Paedobaptism

JM, I apologize for the delay in my response. Your responses were grabbed earlier and I finally found a few minutes and responded as best I could in the allotted time I have. Unfortunately, there was not more time and these will be my last posts on the issue. This means I will not be able to answer any questions, concerns, or areas you disagree (which of course you have already commented upon) …

Your arguments reflect 'a' norm in credo understanding. However, I believe what I have stated will further clarify the Reformed / Covenant position and many of your mis-interpretations of it, etc. Please note this is not to cause conflict, but to state what we consider a more biblical (and consistent) position in the matter at hand.

Please understand that because of a limit on words I was not able to quote you.

May God bless.

318

While we do not know if these 318 we saved or not - a confession of faith, does not prove a possession of faith (besides there is no evidence that a confession was even made!) - I agree with you that it is "unlikely" - as demonstrated in the life of Israel - that all (without exception) had "saving faith."

However, the point is that since they were "born into the household" they received the covenant sign and seal (compare Lydia, Acts 16) - and thus came under its blessings and cursing of the "eternal" covenant (mind you I am not asserting anyone is saved, just in the covenant, in which resides believers and unbelievers; as witnessed in the OT and NT). If they were 'unbelievers' they were cut off in God's timing, if they are believers they remained forever sealed "in." For believers, "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" (WCF 28) and of course the same can be said for circumcision.

Please note that Abraham was not commanded to circumcise the 318 or others on the basis of their professions of faith - this is not in the text. Rather he was instructed to circumcise his whole household, without respect to a confession ... and it is not the norm of babies at 8 days to "confess" ...

The quoting of Gen. 17:23 and 14:14 does not assist your case. Again there was no confession of faith mentioned, even of the 318 adults! Trained servants, does not mean they possessed faith or Christ, but that they were the best trained for their task, of "pursing them unto Dan."

What is in the text we could call 'household circumcision.' The 318 were circumcised into the Abrahamic covenant, into the promise made to Abraham. The NT church is baptized into Christ's Covenant, into the promise made to Christ (which is an extension of the "eternal" Abrahamic Covenant – Gal. 3). In both covenants, which are actually one, the promise is to you and your children as confirmed by Luke in Acts 2:39.

It should be noted that God does not impose upon infants the same demands he normally does on adults (and note not all adults either – oikos baptisms). Abraham did not ask for an infant's statement of faith. …

Ethiopian Eunuch

The EE is a great example of an adult baptism in the NC. However, if we review the 12 baptism examples recorded in the NT, 5 are household baptisms. If the NC is ALWAYS so individualistic as some "assume", no longer following the family patterns in the OC (see below), then why do we continue to see any household baptisms? At least 5/12s of the baptisms mentioned in the NC are household types! Why mention them as such, if it if not relevant?

Covenant families are no small matter in the Covenants of God. Though I do not always agree with Gentry, note what he says of the OC family unit in Infant Baptism: A Duty of God's People:

The Bible teaches that God establishes the family as a Creation ordinance of perpetual obligation (Gen. 1:27-28; 2:22-24; Matt. 19:4-6). That the family is of central importance in the Bible is evident upon the following considerations: (1) Numerous family genealogies are preserved in Scripture, thus demonstrating a concern for the preservation of family lineages (e.g., Gen. 5; 10; Num. 1). (2) Families were considered a high and holy heritage from the Lord (Psa. 127; 128; Isa. 8:18). (3) To be childless is lamentable (Gen. 25:41; 30:1; Exo. 23:26; Deut. 7:14; Psa. 113:9; Jer. 22:30). (4) Responsibilities before God center around family life (Deut. 6:4ff; Psa. 78:1-8; Prov. 13:22; 19:14). (5) Express moral obligations protecting the family are established in the Ten Commandments (Exo. 20:12, 14, 17).

Consequently, in the Old Testament God all-merciful specifically instituted his gracious covenant with family generations as beneficiaries of the covenant, rather than restricting the covenant to individuals. His mercies and blessings were particularly promised to the families of believers, as in the case of Noah (Gen. 9:9), Abraham (Gen. 17:2-7)) and others (Deut. 28:4; Psa. 103:17-18; 115:13,14). Also in keeping with this principle of family solidarity, his chastenings and curses ran in family generations (Exo. 20:5; Deut 5:9; Hos. 9:11-17).

In the Old Testament, then, godly families are obliged to recognize two important truths: First, when God's grace claimed a person, God's rule extended over all that that person possessed. For example, in the law of the tithe God claimed the first tenth of one's production as a sign that he had a right to all of it (Deut. 14:22; Mal. 3:10). Second, when God's grace claimed a person, that person's household was set apart as holy unto the Lord. For example, the children of God's people were forbidden to marry non-believers "for thou art an holy people" (Deut. 7:1-6). Truly God kept the family central in his gracious dealings with his covenant people in the Old Testament Revelation.

Click to expand...

God gave "an everlasting covenant" to Abraham (Gen. 17) in the Old and Paul continues Abraham's case in the New (Gal. 3). "To Abraham and his seed were the promises made" (Gal. 3:16). The church is Abraham's seed, - even today! As Israel was grafted into that very old olive tree, so believers today are.... Since the covenant sign (circumcision) was administered alike to adults, households (including slaves), and 8-day-old-boys, it continues by the repetition of Paul's, Luke's, etc. arguments into the NC. Since the proclamation at Pentecost made no change in the covenant recipients, believers' children in the NC have a right to the new sign of the "everlasting" covenant. Though more about the faith once delivered to the saints is known in the NC, then the OC, God and the covenant remained the same (in that the same Gospel is preached, Gal. 3:8: the same way, life, and truth, John 14:6, Heb. 11, etc.); only the sign was changed. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized.

Lydia's Household Baptism:

Actually, credos seek to assume the Scriptures say more than they do, as they "assume" a profession of faith in Lydia's household - and it is not in the text. Where in the text does it say the household - the whole household - professed faith? As with the 318, it doesn't!

Besides, I did not say what you "assumed." You are assuming upon me as you do upon the Scriptures themselves. I actually stated:

On the hermeneutical front, I was struck by Lydia's household baptism in Acts 16:14-15. This was not because I assumed there were children present (though it does seem odd to me to think that there were no children present in any of the households that were baptized), but rather because of Luke's choice of words. That is, Luke says that Lydia believed, and indicates that on that basis her household was baptized. In saying that the household was baptized, Luke never differentiates believers from unbelievers. Regardless of the age of those in the household, they were apparently all baptized. Because Luke does not distinguish between believers and unbelievers in the household, it indicates to me that he assumed that their belief or unbelief was immaterial to the question of whether or not they should be baptized.

Click to expand...

So I am looking at the language of the text. I am not adding to it or subtracting from it, but listening to Luke speak forth the whole counsel of God – not eliminating 5/12s of the baptisms in Scripture.

We do not know who was in Lydia's household, their ages, if they were slaves, or children, nor do we hear of the confession of other than Lydia BUT YET the household - the whole household, every member - was baptized. However, if we compare this to other texts, such as that of the 318, we do see a pattern of "oikosbaptism" (oikoscircumcision). The point is not necessarily that infants were baptized (we can't say they were present or absent), but merely that whole households were baptized on "one person's" profession (Acts 10; 16:15, 33, etc.). However, baptism upon the faith of another such as in Lydia's household or Abraham's, etc. does not mean that the recipients are saved (we cannot even make this claim "for certain" upon the professor themselves), it rather puts them into a covenant relationship with God, where there is both blessings and cursing.

We in the US and several other areas of the world have no idea of "households" as they were in the ANE…. Today many try to impose upon Scripture or eliminate things from Scripture, they do not understand, etc. However, in Bible interpretation we are expected to look at the whole counsel of God. Credos argue that paedos make an argument from silence (the OC is not silent), but so do credos! Accordingly, not only did we observe Gentry's argument above (the voice of Scripture), but now Bryan Chapell's in "A Pastor's Case for Infant Baptism':

Just as advocates of infant baptism must deal with the absence of an identified infant being baptized in the New Testament, opponents must face the absence of a command to deny children the covenant sign and seal. As has already been noted, the apostles took great care to emphasize the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant for New Testament believers.

[p]Throughout the 2000-year history of this covenant prior to the beginning of the apostolic church, the people of God had administered the covenant sign to their children. If the apostles truly wanted to change this practice it seems highly improbable that they would not have stated (i.e., commanded) the changes be stated especially since they were all Jewish Christians.

The removal of any sign of the covenant from believers' children would have been an immense change in practice and concept for Jewish families. It is unthinkable after 2000 years of covenant family practice (established since Genesis), that a believing Jewish parent would have known how to interpret a continuing Abrahamic covenant that excluded administering the sign of the covenant to children. As will soon be discussed, the apostles frequently record households being baptized after the head of the home believes in Christ. Consider how such a household head would have reacted when others in the household (including servants and resident relatives) were baptized on the basis of his faith while that man's own children were denied the covenant sign.

The absence of a command to prohibit administering the sign of the covenant to children after 2000 years of such practice weighs significantly against arguments that the apostles only wanted those able to profess their faith to be baptized.

Click to expand...

Household Baptism continued;

There are 5 household (oikos) baptisms in the NT (Cornelius, Acts 10:48; Lydia, Acts 16:15; the Philippian jailer, Acts 16:31; Crispus, Acts 18:8; and Stephanus, 1 Cor. 1:16).

Looking at the Philippian jailer and his family, we hear only of the faith of the jailer - not his family. Yes, his family heard the word and they rejoiced, but only the faith of the jailer himself is seized upon. Why, he is the head of the household! The Holman Bible Dictionary states:

….If Greek society looked to belonging in one's city as the chief unit of society, Roman society, both legally and culturally, looked to the family as the primary unit of society. In early Roman law, and to a significant though diminishing extent throughout the Roman period, the paterfamilias (head of the household) was the only fully legal person in the family. The “family” included what today would be termed the “extended” family, crossing generational lines and including the wife, all unmarried sons and daughters, married sons and their families, those persons adopted into the family, and slaves. All of these persons lived under the patria potestas, or “absolute power,” of the patriarchal head of the household. The patria potestas of the paterfamilias extended even to matters of life and death, limited only by the constraints of the habit of consulting a family council or by the restraints of certain laws. The father, for example, was the person who decided whether or not to allow a newborn infant to die. That such power flourished in the New Testament era is born out by the fact that one father had his son executed for his part in the Catiline Conspiracy of 62 B.C. In early Roman times fathers could sell their children just as they could any other property. This absolute power of the Roman father included not only the persons directly descended from him but also their personal property. Persons living under another's patria potestas in actuality owned nothing. Upon their marriage, daughters passed into the power of another family's patria potestas. Upon the death of the paterfamilias, as many new families were created as there had been sons living under his power (or grandsons, in the event their fathers had died) …

Click to expand...

The head of the household was responsible for the faith of the family. Even in the OT we see whole families punished for the sins of head of the family. The literal translation of Acts 16:34 reads, "And he rejoiced with all his household, "he" [singular] having believed in God." The text uses the singular ("he" having believed), not plural in regards to oikobaptism. The participle is masculine, singular describing the faith of the jailer. The Greek text revealing the household rejoiced with him because "he" had found faith and yet the "whole" household was baptized. Again note, I am not saying everyone was saved that was baptized, rather they were each - no matter their age, etc. - baptized into the NC, based upon the profession of faith of the jailer alone – as he was the head of the household. Although I am aware of and have read numerous commentaries on this passage (including Barnes, Gill, Alexander, so many others.), the truth of the singular "he" remains as a truth that must be dealt with…. As Gentry says in Infant Baptism: A Duty of God's People:

We should note in this regard that many versions mistranslate Acts 16:34. For instance, the King James version reads: "And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." The New American Standard version has the correct rendering of this verse in a marginal reference at verse 34: "rejoiced greatly with his whole household, having believed in God." The participle phrase "having believed in God" is in the singular form. Thus, it refers only to the jailer: the jailer believes in God; his household rejoices. Yet the whole household is baptized: "And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized" (Acts 16:33). Note, too, that Paul indiscriminately presents the promise in terms expressing the principle of family solidarity: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:31; cp. also Acts 11:14).

Click to expand...

Look at the covenants of God. They included families (Gen. 12:3; Isa. 54:10, 13; 59:21 - compare Acts 2:39). Well we can also add Isa. 61:8-9; Jer. 32:38-40; Ezek. 37:25-26; Zech. 8:5; 10:7, 9; 12:10-14; 14:17 too. So, the oikosbaptism principle - with an emphasis on family and children, even servants, etc. - is a huge part of the covenant of God and is not seen as abrogated in the NC.

Since have already discussed the truth that the children of at least one believing parent are regarded as "holy" and separated unto God (1 Cor. 7:14) there is no need to go further there. I will add though that children are called "the saints" (Eph. 6:1-3 // 1:1; Col. 3:20 // 1:2) …. and children of a believing parent(s) are to obey their parents "in the Lord" (Eph. 6:1), which implies a covenantal context. Jesus suffered the little children to come to him for "Of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17), never asking for a confession, et. al.


Heb 8:4-13


JM, thank you for confirming that the C of G is found in every Administration, including the "eternal" covenant with Abraham who had the Gospel preached unto him (Gal. 3:6) and circumcised his whole household (with special eternal instructions being given for infants). But Credos desire to only continue "part" of the Abrahamic Covenant, apply only part of the C of G to its intended recipients …

Though you may read this at IIIM, it bears repeating since you do not enjoy links (but I apologize in advance for the length). Hebrews 8 does not prove the credo case. Hebrews 8 indicates that Jesus is the mediator of the "new" or "renewed" covenant of which Jeremiah spoke (the Greek word kainos may be translated either way, as may the Hebrew word chadash).

All of the things prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34 were already present to some degree in ancient Israel and Judah. Having God's word written on their hearts was already a known blessing in the Old Testament (Deut 6:6; 30:6; Isa 51:7), God was the God of ancient Israel and Judah and they were his people (e.g. Exod. 3:7, 10), and God forgave the sins of the faithful (Exod. 34:6-7). There were also those who knew the Lord and therefore did not need to be taught to know him (frequently demonstrated by contrast with those people who did not know the Lord [e.g. Exod 5:2; Judg 2:10; 1 Sam 2:12; 3:7; Hos 2:20; 5:4]).

"Know the Lord" could mean a number of things in the Old Testament. One way to know the Lord was to experience his judgment and destruction (e.g. Ezek 38:16). Clearly, however, this is not the meaning in Jeremiah 31:34 where knowing the Lord is a blessing rather than a curse. In the Old Testament, the most common meaning of "know the Lord" is "be faithful to the Lord" (e.g. Exod 33:13; Jer 4:22; 24:7; Hos 2:20; 5:4; 6:3). This is also the meaning in Jeremiah 31:34 where knowing the Lord results from being forgiven by the Lord: "they will all know me ... for I will forgive..." In fact, the word translated "for" (ki) may also be translated "because." Notice that "knowing the Lord" follows repentance and forgiveness. It does not precede these things as does simple knowledge of the gospel. Thus, in the Old Testament, plenty of people knew the Lord, although imperfectly because they were not perfectly faithful to him.

It is the same in our day. The people of God are faithful to the Lord, but not entirely faithful - there is no one among us who never sins. We realize the blessing of being faithful to the Lord (i.e. knowing the Lord) in part, but not in its complete fullness. When Christ returns, though, all his people will be finally and fully perfected and blessed, and none of us will ever sin again. Only then will we "know the Lord" in a way that can be described entirely as "already" and not at all as "not yet." Until then, we must exhort each other to be faithful to the Lord, just as Hebrews also teaches us to do (Heb 10:24-25).

Because all of the blessings in Jeremiah 31:31-34 were already present in the Old Testament administrations of the covenant, and because even the parties of the prophesied covenant were the same (Israel and Judah), it is better to translate Jeremiah 31:31 as prophesying a "renewed" covenant rather than to a "new" covenant. In order to be faithful to the Old Testament text of Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews retained the original meaning of Jeremiah 31. He did not invent a new meaning for Jeremiah's prophecy. Thus, he too referred to a renewed covenant in which the covenant blessings would be offered afresh and finally realized in full, but he did not say that the day of the prophecy's ultimate fulfillment had already come.

The most common error related to Hebrews 8 in our day is the interpretation that only believers are in the renewed covenant. This is often asserted on the basis that the renewed covenant cannot be broken, or on the basis that everyone in the renewed covenant will "know the Lord." However, neither Jeremiah nor the author of Hebrews wrote that the renewed/new covenant could not be broken. This is an assumption drawn from the language which states that the renewed covenant will not be like the covenant which Judah and Israel broke. While it is true that this language helps create an expectation that eventually the new covenant will not be broken, as indeed will be the case for the faithful covenant people when Christ returns, there is no indication that unbreakableness must characterize the renewed covenant at every step. In fact, according to Jeremiah, the full realization of these blessings was to come about in the restoration of the kingdom when God restored the people to the land after the exile in Babylon (Jer. 29:1, 10-14; 30:2-3; 31:27-34). Of course, the original restoration in the time of Ezra-Nehemiah did not realize these full blessings because the people were not faithful to God. Thus, we have biblical proof that the renewed covenant had already been broken by the time Hebrews was written. Moreover, Hebrews itself also teaches us that the renewed covenant can be broken when it tells us of the punishment that will fall upon some who have been "sanctified" by the "blood of the covenant" (Heb 10:26-31).

In summary, Hebrews quotes Jeremiah not to say that the prophecy has been fulfilled, but rather to say that Jesus is the one who will bring us the blessings offered in Jeremiah's prophecy. The broad argument of Hebrews is not that we now have all the covenant blessings in full, but that because we have Jesus, we are assured of receiving all the covenant blessings in full when Christ returns, if we persevere in our faith until that time (e.g. Heb 9:28; 10:36-38). If we assume that one cannot break the renewed covenant, we brush aside the many severe warnings to Christians we find throughout Hebrews.

JM states:

You are claiming a physical seed is heir to a physical sign and seal under the new covenant when, "...they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Rom 9:6-8) The new covenant is different in that it is made with physical Israel's seed, Jesus Christ, and those who are promised salvation in Him.

Click to expand...

As demonstrated in my other post, your claim that Israel is not the Church, just "merely a symbol," is not found in Scripture. In the OC (as well as the NC), there is a visible/invisible church distinction. We agree - all Israel is not Israel - but yet "all" (both non-professing elect and unelect infants) received the sign and seal of the eternal covenant. The promise continues to be "to you and your children" (Acts 2:39) - a continuing NC reality.

While the NC of course has differences, new Administrator, new sign, etc., it is not so different that it loses its "eternal" relationship with its predecessor(s).

On your credo analysis they should not baptize anyone as they DO NOT know who the actual "children of promise" are; or, as you put it, they know not specifically "those who are promised salvation in him" - they only know the professors, not necessarily the possessors of faith. On the other hand, if we see this as entrance into the eternal covenant of God, which contains blessings and cursings, we are not left with this credo inconsistency.

JM states:

You are claiming covenant promises to 'children of the flesh' – Rom. 2:29

Click to expand...

And you are claiming to be able to distinguish "definitely" who is saved and lost, who is elect and unelect! (1 John 2:19; cf. Matt. 13:24-30). Since all professors are not possessors, paedos baptize unto the covenant membership in which resides both blessings and cursings. To those who are "of faith" they remain engrafted, but to those who are "not of faith" they are cut off - Rom 11.

As stated before this is a very old tree, it continues from the OC into the NC, .... Jesus did not plant a brand new tree. He did not plant a brand new covenant. Rather, he re-newed the covenant ... and as seen above has not abrogated the oikos principle.

The Abrahamic covenant, as repeated by Paul in the NT more than once, continues an indictment against your view above.

JM states:

At least Warfield admits there is no command or record (including the household baptism) of infant baptisms. As I posted before it is the old covenant being read into the new instead of allowing the new to speak for itself.

Click to expand...

You are still starting in the middle (NT). In essence, you are denying the continuing eternal realities of the Old to make any case from the New. The 'whole counsel of God' must be understood and applied in proper exegesis (Acts 20:27).

I have a already admitted that there is no 'explicit' command in the NC to baptize infants. Let us make it even more explicit. As stated somewhere on our website: Reformed Paedobaptists readily admit that the New Testament does not command or indisputably illustrate the baptism of children. The few references to household baptisms may have included children, but they are not explicit (Acts 10:44 ff; 16:13-15, 30-34). Moreover, Paedobaptists also affirm that the pattern in evangelism should be "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38). On these matters, Baptists and Paedobaptists agree for the most part.

However, why do we need more than one command (Gen. 17; cf. Lev. 12:3; Luke 1:59; 2:21), and let us add to this a severe warning (Exod. 4:18-31) to obey God in applying his covenant sign and seal to children of covenant parents too? As we shall see, we don't. Only if one dismisses the law of God (the jots and tittles) in the OC can he embrace credo baptism.

You missed Warfield's point. He is saying, and goes forth to prove (very long, a reason for links), that there is no need to even mention the baptism of infants "directly" (of course it is implied in household baptisms, 1 Cor. 7:14, the continuity of the covenants, and the continuity of the Church, etc.). Warfield did not stop where you did, he rather continues to look at the whole counsel of God. He stated,

But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament where the church was instituted and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now.

Click to expand...

In other words, when we see the continuity of the Church in the Old to the New and the continuity of God's covenant thru-out, not only is a case made for peado baptism, but it indicts credo baptism. Simply put, in the OC, the sign and seal were undeniably applied to children, those under households, etc. and in the NC this is has not changed.

One of God's purposes in this is a child of the covenant can look back to his baptism and see that he was loved even before he loved God (cf. Rom. 5:8). Though Jesus came in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4) and regeneration is applied when and if the Spirit wills (John 3), Eph. 1:5, etc. teaches us that God's elect are loved before time, by Christ, who was foreordained before the foundation of the world to die for them (1 Pet. 1:19-20). Paedos, following God's pattern, do not wish to rob a child of this reality which is in Christ alone. Of course, as God's word teaches the unbelievers both in and out of the covenant will be dealt with in full when Christ returns (Matt. 13:24-30).

JM stated:

Doc, I am a Particular Baptist who has felt the pressure to conform, to give away what my forefathers had put burned and placed in stocks for. The State covenantal theology of the WCF looms, it is overwhelming at times and it would comfort my carnal spirit greatly to give in. To give up. To throw away what I believe is true about baptism for a more comfortable pew in a Presbyterian church.

Click to expand...

Being a Baptist once myself, I understand the pressures of denominationalism. I was trained in what I consider the very best of Baptist theology. Understand it, taught it. However, when the proverbial lights of covenant continuity, etc. came on I had to repent - a gift of grace (2 Tim 2:24-26), and accept the Gospel over my denominational leanings, which in this case came up short. As you already know and I am sure you will agree, Scripture, not denominationalism should be our rule for exegesis. So, my prayers remain with you in this matter – of significant importance – as I know the struggle and I know it must be God that changes the thinking to better see the full reality and his full love to the families of God.

JM states:

I'm not sure why you quoted Gal. 6:16:

Click to expand...

I apologize as I thought you would have been familiar with this text and how it speaks of the Church. Paul draws the conclusion that the Israel of God and the Church are one: that the Gentiles he is speaking of are part of the Israel of God. In context, Paul says:

Gal. 6:12-16 Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule - to the Israel of God.

Click to expand...

Note the phrase of "peace and mercy." The "new creation" motif of Isaiah 54 immediately comes to mind. The phrase qualifies the receivers of the "peace and mercy" who are Gentiles (Gal. 3:15). The "the Israel of God" refers to all believing Jews and Gentiles together (the Church). As Duguid in "The Church and Israel in the Old Testament" says, "Since Jesus Christ is Himself the new Israel, all those united to Him by faith are also incorporated into the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). He is the true vine, the classic Old Testament image for Israel, and we are His branches (John 15). Because Christ is the living cornerstone of God's house, those who are joined to Him become living stones in that house (1 Peter 2:4-5) and can be described by the same terminology that described Israel in the Old Testament: in Christ, we are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9-10)."

As already illustrated there is one "very old" wild olive tree into which all believers are engrafted - Rom. 11. Paul in speaking to the NC Church still addresses his readers (and us today) as "the Israel of God," showing the continuity of the Church and covenant.

As Bob Hayton says in Galatians 6:16 and “The Israel of God”:

… Gentile Christians (who, in part make up "the Church") are called:

those who share "the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all", and thus share in "the promise" (Rom. 4:16, with vs. 13)

Jews (Rom. 2:27-29, compare Rev. 2:9, 3:9)

"Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" (Gal. 3:29)

children of "the Jerusalem above" who is "our mother" (Gal. 4:26)

"like Isaac", they are "children of promise" (Gal. 4:28)

formerly, Gentile Christians were "alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise" now they are "no longer strangers and aliens" but are "fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God" (Eph. 2:12,19)

"the real circumcision" (Phil. 3:3)

"the offspring of Abraham" for whom Christ died (Heb. 2:16)

recipients of the "new covenant" (Hebrews chapters 8 & 10, and 2 Cor. 3:6, compare Jer. 31:31-34)

"the twelve tribes in the Dispersion", "elect exiles", "sojourners and exiles" (James 1:1, 1 Pet. 1:1, 2:11)

"a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession" (1 Pet. 2:9 compare Ex. 19:5-6)

formerly they were "not a people, but now" they "are God's people"; formerly they "had not received mercy, but now" they "have received mercy" (1 Pet. 2:10 compare Hosea 1:6-10)

"a kingdom, priests to… God" (Rev. 1:6, compare 1 Pet. 2:9, Ex. 19:5-6)
This list doesn't include the sacrifices Gentile Christians bring to God (Rom. 12:1-2, Heb. 12:15-16) nor the idea of the Church being a temple of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:20-22, 1 Pet. 2:4-5).

... Given this wider Scriptural context, should it be surprising that in Galatians, a book where Paul goes out of his way to affirm in no uncertain terms the equality all believers (Jew and Gentile) share in Christ, that he would call the Church, "the Israel of God"? Again consider Paul's statements below:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (3:28-29)

For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (6:15)

Click to expand...

Contextually in Galatians, Paul is arguing for the unity of believers in Christ, and the last part of chapter 6 is a summation of his argument. An unconditional blessing given to a Jewish "Israel of God" seems out of line with the rest of the book. Furthermore, "all who walk by this rule" (stated in vs. 15) seems to qualify the receivers of the "peace and mercy".

See G.K. Beale's "Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6:16b" (Biblica 80, [1999], pg. 204-223) for more.

Click to expand...

So, this goes to Warfield's case above in revealing the continuity of the Church from Old to the New and the truth of paedo baptism.

JM states:

One does not become engrafted without faith as you contend. It has nothing to do with the physical descendents of believers.

Click to expand...

Here we observe the discontinuity of the credo logic. Paul is making a case from the OC (in which infants were members of the covenant without initial professions of faith) and yet you say, "it has nothing to do with the physical descendants of believers." God loves the families of believers. Indeed all in Israel, in the OC, were circumcised (infants at 8 days old) and were grafted in and latter the un-elect were broken off! This is the eternal way of the eternal covenant.

One becomes engrafted into the covenant either by faith or by being being the children of believers (1 Cor 7:14; cf Gen. 17, etc.), etc. But we must remember that baptism (circumcision) becomes effectual ONLY when one comes to faith (WCF 28). If unbelievers are baptized, Rom 11 reveals branches that those "not believing" are broken off in God's timing. As Paul says, "You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either" (Rom 11:19-21). Note, once again Paul is making a case from the OC, to reveal the reality of the New. There is continuity in the covenants ...

JM states:

More problems...if there is one baptism or one 'covenant' sign/seal as you believe why did believing Jews who were circumcised have to get baptized as Paul told them to do in Acts? To suggest baptism replaces circumcision is like saying you would circumcise a Jewish baby in the womb for to enter into the new covenant you must be born again.

Click to expand...

While the eternal covenant continues, the sign changes to reveal the continuing progress of God's redemptive plan. As you know, the bloody sign of circumcision prefigured the shedding of Christ's blood. However, this sign of circumcision is no longer biblical because Christ has shed his blood once for all (cf. Heb. 10:10; 1 Pet. 1:18). Since the reality of the circumcision symbol has been fulfilled in Christ, it was replaced. While circumcision looked forward to Christ - which God did not desire the children of his covenant to be robbed of - in the NC believers receive a new sign for the covenant that indicates what Christ has already accomplished for his elect; the washing away of the their sin (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Heb. 9:14). Note how the signs - circumcision >>> baptism - follow the progressive nature of the one covenant – sacrifice >>> washing. The covenant is one and progressive revealing the whole counsel of God – even in the symbols themselves - concerning the decree of the Covenant of Redemption, et. al.

However, while the covenant sign changed the features of the covenant of faith do not; Abraham had the Gospel preached to him (Gal. 3:8) and in the NC we do too. Abraham circumcised infants, household members. Again, as already shown, Abraham's covenant is "eternal." The Abraham covenant is still continuing under a new Administrator (Christ); as it continued before from Abraham >> to Moses (a type of Christ) >> to David (a type of Christ). The church today should baptize infants. "Elementary my dear Watson."

So, they received a new sign to reveal their progressive understanding of their relationship. As revelation progresses we, while not forgetting the truth in the Old, are expected to obey and conform to the New.

Besides the reality of the NC sign and seal was already foreshadowed when the "church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38) was 'baptized in the Red Sea' (1 Cor 10:1-2), while circumcision was suspended until Josh. 5.

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.

Click to expand...

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. ...

Click to expand...

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:

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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).