What's wrong with this Passage?

[Iosias]

The main problem with this is that you're ignoring the polemical point of Paul within the narrative structure of his letter to Rome. To yank a few verses out of context and change a few words may score some polemical points, but they are hardly a substantive refutation of infant baptism.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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

I wish we could watch it together bro, for awhile I watched it on dvd's I purchased some time ago. It's hard to find the time and money anymore though.

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

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

Looks as though we agree.

"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."

Physical and Spiritual is precisely the distinction I like to remind folks of concerning baptism.

"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."

Enjoyed the quote.

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.

I see the covenant of redemption in chronological order as before the covenants of works and grace, at least as they are revealed in time. From eternity those chosen in Christ (not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil) the elect both before (O.T. times), during, and after Christ, were chosen to enter into the covenant of grace which is made effective by the covenant of redemption. What gets me is that they are not so separate, meaning they are related to one another or maybe stated better, points of contact. Though the chosen by God, the elect, are saved purely by grace, does that mean the righteousness of Christ and the works of the Holy Spirit not prevail in them through faith? Are those works God does through us, according to His will and purpose and mercy and grace, to be under the covenant of grace or works? This may be another reason why I recognize a third primary covenant, because there is absolutely nothing we could ever say or do, not even by the Spirit, could we add to or take away from the finished work of Christ at Calvary on behalf of the elect.

I'm saying the idea of a one to one equivalent between circumcision and baptism cannot be found in scripture.

We have to go with conscience to paraphrase Martin Luther sloppily I might add.

This idea is not found before the Reformation.

I wouldn't use that kind of argument, it doth remind me of Catholic argumentation. Covenant theology they say is an invention of the Puritans...they also say presuppositionalism is not found in Scripture, it's an invention of the Reformed. Of course both are based on Scripture, though Scripture was never intended to be a textbook for either (not to mention countless other topics), though books upon books have been written on them, they can be said to be "biblical" having their foundations rooted firmly in Scripture.

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.

You may be right, I have not done any historical study of the doctrine of baptism, especially pre-Reformation studies. However, pre-reformation sources are not exactly canon for protestants either. There are so many differences in early Catholics, conflicting in "details" of theology, etc. I am inclined to thinking the Catholic Church post-Augustine did not embrace Augustine (probably also while Augustine lived he faced opposition from the Church), rather slipped further and further into commonality with semi-palagianism. One thing I do know, baptismal regeneration carried over into the Reformation into Protestantism and is still held by Lutherans.

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.

I would like to hear the third session, if you could send it, that would be great. If you need my email, just send me a message on facebook.

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"

Thank you, I'll have to check those out asap.

 

[Iosias]

Worth reading is The Law in Romans 2 .

In particular, Romans 2 introduces us to Paul’s covenant theology. We should not be surprised by this, as though the apostle of justification by faith would be compromised for a single moment by continuing to think Jewishly. Nor should we imagine that his theology is the mere unthinking reflex of a religious or psychological experience. What we observe here, as elsewhere in his writings, is the apostle wrestling with the implications of his basic conviction: that in Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit, the creator god had acted to redeem his people and so to redeem the whole world. His charge against Israel was not that of ‘legalism’, or ‘self-righteousness’ in the older sense. But nor was it a mere random firing of shots into the air in the hope of hitting some target somewhere. It was a measured, careful critique, built upon the prophetic critiques, and in any case not expecting rebuttal:
almost no Jew, certainly not Paul himself before his conversion, would have denied that Israel as she stood remained in need of redemption.

And what about the law in all of this? Pulling the ‘law’ threads of the discussion together into a quasi-systematic form, we might deduce the following:

1. The law, nomos in Paul, is the Jewish law. Gentiles do not possess it by birth.

2. The law defines Israel over against the nations, and moreover indicates that Israel is designed by the creator god as a light to the nations.

3. The law sets the standard by which Israel will be judged; Gentiles will be judged without reference to it. However, there is one class of Gentiles who in a sense will be judged with reference to Torah. This class consists of Gentile Christians; though by birth they do not possess the Torah, they are now in the strange position of ‘doing the law’, since the Spirit has written the ‘work of the Torah’ on their hearts.

4. Israel boast in her possession of the law; it sets her apart from the nations.

5. The boast is not made good, because that could be so only if Israel kept the law perfectly; and this is not the case. Israel is still in exile, still ‘in her sins’. She is still guilty of lawbreaking.

6. The category of Gentiles mentioned above in connection with the final judgment is invoked again, this time to demonstrate how far ethnic Israel is from being affirmed as she stands. The covenant has already been renewed; its beneficiaries now ‘fulfill the law’, even though, in the case of Gentile Christians, they do not possess it. This ‘fulfillment’ seems to be of a different order from the fulfillments thought of within Judaism. Nor is it simply the (Lutheran) tertius uses legis. It is without precedent, for the simple reason that it has not happened before, and the manner of covenant renewal was not anticipated. As Paul says in Romans 8, ‘what the law could not do … God has done’.

7. The way is now clear for ch. 3, with its exposition of the cross, and of justification by faith in the present as a direct result. Paul will go on, later in the letter (ch. 8), to declare that there is no katavkrima for those who are ejn Cristw:/. But this is no more than a recapitulation, and a filling out, of what has already been said in principle in ch. 2. It is greatly to the detriment of the doctrine of justification by faith that exegetes have frequently not taken the trouble to notice what Romans 2 is actually about, as opposed to what it is usually supposed to be about.

Romans 2 thus takes its place both within the developing actual argument of the letter – as opposed to the imagined argument in which Paul simply sets out a systematic ordo salutis – and within a potential systematic account of Paul’s whole theology, not least his theological reflections on the law. Thus equipped, exegesis should not be able to proceed beyond the sterile ‘either/or’ of some recent debates, and move cheerfully toward the creative ‘both/and’ which reflects, in terms of method, the intricate but perfectly balanced theology which Paul bequeathed to his readers. Whatever we want to do with Paul’s theology when we finally discover it, let us at least do justice to a mind, and a letter, that continue to instruct even as they fascinate, and to educate even as they inspire.

 

[JM]

You are well on your way brother. God bless you, your wife and little Calvin.