What's wrong with this Passage?

[JM]

Romans 2:25 For baptism indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your baptism becomes unbaptism. 26 So, if a man who is unbaptized keeps the precepts of the law, will not his unbaptism be regarded[b] as baptism? 27 Then he who hasn't been physically[c] baptized but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code[d] and baptism but break the law.

 

[drjean]

Wrong? Paul is trying to convince those (like the Galatians) who are still trying to live under the Covenant of Law rather than Grace...and since baptism is a symbol of having accepted Yeshua, what good is it if you live under the law?

 

[JM]

I should ask, why doesn't this passage make sense...what did I change? (he, he, he)

 

[twin1954]

Circumcision! You are making the Pedo-baptist's, who claim baptism replaced circumcision, look foolish. If baptism replaced circumcision then the passage makes no sense.

 

[Anoetos]

It actually makes sense up until verse 27. Then the differences in the covenants break down the sense of it.

 

[drjean]

Matthew Henry's commentary:

Commentary on Romans 2:25-29

(Read Romans 2:25-29)
No forms, ordinances, or notions can profit, without regenerating grace, which will always lead to seeking an interest in the righteousness of God by faith. For he is no more a Christian now, than he was really a Jew of old, who is only one outwardly: neither is that baptism, which is outward in the flesh: but he is the real Christian, who is inwardly a true believer, with an obedient faith. And the true baptism is that of the heart, by the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Ghost; bringing a spiritual frame of mind, and a willing following of truth in its holy ways. Let us pray that we may be made real Christians, not outwardly, but inwardly; in the heart and spirit, not in the letter; baptized, not with water only, but with the Holy Ghost; and let our praise be, not of men, but of God.

John Gill's:

Our LibraryCommentariesJohn Gill's Exposition of the BibleRomansRomans 2Romans 2:25
Romans 2:25

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth
The plea from circumcision in favour of the Jews, and their acceptance with God, and justification before him, is here, and in the following verses, considered. The apostle allows that circumcision was profitable; which must be understood whilst it was in force, before the abrogation of it, for since, it is not profitable but pernicious; and then it was only profitable, in case the law was kept:
if thou keepest the law;
that is, perfectly; for circumcision obliged persons to keep the whole law. Now the circumcised Jews did not keep it in such sense; wherefore circumcision was of no use to them, but, on the contrary, was an handwriting against them.
But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made
uncircumcision;
that is, it is not accounted circumcision; it is of no avail; such a man was all one as an uncircumcised Gentile, and appeared to be uncircumcised in a spiritual sense: the apostle perhaps alludes to a practice among some of the Jews, to bring on and draw over the foreskin, after they had been circumcised; (See Gill on 1 Corinthians 7:18).

Does this help?

 

[JM]

"Buried with Christ in circumcision..."

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I should ask, why doesn't this passage make sense...what did I change? (he, he, he)

It makes sense, unless a person wants to argue that everyone who has ever been baptized has also been regenerated.

I do not believe that everyone who has ever been baptized have also been regenerated. Therefore we have to make a distinction in Baptism, to use Pauline terminology, Baptism of the flesh, and Baptism of the heart.

Likewise circumcision of the flesh, was no guarantee a Jew would be circumcised by God of the heart. Circumcision did not save, neither does baptism. Both are visible "signs", both were commanded by God, to exercise the obedience of faith.

 

[JM]

twin, you got it.

AW, circumcision in this chapter (that I tampered with) is linked with ceremonial Law. It is commanded as Law. Circumcision was added 25 years after the covenant of grace was established with Abraham in reference to the promised land. Baptism doesn't lose value when we fail to keep God's commandments because Jesus Christ is our promised land of rest and this covenant made by our surety is eternal, forever and from everlasting. The covenant made with Moses, circumcision being an appendix to the covenant made with father Abraham, is based on performance. Circumcision was given as a legal obligation, as a covenant of works, 'thus do and live.'

That's how I see it.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

AW, circumcision in this chapter (that I tampered with) is linked with ceremonial Law.

Every baptism I have ever watched has a ceremonial appearance visually, the outward aspect of baptism.

It is commanded as Law. Circumcision was added 25 years after the covenant of grace was established with Abraham in reference to the promised land.

Well, technically both were established from all eternity, but you're correct about their order revealed in time.

Baptism doesn't lose value when we fail to keep God's commandments because Jesus Christ is our promised land of rest and this covenant made by our surety is eternal, forever and from everlasting.

Circumcision of the heart did not lose value either. In fact, even the best of God's people in the O.T. failed to keep the commandments of God.

The covenant made with Moses, circumcision being an appendix to the covenant made with father Abraham, is based on performance. Circumcision was given as a legal obligation, as a covenant of works, 'thus do and live.'

What about the Adamic covenant and the Noahetic covenants? Circumcision was a visible way to separate Israel as a nation from surrounding nations, not to mention the health benefits. Sects within Israel, like the Pharisees built "hedges" around the law, making everything legal obligation. If they had correctly understand the O.T. they would have never criticized Jesus for the things He did on the Sabbath.

 

[JM]

I just want to say thanks for your patience folks.

Every baptism I have ever watched has a ceremonial appearance visually, the outward aspect of baptism.

Ceremony should not always been viewed as 'law.' Some ceremonies are not bad, but others, when they have a legal bent to them, are.

Well, technically both were established from all eternity, but you're correct about their order revealed in time.

Yes, but that is a matter of semantics.

What I mean is simply the everlasting covenant of grace made within the Trinity from eternity past to save God's elect is pure grace. That's a mouthful. The covenant enacted on Sinai was a publication of the covenant of works. Sure, any covenant God makes with man is gracious but that isn't the point either. Even the best Presbyterian and Reformed theologians recognize conditional elements within the Mosaic covenant (as you did and have done ) but wrongly conclude this covenant is of the same substance and administration as the everlasting covenant of grace made within the Trinity. Whew! Particular Baptists and even Dispensationalists view this covenant as mixed or the covenant of works for unbelievers with all gracious elements being of benefit to God's elect.

Circumcision of the heart did not lose value either. In fact, even the best of God's people in the O.T. failed to keep the commandments of God.

The passage is not about heart circumcision but physical circumcision...the removal of the foreskin from the male penis.

What about the Adamic covenant and the Noahetic covenants?

I'll bit, what about them? I'll follow you on this rabbit trail just to see where it leads. I'm still learning and willing to be corrected.

Circumcision was a visible way to separate Israel...

Yes, and pointed to the covenant in Jer. 31. The purpose of separating Israel was to continue the physical line (seeds of Abraham) until the promised seed (Gen. 3.15) Jesus Christ (now we see a new interpretation of 'seeds' to singular 'seed' in Gal. 3) was incarnated. This is key to the Reformed/Particular Baptist idea of Jesus Christ fulfilling His role as Prophet, Priest and King. All were of the physical line of Abraham finding fulfillment in Jesus Christ (man I love Him and His word!). This leads me to Amil but that's another post for another thread much better explained by Kim Riddlebarger.

I found the idea for Romans 2 in an interview posted on Confessing Baptist.

Yours in the Lord,

j

 

[JM]

Not to overwhelm you but just for clarity:

“The covenant of grace made with Abraham was not the same for substance that had been more darkly revealed in the ages before, but it pleased God to transact it with him as he had non done with any before him.” Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ pg. 71


“This covenant of grace, of which we have been speaking and which the Holy Spirit in the New Testament has so remarkably pointed out to us, by which Abraham was made the father of the faithful and all believers according to it were to be considered as a seed that God would give to him, was confirmed and ratified by a sure promise to Abraham. This was a considerable time (about twenty five years) before the covenant of circumcision was given to him. The covenant of grace then had no outward sign or seal annexed to it. Indeed, that which has been lately affirmed, that the covenant of grace always had an outward sign or seal added to it, is so wide a mistake that on the contrary it may affirmed that although the efficacy of its grace reached believers in all ages yet it was not filled up with ordinances or worship proper and peculiar to itself until the times of reformation. Nor was there until then any outward sign or token immediately belonging to it. For had it been, so this sign or token, like the covenant itself, would have remained without change and not vanished away with the other shadows or the Mosaic economy.” Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ pg. 80


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Remarks in brackets by Michael Horton, "Besides this evangelical character which unquestionably belongs to the Mosaic covenant ["belongs to," not "is equivalent to"], it [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] is presented in two other aspects in the Word of God. First, it was a [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] national covenant with the Hebrew people. In this view the parties were God and the people of Israel; the promise was national security and land prosperity; [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the condition was the obedience of the people as a nation to the [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mosaic law; and the mediator was Moses. In this aspect it was a legal covenant. It said 'Do this and live.' Secondly, it contained, as does also the New Testament, a renewed proclamation of the [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]covenant of works" ("Covenant of Grace," ed. Michael Bremmer, Sola Scriptura web page; cf. C. Hodge, [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Systematic Theology [Eerdmans, [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] 1946], 117-122).[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]jm
[/FONT]

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Thanks for the responses, I'll go over them again, and think about a response. It seems most of the heavyweight works on CT are expensive, and so many other lower priced resources fight for what little I can spend, and probably shouldn't. Books or food? Tough choice.

 

[JM]

Thanks for the responses, I'll go over them again, and think about a response. It seems most of the heavyweight works on CT are expensive, and so many other lower priced resources fight for what little I can spend, and probably shouldn't. Books or food? Tough choice.

Buy food for your family. If you were a single man I'd tell you to follow this advice:

 

[drjean]

Don't your libraries have such books for loan? What about your church library?

 

[JM]

This may sound a little sad and ridicules but I phoned all of the churches in my city to find out if they had a library and if they would lend books to me. It worked out ok. A lot of pop fic and pop non-fic held by most libraries. I also use interlibrary loan. You ask your local branch to see about such and such a title and they find it for you. Just make sure you tell them you are not willing to pay for the use of the book. I've read ALL KINDS of reprints and Puritan works this way. Didn't pay a dime. A request goes out online to all participating libraries with a note that reads something like 'borrower will not pay' and just wait for the book.

jm

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Ceremony should not always been viewed as 'law.' Some ceremonies are not bad, but others, when they have a legal bent to them, are.

The Adamic, Noahetic, and Abramic (circumcision) covenants chronologically came before the Mosaic (law) covenant. Under which primary covenant do we lump them?

What I mean is simply the everlasting covenant of grace made within the Trinity from eternity past to save God's elect is pure grace. That's a mouthful. The covenant enacted on Sinai was a publication of the covenant of works. Sure, any covenant God makes with man is gracious but that isn't the point either. Even the best Presbyterian and Reformed theologians recognize conditional elements within the Mosaic covenant (as you did and have done ) but wrongly conclude this covenant is of the same substance and administration as the everlasting covenant of grace made within the Trinity. Whew! Particular Baptists and even Dispensationalists view this covenant as mixed or the covenant of works for unbelievers with all gracious elements being of benefit to God's elect.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't Presbyterians recognize three primary covenants? The covenant of redemption, grace, works. I think there is an important distinction, the parties involved. In the covenant of redemption, God the Father made an agreement with God the Son. While in the covenants of grace and works, God made an agreement between Him and men, one being unconditional (grace), the other conditional (works). Where are Presbyterians mixing grace with works? Infant baptism? Nah.

The passage is not about heart circumcision but physical circumcision...the removal of the foreskin from the male penis.

yeah I know, but in Romans 2:29 we read:

29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."

Yes, and pointed to the covenant in Jer. 31. The purpose of separating Israel was to continue the physical line (seeds of Abraham) until the promised seed (Gen. 3.15) Jesus Christ (now we see a new interpretation of 'seeds' to singular 'seed' in Gal. 3) was incarnated. This is key to the Reformed/Particular Baptist idea of Jesus Christ fulfilling His role as Prophet, Priest and King. All were of the physical line of Abraham finding fulfillment in Jesus Christ (man I love Him and His word!). This leads me to Amil but that's another post for another thread much better explained by Kim Riddlebarger.

Something interesting I learned recently about the physical line and seeds of Abraham...he was a gentile. Surprised me.

I found the idea for Romans 2 in an interview posted on Confessing Baptist.

Thanks for the link, that reminds me, recently Ligonier Ministries put up audio (iTunes Podcast) of a friendly debate between John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul on Baptism.

 

[JM]

I'll try to answer but I am watching UFC, priorities...you know.

The Adamic, Noahetic, and Abramic (circumcision) covenants chronologically came before the Mosaic (law) covenant. Under which primary covenant do we lump them?

Adamic, covenant of works, 'do and live' in the garden.

Noahic, a republication of the everlasting covenant of grace toward God's elect:

"In order to attain a right understanding of the various covenants which God made with different men, it is highly essential that we carefully distinguish between the literal and the figurative, or the outward form and its inner meaning. Only thus shall we be able to separate between what was merely local and evanescent, and that which was more comprehensive and enduring. There was connected with each covenant that which was literal or material, and also that which was mystical or spiritual; and unless this be duly noted, confusion is bound to ensue. Yea, it is at this very point that many have erred—particularly so with the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants."

"Each covenant that God made with men shadowed forth some element of the everlasting covenant which He entered into with Christ before the foundation of the world on behalf of His elect. The covenants which God made with Noah, Abraham, and David as truly exhibited different aspects of the compact of grace as did the several vessels in the tabernacle typify certain characteristics of the person and work of Christ. Yet, just as those vessels also had an immediate and local use, so the covenants respected what was earthly and carnal, as well as what was spiritual and heavenly. This dual fact receives illustration and exemplification in the covenant which is now before us. That which was literal and external in it is so obvious and well known that it needs no enlarging upon by us here. The sign and seal of the covenant—the rainbow—and the promise connected therewith were tangible and visible things, which the senses of men have verified for themselves from then till now. But is that all there was to the Noahic covenant?"

"Thus the Noahic covenant served to bring out in a new light, and establish on a firmer basis, the unfailing faithfulness of Jehovah and the immutability of His purpose. An assurance to that effect was specially needed just after the Flood, for it was over that basic truth that the judgment of the Deluge had seemed to cast a shadow. But the promises made to Noah, solemnly given in covenant form and sealed by the token of the rainbow, effectually reestablished confidence and stands out still—after all these many centuries—as one of the grand events in God’s dealings with men; assuring us that, however the sins of the world may provoke the justice of God, the purpose of His grace unto His chosen people stands unalterably sure."

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't Presbyterians recognize three primary covenants? The covenant of redemption, grace, works. I think there is an important distinction, the parties involved. In the covenant of redemption, God the Father made an agreement with God the Son. While in the covenants of grace and works, God made an agreement between Him and men, one being unconditional (grace), the other conditional (works).

I guess I collapse the idea of the covenant of redemption with the everlasting covenant of grace. The everlasting covenant was made before time and revealed in time as the covenant of grace. So, I'm not opposed to the idea of separating the pactum salutis I tend to view them as one in the same.

Pink, "The everlasting covenant or covenant of grace is that mutual agree[bless and do not curse]ment into which the Father entered with His Son before the founda[bless and do not curse]tion of the world respecting the salvation of His elect, Christ being appointed the mediator, He willingly consenting to be their head and representative. That there is a divine covenant to which Christ stands related, and that the great work which He performed here on earth was the discharge of His covenant office, is very plain from many Scriptures, first of all, from the covenant titles which He bears. In Isaiah 42:6 we hear the Father saying to the Son: “I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold throe hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.” As a covenantee in it, Christ is thus “given” unto His people, as the pledge of all its blessings (cf. Rom. 8:32). He is the representative of His people in it. He is, in His n person and work, the sum and substance of it. He has fulfilled all its terms, and now dispenses its rewards."

Where are Presbyterians mixing grace with works? Infant baptism? Nah.

I'm saying the idea of a one to one equivalent between circumcision and baptism cannot be found in scripture. This idea is not found before the Reformation. Infant baptism before the Reformation was performed to counter act original sin this is why the area that practice infant baptism in the early church also believed it did something (like baptismal regeneration) for the infant. It wasn't a covenant sign or seal to the early church but a rite to battle original sin.

Something interesting I learned recently about the physical line and seeds of Abraham...he was a gentile. Surprised me.

He was, like us...until we were called. Now we are in Christ, heirs to the promises and therefore spiritual Israel.

Thanks for the link, that reminds me, recently Ligonier Ministries put up audio (iTunes Podcast) of a friendly debate between John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul on Baptism.

Just remember brother, the third session where they have a back and forth isn't found on Ligonier. I had it and might still have it if you want me to send it to you. MacArthur gets Sproul back peddling and he can't recover. I listened to the debate several times over the years.

Some cool charts and videos here: 1689 Federalism | The distinctive biblical theology of confessional particular baptists
Divine Covenants by Pink: Divine Covenants by A.W. Pink-Contents
1689 LBC: Chapter 7: "Of God's Covenant"

Yours in the Lord,

jm

PS: Vera shouldn't be fighting heavyweight, that's crazy! He should stay at 205 or expect receive more beat downs.

 

[JM]

PS: I quote Pink because he offers a good explanation. For a long time I would refer to my theology as 'modified' covenant theology only to find out it is the historic position of the 1689. Pink expresses this clearly.

 

[drjean]

LOL Yep I recall being told in Bible College that so and so is good "except" for...and Pink was one of those theologians...but then, it was a Baptist college so I know better now.