Paedobaptism

[gord44]

Exactly; the visible church is composed of all those circumcised under the old covenant or baptised under the new, whilst the invisible church comprises all those who possess what the sign signified...faith. Under the OC the formula was circumcision + faith but under the NC the formula is baptism + faith. Under both infants are included.

Good post. Food for thought there.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

What if every baptized child of every baptized believer ever has been saved? How do we know for sure they haven't?

 

[JM]

Brother Osage, because the seed is not the physical children of Abraham, it is Christ (Gal. 3) and all those in Him by faith. "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2

We are not children of God by physical birth but by faith.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Brother Osage, because the seed is not the physical children of Abraham, it is Christ (Gal. 3) and all those in Him by faith. "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2

We are not children of God by physical birth but by faith.

Who are we to determine who has been given faith and who hasn't.

The promise is for us of faith and our children. Because God loves us he includes our offspring in the covenant because we love them.

 

[JM]

Who are we to determine who has been given faith and who hasn't.

We baptize on the confession of faith in Christ. No one knows who has faith but the New Testament pattern is; baptize those who profess faith.

I feel a little sad that many baptized as infants will be robbed of the chance to follow the Lord's command to be follow Him in the waters of baptism.

jm

 

[DocNH]

Nothing to be sad for. As the WCF teaches, "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" (John 3:3-5). Thus, in the same way a believer looks back to the the Cross to see what was accomplished and applied, we also look back to our baptism. We also speak of improving upon our baptism - something to be extremely happy about!

If you are sad for the baptized, you must also be sad for all Israel, who were not present at the establishment of the eternal covenant (sign / circumcision), but yet looked back to its promises. And yet this is the process that God established. God does not seem to share your sadness.

Baptism is no bare sign or empty seal, but really confers (gives) and exhibits (applies) grace to God's own by the Holy Spirit, in God's appointed time. Far from being sad, believers baptized in infancy can look back and see that they were loved in God's covenant for that time even before their profession of faith (compare Rom 5:8). They benefited from the Word, prayer, instruction, etc.

We baptize on the confession of faith in Christ. No one knows who has faith but the New Testament pattern is; baptize those who profess faith.

I feel a little sad that many baptized as infants will be robbed of the chance to follow the Lord's command to be follow Him in the waters of baptism.

jm

 

[JM]

Doc,

With all due respect (and I mean it), you can dress it up and justify it anyway you like it is still sad.

God's love to his church is found in eternity, in Jesus Christ, not at baptism. The symbolism which baptism holds for a believe is effectually lost. To make up for the the unbiblical practice you have to create another, a dry baptism, confirmation class.

jm

 

[DocNH]

Hi JM,

Well we are not as wet as the Egypians at the Red Sea, or those outside the Ark, for sure but we definitely do not have a dry baptism. It is rich as I stated in my last post, sprinkled with covenant imagery one might say and not one of disobedience (Exod. 4:24-28).

As matter a fact I affirm, as I am sure most paedos would, that baptism as we practice it is actually very symbolic, rich, and even more biblical ...; as it conforms to the example of circumcising infants in the Old Covenant, household baptisms in the new, a proper understanding of 1 Cor. 7:14, etc. it looks toward the Administrator of the New (Christ) and the richness of his promises.

Children in the OC are members of the covenant. The new covenant is actually the old covenant (eternal covenant - Gen 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8; Num 18:19; 25:13; Jdg 2:1; 2 Sam 23:5; Isa 24:5; 55:3; 59:21; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:60; 37:26; Ps 105:10; 1 Chr 16:17) "renewed," under a different and better Administrator, etc. thus it follows that children in the new should not be robbed of the sign and seal of such. The promise is to us and our children (Acts 2:39).

So, paedo baptism follows Scripture and is biblical.

 

[gord44]

Far from being sad, believers baptized in infancy can look back and see that they were loved in God's covenant for that time even before their profession of faith (compare Rom 5:8). They benefited from the Word, prayer, instruction, etc.

I like the way you put that.

 

[JM]

Doc, I don't mean to offend or sound glib, my remark was a true sentiment.

Well we are not as wet as the Egypians at the Red Sea, or those outside the Ark, for sure

but we definitely do not have a dry baptism. It is rich as I stated in my last post, sprinkled with covenant imagery one might say and not one of disobedience (Exod. 4:24-28).

Brother Doc, the problem I have with this argument is that it is an argument from silence. The text you allude to does not tell us to baptize infants with water baptism. Instead of allowing the New Testament to teach us what baptism means the Old Covenant is foisted upon the New. I believe the Red Sea baptism had to do with a national covenant and not the covenant of grace or the new covenant. The real question is who is Abraham's seed? The infant baptist assumes it is the physical seed but Galatians 3 tells us it is Christ! For the folks that reading this please consider; Jesus was called out of Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) just like Israel Christ was lead into the desert and tempted by Satan (Matthew 4), Jesus passed through the waters of baptism and not the Red Sea (Exodus chapters 14 & 15). Jesus Christ is the seed of Abraham and in Him by faith we are baptized both spiritually through the washing of regeneration and water baptism. Both by faith.

As matter a fact I affirm, as I am sure most paedos would, that baptism as we practice it is actually very symbolic, rich, and even more biblical ...; as it conforms to the example of circumcising infants in the Old Covenant, household baptisms in the new, a proper understanding of 1 Cor. 7:14, etc. it looks toward the Administrator of the New (Christ) and the richness of his promises.

I understand that is how you feel.

A few pages back you'll find a post on household baptisms. http://www.christianforums.com/t7730631-8/#post63058380

The only thing I would add: "Nothing in this passage (Acts 16:13-15) implies that Lydia was a married women with nursing children, for she traveled some 300 miles from her native city and felt at liberty, as head of the house, to invite men into her home. Since Luke speaks of her household being baptized, and the importunity with which she constrained the apostles to abide in her house, no mention being made of her husband, the most likely hyposthesis is that she had no husband. In any event, there must have been other adults in her household - domestics, friends, business associates - who were led by her example to confess their faith with her in baptism." Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace

I believe 1 Cor. 7 is another argument from silence. The passage teaches that a believer and unbeliever have lawfully conceived children. If the child is considered holy then the unbelieving adult should also be consider holy, considering the context and use of 'holy' in this passage, making the unbelieving adult in the covenant. If the child receives baptism so should the unbelieving adult.

Children in the OC are members of the covenant. The new covenant is actually the old covenant (eternal covenant - Gen 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Exod 31:16; Lev 24:8; Num 18:19; 25:13; Jdg 2:1; 2 Sam 23:5; Isa 24:5; 55:3; 59:21; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:60; 37:26; Ps 105:10; 1 Chr 16:17) "renewed," under a different and better Administrator, etc. thus it follows that children in the new should not be robbed of the sign and seal of such. The promise is to us and our children (Acts 2:39). So, paedo baptism follows Scripture and is biblical.

That is the issue isn't it...right there. The "new covenant is actually the old covenant."

http://www.christianforums.com/t7730631-5/#post63001859

Is the old covenant the same as the new?

A. W. Pink notes, "That commonwealth was purely a temporal and external one, being an economy "after the law of a carnal commandment" (Heb. 7:16). There was nothing spiritual, strictly speaking, about it. It had a spiritual meaning when looked at in its typical character; but taken in itself, it was merely temporal and earthly. God did not, by the terms of the Sinaitic constitution, undertake to write the law on their hearts, as He does now under the new covenant. As a kingdom or commonwealth, Israel was a theocracy; that is, God Himself directly ruled over them. He gave them a complete body of laws by which they were to regulate all their affairs, laws accompanied with promises and threatenings of a temporal kind. Under that constitution, Israel’s continued occupation of Canaan and the enjoyment of their other privileges depended on obedience to their King."

When you draw a direct line from circumcision, national covenant thinking, land promises, etc. to baptism you miss the point of the newness of the new covenant. The old mosaic covenant or Sinaitic covenant was a mixed covenant due to its nature as a national theocratic covenant. I understand this view is/was held by the minority of the framers of the Westminster but held by the majority of the independents like Owen and the Particular Baptists. But when does counting noses prove a theological position true? It doesn't. I just ask that folks think about it, think deeply and consider what scripture has to teach on the subject.

Gotta run.

jm

 

[DocNH]

Red Sea:

Not an argument from silence, since Paul mentions the baptism of Israel in the Red Sea in 1 Cor. 10 as an example to the New Testament Church. It would also be pretty hard to assume in that number that there were no children, etc. PS: We are the seed of Abraham too (Gal. 3:29).

The Old/New Testament Church


Lydia:

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. The important issue was the belief of the head of the household, again following the OT example. See below.

Everyone who is part of the visible community of the people of God (i.e. the church in our day, Israel in the Old Testament) is in covenant with God by virtue of membership in that community. As far as I can tell, in the Old Testament one was "part" of the visible community by virtue of living within it. Specifically, all who were born into the nation were part of it, all who became slaves in households within Israel were part of it (Gen 17:10-13), and all sojourners who voluntarily ate the Passover were also part of it (Exod 12:48). All males of all these categories were required to be circumcised, without reference to their faith, to their parents' faith, to their masters' faith, etc. Generations of unbelieving Israelites could have risen and fallen without the requirement to circumcise them lapsing.

1 Corinthians 7:14:

1 Corinthians 7:14 is an important verse for demonstrating that the children of believers are holy (hagios), and therefore also part of the church (cf. 1 Cor 1:2: "sanctified" from hagiazo, and "saints" from hagios). But it is also a complicated verse. Its context has to do with marriage, not with children -- the only place children are mentioned in this context is the one time in verse 14b. Paul does not expand on this thought, and its fuller meaning seems a bit elusive. It is explicit that the children of a "mixed marriages" are holy. What is not explicit is why they are holy.

One possible interpretation is that the children of believers are holy only so long as the believing parent is married to the unbelieving parent. This would mean that the children become unholy when the parents divorce. To apply this to the issue of baptism, one would then have to say that a believing mother whose husband divorced her could not have her children baptized, but that the believing mother who remained married to her unbelieving husband could have her children baptized. A similar argument could be put forth that restricted baptism for children only if the believer left the unbeliever.

But the odd thing about both these arguments is that they make the children's holiness depend upon the marital status of their parents rather than on the children's participation in the covenant community -- this is counter-intuitive given the Old Testament background which never couches circumcision in terms of marital status.

On the other hand, Paul could be using the accepted fact that the children of believers are holy as the basis for his argument that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse. That is, he may simply mention the holiness of children in order to demonstrate the principle that one believer in the household causes the entire household to be holy. Looking at verse 14a, this makes quite a bit of sense: the fact that children are holy supports his argument that unbelieving spouses are also holy. We might paraphrase it this way: "If an unbelieving spouse can't be made holy by the believing spouse, then children can't be made holy by the believing spouse either. But as it is, the children are made holy by the believing spouse, meaning that the unbelieving spouse is also made holy in this way." Taken this way, the verse says nothing about the holiness or unholiness of children in broken homes, or about the children in homes in which both parents were unbelievers. Personally, I think this is the better interpretation.

The questions that the ancient Corinthian church faced, however, are not the only ones we face today. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to a first-generation church. Presumably, there were no families in that church in which neither parent was a believer. For this reason, Paul did not address that potential situation, leaving us to infer what he would have said from what he did say.

We can presume, though, that there were broken homes in Corinth, and that some believing parents had children in common with unbelieving exes. What of these kids? Well, if my assessment of verse 14 is correct, then the children would still be holy, being made so by virtue of their relationship to the believing parent.


Re-newed Covenant:
The Re-newed or New Covenant?

I am sorry, but I need to be back at work tommorrow. Unfortuntaely, this means no posting time - so I will a couple of links for those who are interested.

Baptism:

Baptized into Christ . . . baptized into his death? - Romans 6:3-4
Baptism vs. Dedication
Circumcision and Women
A Brief Critique of Fred Malone's, The Baptism of Disciples Alone
Infant Baptism
Jer 31 and Infant Baptism
Is Infant Baptism Scriptural?
Baptism

We have a lot of other articles on line that may be of assistance too. Just put the term "baptism" into our search engin and enjoy. May God Bless.

 

[JM]

Not an argument from silence, since Paul mentions the baptism of Israel in the Red Sea in 1 Cor. 10 as an example to the New Testament Church. It would also be pretty hard to assume in that number that there were no children, etc. PS: We are the seed of Abraham too (Gal. 3:29).

Hey Doc, unless you can demonstrate the identity of those who can/should be baptized you are making an argument from silence because there is nothing in the text. It is a figurative and not demonstrative. The land promised to physical Israel after the flesh was a physical land, it was real and tangible for all including those that did not profess faith. This is why in Joshua (can't remember where) the whole nation was circumcised regardless of faith. Consider Gen. 14:14 where we find that Abraham had 318 servants. They were all circumcised. Were they all believers making person professions of faith? Of course not. Baptism cannot replace circumcision because one is of faith and the other is of the law linked to the promise of land.

If we allow the NT to explain baptism it gets really simple as infant baptists declare:

"It may be said at the outset that there is no explicit command in the Bible to baptize children, and that there is not a single instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized...the New Testament contains no direct evidence for the practice of infant baptism." Berkhot, Systematic Theology

You must be willing to see the newness of the new covenant:

"Circumcision and the identification of oneself with the nation of Israel has ceased to be a necessity for the New Testament believer (Gal. 2:3-5; 5:1-6; 6:15). The church of Christ is not limited to Palestine and the Jews, but is to expand into all the world and encompass all nations (Matt. 28:19-20; Ps. 2:6-9). Old Testament Israel was a type of the New Testament church, and the kingdom of Israel in Palestine foreshadowed the world-wide kingdom of Messiah (Rom. 4:11-13; Gal. 6:16). Hence, it definitely follows that Old Testament laws relate to Israel's separation from the nations and to their life in the land of Canaan have also been abrogated since these 'typical ordinances' appointed only until 'the time of reformation' (Heb. 9:10) in Christ and the establishment of the New Testament order in Him." Einwechter, Ethics & God's Law

To ignore the above is to read into the New Testament the Old mixing law and Gospel.

jm

PS: Also, keep in mind the covenant in Jer. 31 is 'not like' the one made with our fathers for it is realized and not typical.
PPS: It is not that the Mosaic or old covenant lacked grace, but that the covenant of grace ran parallel to the covenant of works re-administered at Sinai. I'm not suggesting a covenant given by God can be graceless.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

We baptize on the confession of faith in Christ. No one knows who has faith but the New Testament pattern is; baptize those who profess faith.

I feel a little sad that many baptized as infants will be robbed of the chance to follow the Lord's command to be follow Him in the waters of baptism.

jm

I was unable to withhold baptism from my children. I was uncomfortable until they were baptized. I believe it is because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit to do God's will and give the children the sign of the covenant that they live under as children of a believer. I feel that the most convincing thing for me as a person who has been on both sides of this issue is the inner testimony of the Spirt through his conviction that the Children should come unto Christ and not be hindered.

 

[JM]

We have a lot of other articles on line that may be of assistance too. Just put the term "baptism" into our search engin and enjoy. May God Bless.

That's great Doc, so does google...

It should be noted that each one of Doc' arguments have been wrestled with in the past by Particular Baptists who gave convincing answers. The structure of Presbyterian confessional theology restricts any attempt to dialogue outside that tradition. I mentioned that my view was held by a minority of Presbyterians and by a majority of the Independents like Owen and the Particular Baptists but our conversation stalls right about here.

Just to prove the worthiness of google:

Johnny Mac vs. Sproul (gotta hear)

JUST NOTICED THE THIRD PART OF THE DEBATE WAS NOT POSTED. IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO WRAPPING UP THE DEBATE BUT INSTEAD...R.C. GOT THE LAST WORD.

(to follow the link above) A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism

A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

A String of Pearls Unstrung

The Reformed teaching of the Regulative Principle of Worship

Credobaptism in Church History (this discussion has been going on for a long, long time.)

Tertullian lamenting the baptism of infants.

Reasons for Credobaptism

Written by paedobaptists who believe the early church was credo, they remain paedobaptists, but show from history that credo was the position of the early church.

 

[JM]

I was unable to withhold baptism from my children. I was uncomfortable until they were baptized. I believe it is because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit to do God's will and give the children the sign of the covenant that they live under as children of a believer. I feel that the most convincing thing for me as a person who has been on both sides of this issue is the inner testimony of the Spirt through his conviction that the Children should come unto Christ and not be hindered.

I understand brother and pray nothing but good things for you and your family.

Peace,

jm

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I understand brother and pray nothing but good things for you and your family.

Peace,

jm

Thank you. I pray for you and yours as well and thank God for your friendship here in this place. One day we the Church will get to all be together with Christ and see all things made new then our questions will all be answered and we'll rejoice in God's wisdom and purpose in the trials we had here.

 

[gord44]

I was unable to withhold baptism from my children. I was uncomfortable until they were baptized. I believe it is because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit to do God's will and give the children the sign of the covenant that they live under as children of a believer. I feel that the most convincing thing for me as a person who has been on both sides of this issue is the inner testimony of the Spirt through his conviction that the Children should come unto Christ and not be hindered.

Wow. Your sincerity really came through in this post. Grace and peace to you.

 

[DocNH]

I had some unexpected free moments so I thought I could go ahead and respond before formerly beginning a new project, which will not leave time for such internet fellowship. However, I do wish to thank you for your kindness you have extended to me in my albeit short time here. Hopefully, I will be graced with some additional time at a latter date to fellowship with you again. I have been a member here since 2008 with barely 50 posts, so I do not get out often .... Sorry in advance for any spelling errors, this was done rather rapidly

JM said:

Hey Doc, unless you can demonstrate the identity of those who can/should be baptized you are making an argument from silence because there is nothing in the text. It is a figurative and not demonstrative. The land promised to physical Israel after the flesh was a physical land, it was real and tangible for all including those that did not profess faith. This is why in Joshua (can't remember where) the whole nation was circumcised regardless of faith. Consider Gen. 14:14 where we find that Abraham had 318 servants. They were all circumcised. Were they all believers making person professions of faith? Of course not. Baptism cannot replace circumcision because one is of faith and the other is of the law linked to the promise of land.

Identity

The identity of the people that passed thru the Red Sea and were baptized therein were the children of Israel. This is their identity. They are the Church and they did not leave their children behind. Such a thought cries in the face of proper logic, much less a proper understanding of the Scriptures. The promise was to them and their children!

In Joshua 5 circumcision was reinstated. In the Red Sea, God was giving his Church (Old/New Church) a picture of what was then (their sign and seal in in the wilderness) and what was to come (the sign and seal in the Re-newed Covenant). A final statement on the "Church in the wilderness" is below - Acts 7:39.

There is a flow to the covenants found in the Bible. First, God the Father made a covenant with the Son with regard to the elect. It consists of the Father promising to bring to the Son all whom the Father had given Him (John 6:39; 17:9, 24). The manifestation of that covenant occurs in our world in a sequence of related covenants that God makes with individuals: Adam (Gen. 2:15-17), Noah (Gen. 9:12-16), Abraham (Gen. 17), Moses (Ex. 34:28), David (Sam. 7:12-16), Christ (Heb. 8:6-13, etc.).

Thus, in the Old Testament we have the sign and seal of God's continual "eternal" (cf. Gen 17:7, 13, 19; 1 Chron 16:17; Ps 105:10 ; Ezek 16:60; 2 Sam 7:13, 16, 19; 1 Chron 17:12; 22:10 ; Isa 55:3; Ezek 37:25; Isa 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5 ; Heb 13:20) covenant.

In the Red Sea crossing the symbolism is graphic: (1) Egypt our enslavement to our depraved state, (2) Miracles and the Red Sea, our inability to deliver ourselves from the depths and deadness of our sin, (3) the sign and seal of baptism, etc. Mind us, "the efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" (WCF 28).

318

I do not see where in Gen . 14:14 that the 318 servants made a profession of faith? Do you have a Scripture on this? I do see where they were born in Abraham's household (compare Lydia Acts 16) and were blessed by God's promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:2-3; 14:19-29, etc.). Thank you for proving Lydia's case "again" as I stated above.

The Land

I agree with you that God promised Abraham "the" land. However, this land (which was actual land) was symbolic also, for Abraham looked for a city whose builder and maker was God. He was looking for the consummation of the Kingdom (Heb. 11:8-16). And the writer of Hebrews makes it very clear that he sought it by faith (Heb. 11:6, 8; cf. Gen 15:6; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6, etc.). And as Gal. 3:7 states, "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham" ... See You are all sons of God - Galatians 3:26-27 .

We should note that in God's eternal covenant, Abraham had "the Gospel" preached unto him (Gal. 3:8) and applied the sign and seal of circumcision even to infants (Gen. 17:12; 21:4; Acts 7:8) as a faithful response to God's word. Abrahams' argument continued below.

JM said:

If we allow the NT to explain baptism it gets really simple as infant baptists declare:

It is fine if we allow the NT to explain baptism (though we have examples in the Old), if we properly interpret the NT in light of the continuing covenant in the Old. God is not beginning all over as if every other covenant was a failure of His planning.

No, the first covenants failed because of sinful man. The eternal OCs looked forwarded to the eternal NC. The covenants are like a single tree that is growing thru-out redemptive history filling out more and more - trunk, branch, limbs, leaves. The sign and seal of the eternal covenant continues to be applied - even to infants - with baptism replacing circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). See Circumcision and baptism - Colossians 2:11 and Baptism of Disciples Alone

JM said:

"It may be said at the outset that there is no explicit command in the Bible to baptize children, and that there is not a single instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized...the New Testament contains no direct evidence for the practice of infant baptism." Berkhot, Systematic Theology

And Berkhof goes forth and proves infant baptism. See Berkhof on Baptism

As B.B. Warfield said,

It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passage so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage, we would have to leave it completely unjustified. 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.

PS: the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27) includes the OT too. One wonders why one would desire to begin in the middle of God's plan to understand the eternal covenant. It seems more logical and biblical to begin - well at the beginning... As a recovering credo (I was a Baptist pastor for years) this was one major point that changed my thinking, the other being a better understanding of the covenants.

JM states:

You must be willing to see the newness of the new covenant:

And we must be able to see the continuation of the "eternal" Old Covenants as well. Read Berkhof ad Warfield above.

JM states:

"Circumcision and the identification of oneself with the nation of Israel has ceased to be a necessity for the New Testament believer (Gal. 2:3-5; 5:1-6; 6:15). The church of Christ is not limited to Palestine and the Jews, but is to expand into all the world and encompass all nations (Matt. 28:19-20; Ps. 2:6-9). Old Testament Israel was a type of the New Testament church, and the kingdom of Israel in Palestine foreshadowed the world-wide kingdom of Messiah (Rom. 4:11-13; Gal. 6:16). Hence, it definitely follows that Old Testament laws relate to Israel's separation from the nations and to their life in the land of Canaan have also been abrogated since these 'typical ordinances' appointed only until 'the time of reformation' (Heb. 9:10) in Christ and the establishment of the New Testament order in Him." Einwechter, Ethics & God's Law

To ignore the above is to read into the New Testament the Old mixing law and Gospel.

The Abrahamic Covenant is still being fulfilled today, in Christ. Abraham was promised that he would be the "father" of many nations (Gen. 17:5; Rom. 4:17) and this is being fulfilled even in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). Believers today are the seed of Abraham.

Gal. 3:7-9, 26, 28 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. ... So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ... If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

God is still bringing children into Abraham's Covenant/re-newed, fulfilled, better, etc. in Christ. He is bringing his children (Rev. 13:8; 17:8) he predestined in love from the beginning (Eph. 1:3-5,11, etc.). God has never failed in his covenant promises and some maintain.

Israel is more than symbolic of the church, it is the OT Church in the wilderness (Gal. 6:16). Acts 7:39 states, "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" And it is this same assembly, same congregation, "in the wilderness" that was baptized in the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1-2), while circumcision was suspended until Joshua 5. Peter captures this thought as well when he says, "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). Look at the OC language, (1) priesthood (Ex. 19:6), (2) holy nation (Deut. 14:2), (3) a people for his own possession (Deut. 7:6; 26:18). - Acts 13:17; Ex. 6:7; 19:5; Deut. 4;20; 26:19, etc.

But I agree that there is an identity issue today, but it is not with paedos, but credos not realizing they have been engrafted into the tree ... and it isn't a NT one, but rather one that reveals the continuations of the eternal covenants. God did not make a new tree for the NC, rather he engrafted those believers in the NC into a very old tree (with many many OC branches, Heb. 11).

There is one Lord, one faith, one covenant (under different administrators) of God continuing throughout redemptive history accomplishing his good purpose for his elect in all the earth.

JM states:

PS: Also, keep in mind the covenant in Jer. 31 is 'not like' the one made with our fathers for it is realized and not typical.

The fulfillment - total fulfillment - of Jer 31 (still speaking of the eternal covenant) is not here yet ("now, but not yet"). Your posts here prove this as you are still telling you neighbor to know the Lord (31:34).

See Jer 31: Infant Baptism

 

[JM]

I had some unexpected free moments so I thought I could go ahead and respond before formerly beginning a new project, which will not leave time for such internet fellowship. However, I do wish to thank you for your kindness you have extended to me in my albeit short time here. Hopefully, I will be graced with some additional time at a latter date to fellowship with you again. I have been a member here since 2008 with barely 50 posts, so I do not get out often .... Sorry in advance for any spelling errors, this was done rather rapidly

No problem Doc. That gives me time to think more deeply about what you posted before I respond. I have a lot of reading to finish up by tomorrow so I hope to respond in detail next week.

Have a good Lord's Day.

jm

 

[JM]

Here we go...

The identity of the people that passed thru the Red Sea and were baptized therein were the children of Israel. This is their identity.

I'm sorry brother Doc for if I was unclear but I meant their 'baptism' was 'unto Moses.' This was identifying them with Moses their prophet and the Sinaitic covenant he was to latter deliver. So yes, they were God's people according to the covenant given them through Moses.

They are the Church and they did not leave their children behind. Such a thought cries in the face of proper logic, much less a proper understanding of the Scriptures. The promise was to them and their children! In Joshua 5 circumcision was reinstated. In the Red Sea, God was giving his Church (Old/New Church) a picture of what was then (their sign and seal in in the wilderness) and what was to come (the sign and seal in the Re-newed Covenant). A final statement on the "Church in the wilderness" is below - Acts 7:39. There is a flow to the covenants found in the Bible. First, God the Father made a covenant with the Son with regard to the elect. It consists of the Father promising to bring to the Son all whom the Father had given Him (John 6:39; 17:9, 24). The manifestation of that covenant occurs in our world in a sequence of related covenants that God makes with individuals: Adam (Gen. 2:15-17), Noah (Gen. 9:12-16), Abraham (Gen. 17), Moses (Ex. 34:28), David (Sam. 7:12-16), Christ (Heb. 8:6-13, etc.).[/

The people were baptized unto Moses who latter gave the Law for a national covenant that would include all people; believers, their children, unbelievers, servants, strangers passing through the land, etc. Forgive me for using such a long quote but I fear I am being unclear in what I post. The following was quoted by Pink in his work The Divine Covenants:

"The national covenant with Israel was here (Ex. 19:5) meant; the charter upon which they were incorporated, as a people, under the government of Jehovah. It was an engagement of God, to give Israel possession of Canaan, and to protect them in it: to render the land fruitful, and the nation victorious and prosperous, and to perpetuate His oracles and ordinances among them; so long as they did not, as a people, reject His authority, apostatize to idolatry, and tolerate open wickedness. These things constitute a forfeiture of the covenant; as their national rejection of Christ did afterwards. True believers among them were personally dealt with according to the Covenant of Grace, even as true Christians now are; and unbelievers were under the Covenant of Works, and liable to condemnation by it, as at present: yet, the national covenant was not strictly either the one or the other, but had something in it of the nature of each.

The national covenant did not refer to the final salvation of individuals: nor was it broken by the disobedience, or even idolatry, of any number of them, provided this was not sanctioned or tolerated by public authority. It was indeed a type of the covenant made with true believers in Christ Jesus, as were all the transactions with Israel; but, like other types, it ‘had not the very image,’ but only ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ When, therefore, as a nation, they had broken this covenant, the Lord declared that He would make ‘a new covenant with Israel, putting His law,’ not only in their hands, but ‘in their inward parts’; and ‘writing it,’ not upon tables of stone, ‘but in their hearts; forgiving their iniquity and remembering their sin no more’ (Jer. 31:32-34; Heb. 8:7-12; 10:16, 17). The Israelites were under a dispensation of mercy, and had outward privileges and great advantages in various ways for salvation: yet, like professing Christians, the most of them rested in these, and looked no further. The outward covenant was made with the Nation, entitling them to outward advantages, upon the condition of outward national obedience; and the covenant of Grace was ratified personally with true believers, and sealed and secured spiritual blessings to them, by producing a holy disposition of heart, and spiritual obedience to the Divine law. In case Israel kept the covenant, the Lord promised that they should be to Him ‘a peculiar treasure.’ ‘All the earth’ (Ex. 19:5) being the Lord’s, He might have chosen any other people instead of Israel: and this implied that, as His choice of them was gratuitous, so if they rejected His covenant, He would reject them, and communicate their privileges to others; as indeed He hath done, since the introduction of the Christian dispensation" (Thomas Scott).

I do believe the narrow gate is just that, narrow and believers have to enter in by personal faith...single file. This does not make one an 'individualist' but a scripturalist. 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. I would say the Baptist understanding of the covenant is more consistent with scripture due to our ability to see scripture as one revelation of Jesus Christ who graciously condescends through the covenant of grace which has been revealed progressively. We are able to allow for the distinction of the covenants because we allow the revealed word to teach us. There is no reading of the old covenant into the new or the new into the old...there is only one revelation given progressively.

Thus, in the Old Testament we have the sign and seal of God's continual "eternal" (cf. Gen 17:7, 13, 19; 1 Chron 16:17; Ps 105:10 ; Ezek 16:60; 2 Sam 7:13, 16, 19; 1 Chron 17:12; 22:10 ; Isa 55:3; Ezek 37:25; Isa 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5 ; Heb 13:20) covenant. In the Red Sea crossing the symbolism is graphic: (1) Egypt our enslavement to our depraved state, (2) Miracles and the Red Sea, our inability to deliver ourselves from the depths and deadness of our sin, (3) the sign and seal of baptism, etc.

We do differ here dear brother.

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:

"And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" (Col 2:10-13)

Baptism is mentioned in the same passage in connection with faith. The 'uncircumcision of your flesh' is also united with the idea of quickening, being made alive. This harkens back to the promise in Jer. 31:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jer 31:31-33)

We are not sealed with water baptism but by the holy Spirit: "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," (Eph 1:13, 4:20)

The new covenant signs and seals are spiritual, not fleshy and carnal.

Mind us, "the efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" (WCF 28).

Doc, I am familiar with the WCF and agree with most of it, but it also describes baptisms as, "...admission of the party baptized into the visible Church...of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life..." I understand how important it is, on emotional and doctrinal lines, to baptize your infants but the WCF itself limits baptism to the regenerate. It correctly and baptisticly describes baptism just as a Baptist would but then make a turn to include just about anyone. The significant 'of ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God' is all lost.


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. Such is the uniform tenor of the history. So the multitudes went out to John, “even all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan” (Mark i:5). So the Samaritans, “when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, were baptized, both men and women” (Acts viii:12). Mark it well—“men and women,”—no children! So, in later times, the baptized were reminded of their obligations: “We are buried with Him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life” (Rom. vi:4)." (source)