit…"
Then, in verse 39, "For the promise," he says, "is for you and your"—what?—"children." "Oh," they say. "See, the promise here for the children. This is an important Scripture." "Repent and be baptized and the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." Now, they see "your children" as an allusion to the baptism of children. And, of course, that’s a stretch. There’s nothing about baptism of children here whatsoever." John MacArthur

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/INFBAP.HTM

That's the way I understand it.

 

[TubaFour]

I have nothing insightful or helpful to add on this topic. I do want to say, that when I read the paedobaptist view, I think aha!! That's it. Makes sense... Then I read the credobaptist position and I say, aha -- that makes sense!!!

I suppose that makes me an infant credobatist!

aL

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I have nothing insightful or helpful to add on this topic. I do want to say, that when I read the paedobaptist view, I think aha!! That's it. Makes sense... Then I read the credobaptist position and I say, aha -- that makes sense!!!

I suppose that makes me an infant credobatist!

aL

He, JM, Mike, aL,

Thanks for all yout thoughtful comments. This is a debate that is almost 500 years old (But the church is 2,000 years old ) and I doubt we will settle it here, but I would like to say a few more things.

I have, on many occasions, in discussing this issue said to my Baptists brethren that where you fall on this issue will depend on how you look at the Word of God. To understand this issue, do I begin in Matthew or do I begin in Genesis. If I begin in Matthew the credo-baptist only position is very credible. If I begin in Genesis than I think it's credibility factor drops substantially (IMHO).

Of course I believe we have to begin in Genesis to understand God's and His Covenant people. Paedobaptist arguments are only arguments from silentce if we it is suggested and affirmed that there is no continuity on this subject between the Old and New Covenants.

Our Credo-only friends must hold that the there is no continuity and the New Covenant is wholly new and is not seen in the Old Covenant at all. I find this position to be unthinkable.

Now as to the household baptisms we know that, in the case of the Phillipian jailer, his household was baptised on account of his faith and not their own.

Dr Greg Strawbridge says this about the household baptisms of the Phillipian jailer and his houshold and the Crispus and his house hold:
In the Philippian Jailer passage (16:31-34) and the Corinthian passage with Crispus (18:8), the Greek texts use singular verbs, not the plural verbs, to describe the action of believing. These texts do not say, the Jailer (or Crispus) "and (kai)" his household "believed" (with a plural verb). This would be one way Luke could have nuanced the text to indicate the equal action of each member in believing. This is something Luke surely would have said if he was seeking to correct the covenantal household concept established in the previous millennia of Biblical history. Instead, these texts teach what any Old Testament believer might have expected: the Jailer, the household head, "rejoiced (singular verb) greatly, with all his house (panoikei, an adverb), having believed (pepisteukos, participle, singular) in God" (16:34, ASV); and Crispus, the household head, "believed (episteusen, verb, singular) in the Lord with (sun) all his household" (18:8). However, observe Luke's careful language indicating that baptism is administered to each member of the Jailer's household: "he was baptized, he and (kai) all his household" (16:33).

So the Greek does not say what JM and many people assume. It say the athe individual (singuar believed) and the household rejoiced and was baptised. This is completel inline with the practice of the previous 2,000 years of covenant history,

Mike, the Old Covenant dealt with folks in Covenant and it was a household matter. the whole houeshold was brought into the covenant. In see this repeated in the New Covenant and 1 Cor 7 is a good esample of that.

We certainly see this typoe of action in the late classical and early medieval churc, where whole tribes of peoples were baptised when the Hed of the family or tribe converted to the faith.

It is late and I need to crash. I hoe we can discuss this subject some more in the future.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[JM]

Our Credo-only friends must hold that the there is no continuity and the New Covenant is wholly new and is not seen in the Old Covenant at all.

I think the big difference is I understand the New Covenant to be "New." lol

As for the Greek, no two people agree on the Greek meaning of terms, here's an example a friend of mine wrote:

Picture this:

Elder Dim Whit, “Welcome everybody to the Truth of Truth Ministry’s weekly Bible study. Thanks for being here. I’m stoked. Our passage to study tonight is John 11:35 Jesus wept. Let’s see what we can learn from this passage. Who wants to go first?”

Bob, “Well, my New English Common Vernacular version doesn’t read Jesus wept but that “Jesus groaned.”

Mary, “Interesting, you know the Greek word there for wept is ‘awahuu’ – I got this from Nestle.”

Bill, “Wow, profound!”

Bob, “But my version, The “Newest English Super Common Version” says grunt.”

Jack, “You mean Jesus grunted?!?!”

Mike: “My new “Authentic Expository Rendition” matches Vaticanus! And didn’t they find this great manuscript in trash can in the Vatican library?

AVBunyan: “Yes, they did – maybe they should have left it there.”

Harry, “I have a Greek lexicon from the 4th century Syrian that says the word for wept is really, ‘awahooie’ which makes a major difference in the phrasing! Wow, I get so excited when I use the Greek – makes me feel, well, just enlightened like an angel of light!”

Elder Dim Whit, “I can see this is going to be a very uplifting night. Nothing like some real dynamic equivalent renderings using the aros tense of the subjective superlative!”

Bill, “Harry, where did you learn Greek?”

Harry, “I don’t really know Greek I just read it in Zodiates book, “How to Master Greek in 30 Days.”

Martha, “Well, I have a Greek lexicon from the 14th Century revision of the Lollard #3 and the word wept can also be translated moaned.”

Martha, “You have to understand the trials and tribulations for the times for without this information you can’t enter into the emotional congatative condiveness of the sureality.”

AV, “What am I missing here – we are only talking about two words.”

Harry, “Hush, AV, you’ve got a bad attitude! What about all those poor people before 1611?”

Elder Dim Whit, “Hush, AV you are not exhibiting the sweet spirit of the Christ here. Also, what about all those people in other countries who can’t even speak English?
Now let’s get back to our Bible study. Who has some more nuggets on, Jesus wept?”

Mr. Brilliant, “My new updated ‘Antioch Gratulative Retention Bible’ speaks of the word wept being in the past tense conjegative thus meaning that Jesus was weeping before he ever got there. This really touched my heart.”

Mary, “Oh, I feel my life is now completely changed based upon that nugget – thanks Mr. Brilliant.”

Mr. Brilliant, “By the way my new version is special for the translators of this great work translated it so there are no words with less than 9 letters long so as to bring out the most demonstrative and subjectivelatuative meaning of the words thus enabling me to get all that can be gotten from the most complicated renderings thus making me even more brilliant in the eyes of unenlightened believers.”

Harry, “I still think we need to examine the different 3rd century renditions of the Greek word ‘awahooe’ so we can see how other Greek writers used the word so we can determine the most reliable and effective use of the word for the most authentic rendering of the verse thus pulling from it all the vast riches of this profound word ‘awahooe’.

AV, “But how do you decide who is right?”

Mike, “AV, you are so narrow-minded! How can you read a Bible with Easter in it anyway?”

Nancy, “How do we even know John 11:35 was really in the originals?”

Neal, “I found a scholar who read of a professor who talked with his gardener who knew an archeologists who was able to gaze upon the famous fragment P734075439.479 1/2 from the collection over in Dead Sea Visitor’s Center, oh I mean the ‘Dead Sea Museum of Ancient Artifacts’ and he says it is there.”

Nancy, “Wow, could the archeologists read Greek?”

Neal, “No, but the janitor could and he told him that P734075439.479 1/2 contained the verse as it stands in many of the modern versions.”

Elder Dim Whit, “Well, that is great – I think we can call this Bible study a great success. Let’s meet next week so we can have some time to digest these great truths. Then we will be prepared to really dig into John 11:35 verse using all the modern tools and resources available.”

Mary, “You are not coming next week are you AV?”

AV, “No, I think I’ll just stay home and watch some Captain Kangaroo reruns, thank you for asking and for being so thoughtful.”

____________________________________________

I think we should be careful about going to the Greek and can help but it also can cause trouble.

The more important question is, "Who is Abraham's Seed?"

 

[JM]

I have nothing insightful or helpful to add on this topic. I do want to say, that when I read the paedobaptist view, I think aha!! That's it. Makes sense... Then I read the credobaptist position and I say, aha -- that makes sense!!!

I suppose that makes me an infant credobatist!

aL

I feel the same way about so many things!

 

[heymikey80]

Now you're starting to sound like a dispensationalist!

To me dispensations aren't the problem, certainly not a raw exegesis of a passage or a literal application of continuity. Dispensationalism -- making dispensations the dominating system of hermeneutic -- is the problem I have with Dispensationalists.

"Dispensation" is a Biblical term. "Covenant" as well. The question is what is meant by Scripture in these terms. I say "covenant" overrides "dispensation", and that makes me a Covenantalist.

You'll find the same implication for dispensations in Westminster's use of the "administrations" of the Covenant of Grace.

You can't have it both ways. Either the NT sheds new light, providing a clearer understanding of the OT text or it does not. You need to come up with a better rebuttal if you are going to remain faithful to a reformed hermeneutic.

But you've said the NT is silent on the issue (infant baptism, at least). In silence shouldn't the old light be consulted as authoritative? Is God the God of the Jews? Are you saying God's compelled in this new ... dispensation ... to defy all His prior precedents?

Reformed thought holds to a certain ... continuity from the Old Covenant to the New. Does that continuity apply even when dispensationalists appreciate it? That is, if a dispensationalist accepted the Ten Commandments as authoritative, should I be forced to reject them?

I think the big difference is I understand the New Covenant to be "New." lol

I think msortwell has inadvertently handed me that comment by saying my view is dispensationalistic.

The New Covenant is "not like the old" in a specific way: the New is internalized. "Internal" is contrasted against "visible" (in, e.g., Rom 2:26-eoc)

If you took that to extremes, then there should be no separate, visible church (really -- everyone should be in the visible church, acc. Jer 31). That's surely not true today. So not everything's "New": at least not yet. In this period the visible and invisible are still distinct, and God still sets up an embassy, and sends an army, from the internal to the visible. One of those visible signs is the visible church. Another is baptism.

Continuity argues that this church should be patterned on the Old Light of the Old Covenant unless New Light from the New Covenant overrides it. Explicit commands in the Old Covenant include your children -- even those destined not to be in the Covenant.

There is an explicitly familial extension of the New Covenant -- not simply in Acts, in Paul's instructions to family members, instructions to children, sympathy with people caring for infants, God's explicit concern for those "enemies of the Gospel ... beloved for the fathers", it does go on & on.

 

[heymikey80]

The New Covenant is silent on infant baptism. Does that silence implicitly override the very vocal, explicit commands of the Old Covenant? I don't think so. I think it's highly sympathetic to those explicit commands even beyond the familial extensions. If you read Romans 4 just with an understanding of infant circumcision, you get a powerfully different idea of what's being said about New Covenant continuity. The sign of faith is applied at infancy by God's command in the Old Covenant -- even before profession. According to Paul the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled with true faith, not simply with profession:

and [Abe's] the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. Rom 4:12-13
​

There it is: a covenant of faith, sealed with a sign of faith (Rom 4:11) given to the children of the faithful in infancy (4:12), yet the covenant applied only through faith, not the Law (4:13). If God's working differently today, I want to know at what point this changed. To Paul it's working this way as of the writing of Romans 4.

Now not for his [Abe's] sake only was it written that righteousness was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead Rom 4:23-24
​

Our recent culture has predisposed us to an intensely individualistic experience and theology of Christianity. Ancient culture wasn't like this, and actually was powerfully familial and tribalistic. I think we probably need to back up and put more stock in the first 1500 years where infant baptism was a given in orthodox Christianity. It seems to me our culture is myopic on these issues.

 

[gbear]

testing

 

[gbear]

Jhn 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
Jhn 8:57 Then the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
Jhn 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
Jhn 8:59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

It is an awesome thing I think that Abraham preceded the 'law' & Moses... just as our faith in Jesus Christ supercedes the 'law', or as our Lord Himself said that He came not to do away with the law but to fulfill it.

You will see a very interesting passage in Genesis 15 where God Himself conducts with Abram (as the Lord had not yet changed his name) a rite or ritual of covenant. This was a ceremony performed by two individuals who wished to take on each others debts, assets, enemies... very much like a marriage. To sum up... several animals are sacrificed and split asunder symetrically, that is lengthwise... the pieces of the carcasses are laid opposite of each other on either side of a ditch where the blood would run to. The two entering into the covenant would then walk together in the midst of the pieces, through the blood signifying that if either broke the covenant... that one would be just like the animals in the ceremony... body broken, blood shed. No God does not allow Abraham to walk through with Him... He puts Abraham into a deep sleep. And when Abraham awakes... he sees a 'flaming torch & and a smoking furnace or pot... going through the pieces. Now if you remember, the children of Israel were led by a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night. I believe that this was a manifestation of the Father and the Son walking throught the pieces and the Son basically saying 'look dad, I know Abraham and his descendants cannot and will not keep this convenant... so I will become one of Abraham's descendants in the flesh and take responsibility for this convenant by having my body broken and my blood shed for them, thus fulfilling the convenant... the new convenant.

 

[JM]

Dispensationalism -- making dispensations the dominating system of hermeneutic -- is the problem I have with Dispensationalists.

I'd say the same with Covenant theology but it uses only two covenants with the Covenant of Grace being the second and all others as expressions of the covenant that covenant.