JM states:
... I meant their 'baptism' was 'unto Moses.' This was identifying them with Moses their prophet and the Sinaitic covenant he was to latter deliver.
Moses is a type of Christ. See
The Son and the Servant - Hebrews 3:1-6. And you know full well that Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:3-4 (immediately following 1 Cor 10:1-2), "They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them,
and that rock was Christ."
In Moses we observe the Old and New. Paul is using this OT shadow (bloody sign >>> washing sign; Jews were circumcised >>> and then washed in the Red Sea) to impress upon his readers the progressive reality of the covenant. So, being baptized unto Moses would lose its significance for the Corinthians - and the church of all ages - if its relationship to the baptism of Christ is denied!
JM stated:
...Unfaithful Israel is typical pointing to the church which is why the natural branches were broken off due to unbelief (Romans 11) since the new covenant could only be entered into by faith. The covenant of grace or the new covenant cannot be entered into without faith (no need to quote a pile of scripture here) and by faith alone. ...
You have a fine heritage and it is to be cherished; as I cherish my own Baptist heritage. However, God meets us where we are at and brings us in stages to a fuller revelation of himself (2 Cor. 3:18). It is good to be zealous, but I would be remiss if I did not say that your "zeal is not based on knowledge" (cf. Rom. 10:2).
Israel is the OT Church, not just a symbol of it. See
The Old/New Testament Church. By your own admission, there are believers and unbelievers in the visible Church - including the New Covenant. The Church is not pure. Many of these were in the Early Church (1 John 2:19; Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1 Tim. 1:19-20, etc.) and still are even in the visible church today .... See
The Covenants of Works and Grace: What Is Covenant Theology?, so your statement, "The covenant of grace or the new covenant cannot be entered into
without faith (no need to quote a pile of scripture here) and by
faith alone" is not based upon Scripture - as unbelievers are in the covenant (Old/New) revealing that not everyone has "faith."
Some enter the covenant, the visible church without real faith! While God is very concerned about the purity of his covenant, he allows unbelievers into for "his purposes". God is the one that in finality will make his Church pure – he will separate out the wheat from the tares when he returns… while we should guard it as best we can, we cannot and should change the administration of the sign 'thinking' we are protecting the purity of the Church (credos still have impure churches too) as this puts us in direct opposition to the Word of God, God's eternal continuing covenant (Gal. 3).
Regarding "infants", there is not a requirement in the NC to be entered into by faith, to be baptized, since "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered." This, besides the OC evidence and NC household baptisms, etc. is overwhelming, as to the continuing nature of God loving his covenant children.
JM states:
It seems you believe baptism replaces circumcision as the sign and seal but Christian circumcision is made without hands as the inspired write clearly teaches:
The circumcision made without hands is symbolized by actual circumcision in the OC (Rom. 2:28-29) and actual physical baptism in the NC (Col. 2:11-12, etc. However, it is more than just a mere symbol. As Richard Pratt maintains in Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant:
With specific regard to baptism, it is worth noting that the New Testament never describes baptism as something ordinary or natural; it never speaks of baptism as a mere symbol. The language of "sacrament" was sustained by Reformed churches precisely because the New Testament ties baptism so closely to the bestowal of divine grace.
For example, Paul spoke of baptism as "the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit" (Tit. 3:5). He also wrote that, through baptism, believers are united to Christ and die to sin (Rom. 6:3-7). Peter, in turn, when asked what was required for salvation, replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). Elsewhere, Peter boldly declared, "Baptism ... now saves you also - not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21). These and many other New Testament passages at least seem to indicate that baptism is much more than a symbol. In the language of the Bible, spiritual realities such as rebirth, renewal, forgiveness, salvation, and union with Christ are intimately associated with the rite of baptism.
The Westminster Confession of Faith 27.2 acknowledges this biblical evidence in sacramental terms: "There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." A sacramental union" exists between "the sign and the thing signified." A mysterious union, a "spiritual relation" exists between baptism and grace so that "the names and effects" which the Scriptures use to speak of divine grace may also be attributed to the rite of baptism. When the Scriptures attribute "the names and effects" of God's saving mercy to the rite of baptism, they speak in a sort of theological shorthand leaving the precise relationship mysterious or unexplained.
Reformed theology concurs with Scripture that there is more than meets the eye in the rite of baptism. Spiritual realities occur in conjunction with baptism, but the Scriptures do not explain in detail how baptism and divine grace are connected. So, Reformed theology speaks of the connection as a "sacramental (i.e. mysterious) union." It is in this sense that Reformed theology rightly calls baptism a sacrament. See
Baptism as a Sacrament of the Covenant
Arguing from the truth contained in our catechisms, we may say it thus: The WLC biblically asserts that baptism is not merely a sign (that is merely a visible attestation of God's favor), but also a seal (a confirmation of God's love, in which he gives assurance of that which is symbolized by the sign). WLC 163 biblically speaks of this reality. It asks, "What are the parts of a sacrament?" The answer: "The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified." The WLC 177 biblically asserts that baptism is "a sign
and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants."
Baptism, is more than a mere sign. It is also a seal to the covenant people of God's promise to be our God and to make us his, both now and forever (cf. Exod. 6:7; Lev. 26:10; Jer. 30:2; 31:33, etc.). So, it is not only a glorious picture of God's grace, but it also the covenants' members basis for claiming the promise of salvation (the Holy Spirit both sealing us and sealing the promise to us).
In baptism, the Spirit, in God's timing actually confers grace on his people (part of his sealing activity). As I have stated in part, but now in a fuller way, WCF 28.6 sys: "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time."
So, a seal points back to the sign. The sacrament of baptism is a seal, meaning God signifies that the person receiving the sacrament has the qualities it signifies. An illustration that Bob Burridge (The Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies) uses is very helpful:
When someone receives a diploma upon graduation, the diploma certifies that he has completed the course of instruction as recognized by the faculty and board of the institution granting the degree. If a person forges a diploma or has misrepresented himself to the institution, the certificate does not make him qualified in the field it represents. It would be a serious crime and offense to the institution to make such a false claim. Similarly, someone who wrongly receives a sacrament offends God and does not bring the blessings promised upon himself. Instead he calls down the wrath of God upon himself for his false claim. But when a child of God receives the sacrament rightly administered by God's prescription he receives that blessing which is represented by the sign upon the authority of God who instituted it.
In this sense we say that a sacrament is a means of grace. It does not convey the grace by its outward application. But God uses the sacrament, when rightly applied and received, as a means by which he dispenses his grace to the recipient.
The covenants follow certain patterns in both covenants. Peter announced one of these patterns on the day of Pentecost when he said, "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:39). The order of priority is the same in the NC as it was in the OC. God's promises are: (1) to believers, (2) to their children, and (3) to others who are far off. In a similar way, Paul argued for the sanctification of unbelieving spouses married to believers, noting that "otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are now holy" (1 Cor. 7:14). Because God is not only the God of the individual, but of covenant families as well … it is not any surprise that Jesus himself laid his hands on children // infants (Luke 18:15) and blessed them (Mark 10:16). It is no surprise that he baptized entire families – oikos baptism.
JM states:
The question is "What is baptism? It is "the answer of a good conscience toward God" (i Peter iii:21). It is "putting on Christ" (Gal. iii:27). It is the voluntary act of a believer, an act of obedience and self-dedication.
And since you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt who these elect are then you should not baptize a soul. You do not who has 'put on Christ' and who has a 'good conscious.' You only know those who have professed it, but profession is not necessarily possession.
You used the example of Noah. Was everyone baptized in Noah's flood saved? (i.e. Cursed Ham; see
Preacher of righteousness - 2 Peter 2:5). This is why we say, "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered."
God baptized Ham (sprinkled the Ark; Ham was included in the covenant; see
Covenants in General) in the flood because: (1) he was part of a covenantal promise made to Noah (God included the household in Noah's covenant), (2) God's structuring of his covenant from the very beginning includes both elect and un-elect (Noah (Gen. 9), Abraham (Gen. 15, 17), Moses (Exod. 20-24, 34) and David (2 Sam. 7; Psa. 89, 132) all included both believers and unbelievers), and (3) the fact that the un-elect are dealt with in God's timing whether in the covenant or not (Matt. 25:13:24-30); i.e. Ham was cursed (Gen. 9:22-25).
In every OT covenant a glorious special place was given to the children of believers because they were the expected, though not guaranteed, heirs of the covenant promises (Gen. 9:9; 15:18; 17:7; Deut. 7:9; Psa. 89:28-29; 132:11-12, etc.). But, Paedos understand that although we are in the age of the NC "already" (Luke 22:20; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 9:15; 12:24), the promises of the NC have not been completely fulfilled ("not yet"). For instance, we must still teach our neighbors, brothers and sisters, saying, "Know the Lord" (Heb 8:11), even though Jeremiah had stated that this would not be true in the new covenant period. This and other NC promises will not be completely fulfilled until Christ returns in glory. In fact, Jesus' parable of the wheat and tares (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43) reveals how dangerous it is to try to rid the church of "all" unbelievers before the final judgment - unless there is evidence of apostasy (Matt. 18:15 ff). Until then, many patterns from the OC continue to be true during the NC.
God ordained in Israel's national covenants that the male children of believers should be circumcised to signify that they were included under the sanctions of the covenants; both blessing for covenant faithfulness and cursing for unfaithfulness. Failing to circumcise was the equivalent of breaking the covenant (Gen 17:14). In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul pointed to the fact that baptism replaces the OC sign of circumcision when he said, "In him you were also circumcised . . . having been buried with him in baptism." On this (and the other evidence I have imparted, albeit briefly), Paedos baptize not only those who profess faith in Christ, but their children as well.
Unfortunately, time does not permit me to point out the remainder of the errors I observed (possibly others will pick of the mantel and run with it).
However, I pray that God will open the eyes of all who read this series of posts to see the complete love of God (Eph. 3:18-19) that he lavished upon his people in the Covenant of Redemption (1 John 3:1) before time (Eph. 1:3-6) and they will not withhold the sign (Exod. 4:18-31) of God's eternal love from their children, but understand that God desires covenantal parents to set apart their children unto him (1 Cor. 7:14). God will set in order anything that remaineth when he returns in glory (Matt. 13:24-30).
