If you are in need of a solid, basic web site for your business, church, or organization, check out my web design services at 
Subscribe
Are Covenant Children Physical or Spiritual
Posted by Brian Thornton on June 26, 2008
Jason over at Fide-O is recommending a book by Alan Conner titled, Covenant Children Today – Physical or Spiritual. I look forward to reading Alan’s position. In his endorsement, Jason says the following:
The book ends with an encouragement for our paedobaptist brethren to reconsider their position based on two passages of Scripture: Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27. Considering these two passages, Alan Conner asks several questions that need to be answered:
- How are the “all who are baptized into Christ” described?
- Which baptism is in view, physical baptism with water, or spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit?
- Who is included in the “all?”
- If a paedobaptist claims that these two passages imply that baptized infants are included in the “all,” then do they not have to honestly admit that they are united with Christ, clothed with Christ, regenerated with newness of life, and savingly in Christ?
- Do they not also have to admit that their baptism helps to confer these blessings upon them in some way since they cannot believe on their own (which is what the Roman Catholics believe)?
Jason also puts forth a hypothetical:
Finally let me ask all to consider this hypothetical question:
- Lets suppose that there were two guys who grew up in godly homes: one in a godly Presbyterian home and the other in a godly Reformed Baptist home.
- The Presbyterian was baptized as an infant and later in life at the age of ten was regenerated. But the Baptist was not baptized until he was regenerated which was also at the age of ten.
- Did either guys have a spiritual advantage due to their mode of baptism?
Click HERE to read the rest of his thoughts on this question.
Les Prouty said
I shall allow Calvin to answer Jason:
Brian Thornton said
Les,
I am going to assume, since you quoted these words from Calvin, that you agree with these words from Calvin.
Do you honestly believe what you just quoted? Do you really think that the children in my credo church are an object of LESS interest to our members because they haven’t been baptized? Brother, this is quite an absurd thought.
Do you really believe that God will take vengeance upon me for NOT having my children baptized?
Do you really think God is going to punish me for not baptizing my children, and do you believe I do not engage in the practice because my ‘carnal ’sense’ makes me unable to comprehend it?
I would really like an answer to these questions, Les.
In the meantime, I guess you can count me and Jason among the stupid.
Brian Thornton said
BTW,
Your quote from Calvin in no way answers the question, “Did either of the two guys have a spiritual advantage due to their mode of baptism?”
Neither one acquired a spiritual advantage due to their mode of baptism, the same way NO child baptized as an infant has any spiritual advantage whatsoever over my unbaptized children. Now, they may have a spiritual advantage because their father is much better than I am at teaching them, but their being baptized as an infant adds NOTHING to their spiritual benefits.
Les Prouty said
Brian, I do agree with the quote of Calvin, substantially. Let me explain in answering your questions. I cannot paste your questions for some reason so I will just number my responses to correspond.
1. Read his comments in their context. By that I mean in part the time period. “On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members.” By that statement I think he means that when we paedos baptize our children and consider them part of the church, there will be a greater interest by the rest of the church in the “covenant rearing and nurture” of the children. I happen to agree with that.
2. Vengeance. I think Calvin oversteps here. So no I do not believe God will take vengeance on you for not having your children baptized. Though, we in the PCA express that it is a sin to neglect the sacrament.
3. Punsih. “Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who forthwith condemn whatever their carnal sense cannot comprehend.” Read this part again. Calvin is saying the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who condemn the paedo practice from lack of comprehension.
4. Stupid. Probably did not mean then what we associate with the word today. From one source: “The word “stupid” has, of course, been with us for a long time and, to put it very mildly, shows no sign of becoming obsolete any time soon. The root of “stupid” is the Latin “stupidus,” from the verb “stupere,” meaning “to be stunned or benumbed.” One sense of “stupid” when it first appeared in English was “in a state of stupor, deadened, dulled, stunned,” and people were often said to be rendered “stupid” by grief or surprise, as in the poet John Dryden wrote in 1697: “Men, Boys, and Women stupid with Surprise, Where ere she passes, fix their wond’ring Eyes.” The term “stupid” was also used to mean “lacking thought or perception,” especially in regard to animals or inanimate objects.” I think Calvin had this sense of the word in mind.
I am sorry if my quoting Calvin offended you in any way.
Les Prouty said
“1. Lets suppose that there were two guys who grew up in godly homes: one in a godly Presbyterian home and the other in a godly Reformed Baptist home.
2. The Presbyterian was baptized as an infant and later in life at the age of ten was regenerated. But the Baptist was not baptized until he was regenerated which was also at the age of ten.
3. Did either guys have a spiritual advantage due to their mode of baptism?”
No way to know for sure. One can only assume that in some, even many, cases the paedo may have some advantage. Else why would the principle be invoked in the first place by putting the sign of God’s promise on infants in the OT. But the question cannot really be proved anyway. Some, like me, grew up in homes where there was very little spiritual influence and came to Christ later. I know some who grew up in similar situations who came to Christ very early. So really not a good question.
I would just ask why not place the sign on infants when that seems to be the biblical practice? But I know this ground has been plowed many times.
Brian Thornton said
when we paedos baptize our children and consider them part of the church, there will be a greater interest by the rest of the church in the “covenant rearing and nurture” of the children. I happen to agree with that.
- I still think it is an absurd thought. The children in our credo church are no less attended to spiritually than in your paedo church.
we in the PCA express that it is a sin to neglect the sacrament.
-So do we. Which is why we stress the importance of the need for obedience on the part of the one who professes faith. An infant cannot be obedient to any of the commands to repent and be baptized (been there and done that, no need to rehash stuff again here).
Calvin is saying the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who condemn the paedo practice from lack of comprehension.
-That’s just semantics. The thrust of the point by Calvin is that someone like myself who condemns the practice (by my disagreement with it and refusal to practice it) is arrogant and does not comprehend the truth, and will be punished by God because of it.
The term “stupid” was also used to mean “lacking thought or perception,” especially in regard to animals or inanimate objects.” I think Calvin had this sense of the word in mind.
-So, I am now being compared to an animal or inanimate object with respect to my ’stupidity’ regarding baptism stemming from my lack of thought and perception? That’s much clearer, thanks!
Finally…
One can only assume that in some, even many, cases the paedo may have some advantage.
Two boys, both raised in godly homes, both brought up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, both getting saved at the age of ten. One baptized as an infant and one baptized after salvation.
Your assumption that the paedo boy has some advantage over the credo boy just because he was baptized as a baby is just that, an assumption, because there is nothing to suggest that that is actually the case.
The REAL question is, spiritually speaking, would you treat a young boy at your church who has not been baptized any different than one who has. If so, in what way would you treat him differently? How would you show more interest in the one who has been baptized compared to the one who has not?
Les Prouty said
Quite a leap to imply that I am comparing you to an animal. You are smarter than that.
The REAL answer is that in our PCA churches we have some parents who join and choose NOT to baptize their infants, preferring to wait until the child professes faith in Christ. It is lamentable form a paedo conviction and the WCF divines declared it a sin to neglect baptism, but we do not discipline over it. How do we treat those children? We love them and teach them and treat them like other children. So practically, there is little or no difference.
The fact is that we recognize baptisms like mine and yours and would receive you and your family (you and your wife based on your profession of faith) into membership without requiring you to present your children for baptism and without requiring you and your wife to submit to sprinkling or pouring. Inconsistent? Yes, in that we firmly believe in infant baptism and agree with the WCF but practically we look over it. It will not be the first time we have been inconsistent in our practice and belief.
We would long for the day when our credo brothers would receive our transferring members who were paedo baptized into your membership as well. But perhaps Piper and I long for too much.
Brian Thornton said
By definition, a credo baptistic church believes in baptism only AFTER profession of faith, so it would not make sense to allow into membership someone who has not met that initial standard.
Either something is a sin or it is not. For you to overlook what you consider to be ongoing, willful sin in the life of someone at your church is surely inconsistent, all practicality aside, and raises the question of whether or not you really think it is a sin not to baptize infants.
Les Prouty said
“Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.”
Well we’ve never claimed perfect consistency. Never will. There are some things we formally discipline over and rightly so. There are other aspects of discipline (see our BCO for a better understanding of the distinction) which are disciplined through teaching and gentle admonition.
If you guys have discovered a system of adjudicating each and every sin you run across in your congregation, please let the rest of us know how you have come to do that perfectly. Otherwise, I would suggest you just lay your stones back on the ground.
Les Prouty said
BTW, quite obviously I did not expect you to agree to allow my children to join your church without a second baptism. I was only longing for that. It is obvious that your mode and timing of baptism are essential to who you are. But Piper and I can still hope for it…
Brian Thornton said
Les,
Are you discounting the sin of not baptizing? How important is this sacrament to you, anyway? Is this not (if it is a sin to not baptize infants) an ongoing, blatant, willful, and conscious defiance of your doctrine on the part of those who have submitted themselves to your authority?
I don’t think I would call not baptizing a sin and then continue to allow people to defy the doctrine. I mean, we are talking about one of the only two sacraments given by Christ.
Doesn’t this affect the Lord’s Table as well? How do you allow someone to come to the table whom you know is actively engaged in the ongoing sin of not baptizing their children?
These are not stones, my brother…just hard questions posed to you to reveal the inconsistencies to which you have already confessed.
Brian Thornton said
BTW,
Piper tried the inconsistent road with respect to making baptism a non-essential for membership, but it never passed due to too many elders having second thoughts, and his church still requires baptism by immersion following faith for membership.
Les Prouty said
Ok, I am in sackcloth and ashes. And you obviously have no log in your ecclesiastical eye. How did you guys get perfection down such that you can lecture me? Help us please. We have not figured out the perfection thing yet.
BTW, I could say that you credos are in constant rebellion and sin since you put extra-biblical requirements on paedos wanting to join your congregation. But I won’t.
But you can feel real good tonight. You have discovered we are sinners and are not perfectly consistent. We admit it.
Les Prouty said
BTW, yes on Piper. He laments his elders decision to place extra-biblical requirements.
Les Prouty said
Also BTW, why did you need to pose questions to me to “reveal” something I had already confessed? Hmmmm? Wasn’t my inconsistency already “revealed?”
dvdf said
the children saved or not baptized or not need to here The Gospel please don’t treat them any different.
that said- baptizing a person that is unsaved, unrepentant and uncaring about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is to baptize a rock (worthless) as the heart is still a heart of stone. If you wish to baptize rocks in the hope of leveraging the grace of God to the salvation of someone not meant for the kingdom you will be disappointed that the water cannot change stone to flesh no matter how many times you dunk it.
Brian Thornton said
If Piper truly believes that baptism after faith is an extra-biblical requirement, then he needs to leave Bethlehem Baptist, because by staying there he is condoning a requirement he himself is convinced is legalism.
How in the world do you come to a conclusion that the ONLY mode of baptism demonstrated in the NT (one that follows repentance and faith) is an extra-biblical requirement?
If anything, infant baptism is the extra-biblical requirement, as it is not practiced anywhere in the NT, and is drawn only from assumption and inference.
Finally, regarding your self-confessed inconsistencies with respect to baptism and what you believe is sin, I would hope that all true churches everywhere would strive to be perfect, and remove the sin from among them. That, in fact, is what we are called to do as a church, as the Bride of Christ.
I’m not lecturing you, Les…I’m just a little surprised that something regarded as sin would not be dealt with as sin.
No, we are not perfect, but we strive to be. and I am confident that, if our elders were aware of something going on within our church that they considered to be sin, they would not allow it to continue…especially not with something as important as baptism.
I love you, brother, and I pray you would begin to actually examine the importance of what we have been talking about here rather than continually discount it by saying you are not perfect. As a church, perfection is our ultimate goal as we work diligently to prepare the Bride for her husband.
Les Prouty said
Thanks Brian. All my cynicism aside, in our congregation in years past, this issue of parents joining and delaying the baptism of their children was allowed with the hope that over time, through teaching and gentle admonishment they would come to see baptism the way our church teaches. In recent years, that practice has stopped. Now, parents who want to delay are not admitted to membership at that point. We now circle back around with them and do more teaching. Remember, many coming to our church for membership are coming from broad evangelical backgrounds and were reared in credo churches. Therefore, though they love our church and agree with most teachings, baptism trips up many of them.
Now, over time most come to see it our way and then there is no problem. Also remember, though we call neglecting baptism a sin, we have attempted to work patiently with those struggling with that issue simply due to the fact that the mode and timing of baptism is such a disputed matter in our Western church culture. In other words, it is not so cut and dried so as to just institute discipline proceedings.
BTW, I did not say that Piper believes baptism after faith is extra-biblical. Perhaps I did not write that sentence well. It was late. Here is what I meant to convey:
“Piper laments his elders decision to require us paedos to be baptized again.” By my using the phrase “elders’ decision to place extra-biblical requirements” I was editorializing. In my opinion, requiring paedos to have a second baptism is an extra biblical requirement.
I do think Piper was on to something. He is willing to recognize the validity of paedo baptism without compromising his own belief and church practice. That is what we paedos do. Our belief and practice is paedo (and credo) and we sprinkle or pour. But we recognize your baptisms as valid. Piper was essentially trying to bring greater unity among brothers w/o giving up his position. I admire him for such a bold move.
Brian Thornton said
Les,
I’m a little confused now (you knew that all along!)…
You say above that parents who want to delay the baptizing of their children are NOT admitted to membership at that point, but further up in #7 you said, “The fact is that we recognize baptisms like mine and yours and would receive you and your family (you and your wife based on your profession of faith) into membership without requiring you to present your children for baptism…”.
Just to get clarification, do you or do you not allow people to join without requiring them to have their children baptized?
Thanks.
Helen Prouty said
Great question. That statement was made in a general way, and in our “past” context. I did not write that clearly. What I should say is that we would welcome you and your family and that you would be received in our fellowship, etc. NOW, we would lovingly and gently work with you to hopefully bring you to a paedo understanding. Sorry. It was a long day yesterday.
Helen Prouty said
Don’t know how my wife’s name got on that. It was Les.
Brian Thornton said
Thanks for the clarification.
So…
You deny membership to someone who doesn’t submit their children for baptism (though they themselves have been baptized after faith), and we deny membership to someone who doesn’t submit themselves for baptism after their faith.
I’m glad you cleared up the confusion with respect to who was posting. I thought I was about to be in trouble with Mrs. Prouty!
Brian Thornton said
BTW,
We ALSO will gladly welcome our Paedo brothers and sisters into our fellowship, but will not allow them to become a member unless they submit to being baptized following their faith.
Brian Thornton said
BTW,
We ALSO will gladly welcome our Paedo brothers and sisters into our fellowship, but will not allow them to become a member unless they submit to a baptism subsequent to their faith.
Brian said
I’m still wondering why DVDF assumes children of Christian parents are rocks/worthless. Maybe I misunderstood him.
dvdf said
they have hearts of stone until they are saved the act of baptizing them is worthless for it cannot convert them. the idea that the children are worthless is not the proper interpretation of what was written
Brian Rollins said
Okay, so it’s the act of paedobaptism that’s worthless, not the child. That’s a little better, I guess. I disagree, but at least I’m clear now. I’ll go back to watching Brian and Les slug it out… Or better yet, I’ll get to work.
D. Stanfield said
dvdf,
What do you think the “act of baptizing” someone who is already “saved” does for them? Just curious.
dss
Les Prouty said
Finally BTW, I have just posted on Piper and Bethlehem Baptist Church and the baptism proposal from 2005. Very insightful for anyone interested. I hope to have installment #2 up later today of a five-part series of posts on baptism from PCA pastor Rob Looper.
http://reformationfaithtoday.com/
Les Prouty said
dvdf, can ANY baptism convert?
dvdf said
no baptism is the outward sign of the converted heart
John Piper’s Church on Baptism and Membership « Reformation Faith Today said
[...] There is a bit of a discussion going on about this over at Voice Of the Sheep, a credo baptist [...]
Les Prouty said
vdf, so your statement in #26, “…the act of baptizing them is worthless for it cannot convert them” applies to all baptisms, paedo and credo, right? It jus sounded like you were singling out paedobaptists as ones apparently thinking it COULD convert them, which we DO NOT believe.
Thanks for the clarificarion. I still think your statements in #16 are a straw man anyway and frankly don’t make any sense. Maybe it is the lack of punctuation.
danny said
I’m not looking to go around in circles again, but Brian, maybe you, as a Baptist, could help clarify and help me understand, from a credo viewpoint, why Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27 mentioned in Jason’s post seem to be such a slam dunk proof for credo’s and a detriment for paedo’s?
Here is my reasoning:
1) We are to judge people by their actions in this life (”you will know them by their fruits”).
2) However,
a) We are sinful and not perfect.
b) The noetic effects of sin on the mind can impair our reasoning and judgments.
3) Therefore, at the end of the day, you cannot look at a person’s heart to determine whether they are truly regenerate or not prior to admitting them to the fount: “Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart”
So, why would Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27 be slam dunk proofs if your model, at the end of the day, cannot do what it desires to do, namely, baptize only the regenerate?
Not looking to begin another debate, but would appreciate some input on your model.
Blessings,
Danny
dvdf said
I will try to be more scholarly in the future.
Baptism is not worthless to an already converted heart just to a heart of stone.
Baptism indeed does not convert,so this then begs the question why baptize unrepentant, unsaved people? it looks to me like you are just washing rocks.(you know the white washed tombs full of dead mens bones)
I don’t think I understand the definition of straw man. I thought a straw man was a position that had no true support to it, I hope I’m not being to vague, I believe as does Brian that there is complete Biblical support for the credo position to the point that there is no need to presume on God to do something he hasn’t promised to do. This is stuff that you and Brian have discussed in the past and I, IMHO, see that Brian has consistently shown from the text the defense of the credo position.
I readily admit the way I phrase things may be a little odd or different but if you spend a little time thinking about what I said, and will be willing to accept that I may not be as scholarly as some, it does make sense , at least a little.
Grace and Peace brothers
david
Les Prouty said
David, thanks. I did not mean to imply that you are not scholarly. I supposed you were commenting in a hurry or something and just did not have time to punctuate. It was just a bit hard to follow w/o the commas, periods, etc.
Yes, we have been around this block a few times. Of course we paedos (even us former credos as I am) believe we have quite sufficient biblical evidence to support our position. Of course also, “why baptize unrepentant, unsaved people?” Tha answer is two fold: 1) Because the bible says so and 2) it is incorrect to imply that we only baptize “unrepentant, unsaved people.
Here is an interesting observation. It seems to me that credos spill a lot of ink, real and electronic, in trying to refute paedobaptism. Why is that? Though in the US I think credos outnumber paedos, that is not the case worldwide (I think I have heard that) and it is surely not historically true. Maybe it is that the “new kid on the block” feels the need to try and “dethrone” the leader. I don’t know. All I know is that as sure as credos are in their views, we paedos are as well.
Blessings.
Brian Thornton said
This post was never intended to cover ground that has already been tilled many times over on other posts. Let’s try and stay away from the old arguments, if we can.
Brian Thornton said
It seems to me that credos spill a lot of ink, real and electronic, in trying to refute paedobaptism.
Ummm…Les, my brother…
There is so much more out there on paedobaptism compared to credobaptism, that the numbers on it are overwhelming.
Amazon search on the word ‘paedobaptism’ = 195 results
Amazon search on the word ‘credobaptism’ = 9 results
Google search on ‘paedobaptism’ = 18,100 results
Google search on ‘credobaptism’ = 5,030 results
I think that there has been much more ink spilled in defense of paedobaptism than there ever has or ever will be for credobaptism, and I have a good idea why.
There is so much written on paedobaptism compared to what is out there on credbaptism because the paedo has to explain more of his position because it cannot be discerned from Scripture alone, whereas not as much needs to be written concerning credobaptism because it is so clearly displayed in God’s Word.
Les Prouty said
Brian, glad to see some credo brothers FINALLY getting around to writing something. But I must not have made my point clear enough. I was talking about credos ATTACKING the paedo position. Paedos do not attack and attempt try to dismantle the credo positionj (though it surely can be done). Credos, at least it seems, attack paeod views and attempt to dismantle it (at least in more recent years). Nevertheless, paedos not only have scripture, we have church history.:)
Brian Thornton said
Oh, yes…that church history claim. Well, it appears the Roman Catholics have more church history that you good fellas, so I don’t know if I would use that one too much!
BTW,
My baptist heritage goes back farther than your church history and ties all the way back to John the Baptist, Paul, Christ and the disciples, who commanded repentance and then baptism.
danny said
We go back to Abraham, Noah, and Adam
Les Prouty said
Yeah, I’ve heard that line. BTW, we all are tied to the RC Church, so welcome aboard.
Brian Thornton said
We go back to Abraham, Noah, and Adam
Not regarding baptism, you don’t.
Les Prouty said
Brian, paedos by definition go back to Abraham. Not disputable.:)
Les Prouty said
BTW, the 2nd in the series “Signs of Grace” is up. We welcome your interaction.
http://reformationfaithtoday.com/
Brian Thornton said
paedos by definition go back to Abraham. Not disputable.
Credos even more so…going back way beyond Abraham.
-By faith Abel…
-By faith Enoch…
-By faith Noah…
-By faith Abraham…
Arthur Sido said
Les, Paedos don’t attack the credo position? Have you read the Richard Muller piece, “How many points” that declares credo baptists to not be “truly Reformed”? I can’t tell you how many paedo’s refer to that as if it is the end all and be all of the discussion. It is proudly linked by Riddlebarger and others, and it is hardly a charitable, irenic treatment.
“In conclusion, we can ask again, “How many points?” Surely there are more than five. The Reformed faith includes reference to total inability, unconditional election, limited efficiency of Christ’s satisfaction, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, not as the sum total of the church’s confession but as elements that can only be understood in the context of a larger body of teaching including the baptism of infants, justification by grace alone through faith, the necessity of a thankful obedience consequent upon our faith and justification, the identification of sacraments as means of grace, the so-called amillennial view of the end of the world. The larger number of points, including but going beyond the five of Dort, is intended, in other words, to construe theologically the entire life of the believing community. And when that larger number of points taught by the Reformed confessions is not respected, the famous five are jeopardized, indeed, dissolved —and the ongoing spiritual health of the church is placed at risk.”
Crazy Baptists that we are, we are risking the ongoing spiritul health of the church!
We are no more “attacking” the paedo position than people like Muller. Since when is it attacking someone to point out that based on the Scriptural evidence, they are subscribing to a practice without Biblical mandate? Admonishing? Yes. Rebuking? Yes. Correcting? Yes. But attacking? Please.
Les Prouty said
Brian #46,
Did I miss their baptism? And what happened to those babies in Genesis 17?
Arthur, I am done for the day and will try a more extensive answer to your # 47. But for now, you found A credo attacker. Good work. Shall I launch into a challenge to your practice of submerging baptismal candidates w/o biblical warrant, just because you cannot prove a scriptural basis beyond a shadow of a doubt? I wouldn’t do that. We leave you to make your case for immersion by some inference and supposition and move on. Or the many credo churches which practice baby dedication w/o biblical example or command? We leave you to it. Heck, maybe I replied after all.
Les Prouty said
More on #46. Let’s not get silly here. Salvation has always been by faith. Your list proves nothing more than that on which we would agree. But who was it that received the very first sign? Was it not Abraham and all those babies? Don’t forget, Presbyterians are paedo AND credo. So when you appeal to Abel, we’re already there if appealing to Abel proves anything anyway.
Like I said, paedos go back to Abraham, not disputable.
Brian Thornton said
Les,
Your argument might make more sense if you don’t go all the way back to Abraham when you attempt to claim some one to one connection between baptism of babies (male and female, mind you) and circumcision of males only. The reason being that Abraham received the sign AFTER he believed.
Paedos claiming to go back to Abraham, by the way, is VERY disputable. Otherwise, if it wasn’t disputable, we wouldn’t need to even have this conversation.
Now, was is truly NOT disputable is the clear and explicit declaration that those who are of FAITH are the ones who are regarded as the seed of Abraham, and not those who are physically born into some particular family.
danny said
“Now, was is truly NOT disputable is the clear and explicit declaration that those who are of FAITH are the ones who are regarded as the seed of Abraham, and not those who are physically born into some particular family.”
We don’t deny that. Isaac wouldn’t deny that.
A question you have to ask yourself is this: what was God’s original intention with circumcision being the sign of the covenant versus what the practice had turned into in the 1st century? Paul (which you quote from Galatians) is combatting the heresy that physical descent + physical circumcision = salvation.
danny said
And this all goes back to the distinction between election and promises which we believe the Bible makes but you don’t believe it does.
Brian Thornton said
If you don’t deny that those who are faith are the ones who are regarded as Abraham’s descendants, and not those of physical heritage, then why do you engage in the practice of putting the sign on people based upon their physical heritage rather than based upon whether they have demonstrated faith or not?
Brian Thornton said
And this all goes back to the distinction between election and promises which we believe the Bible makes but you don’t believe it does.
This is definitely where we disagree. You believe that God’s promise to be a God to your children is not a promise to elect them. What EXACTLY, then, is it a promise to do?
danny said
“then why do you engage in the practice of putting the sign on people based upon their physical heritage rather than based upon whether they have demonstrated faith or not?”
Because God promised Abraham to be a God to him and his descendants. He gave the sign to Abraham after his faith and commanded that His promise would be a sign and seal applied to Abraham’s children as well. All I’m saying that Jewish ethnicity or being a part of the outward administration of the New Covenant (the church), doesn’t automatically make you a Christian. Seems simple enough to me.
“This is definitely where we disagree. You believe that God’s promise to be a God to your children is not a promise to elect them. What EXACTLY, then, is it a promise to do?”
I never said that the promise is NOT to elect them…
This brings us back to a much earlier discussion where you said that if God promises to be a God to Abraham and his children and yet they do not believe, that makes God a liar. I countered your assertion with Romans 3:1-4:
“What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.”
A covenant has its obligations. There are blessings if you ratify the covenant and cursings if you don’t. How does one ratify the covenant? Through faith in Jesus Christ. How does one NOT ratify it? By rejecting Christ. If God makes a promise and it is ratified through faith, God’s promise is shown to be true. If one does not ratify the covenant through faith, that person is shown to be a liar and God is still found to be true.
We live out the promises of God (”to you and your seed” ) and not His secret elective decrees (”Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”). Issac applied the sign to both Jacob and Esau based on God’s promise to be a God to him and his children. Jacob was found to be one who ratified it through faith, and Esau was found to be a liar.
Just some thoughts,
Danny
Brian Thornton said
A covenant has its obligations. There are blessings if you ratify the covenant and cursings if you don’t.
-Yes, and God is the ONLY party to this covenant! That is why Abraham was lying on the ground as if dead while God was making the vow concerning the covenant.
How does one ratify the covenant? Through faith in Jesus Christ.
-Wrong! There is nothing I can do to ratify this covenant. I am not a party to this covenant. It is between God and Himself.
How does one NOT ratify it? By rejecting Christ.
-Wrong again. I am not in a position to ratify or not ratify the covenant. It is one-sided covenant! There were no cursings presented to Abraham regarding this covenant, only cursings toward God Himself if He did not keep His promise.
Les Prouty said
Brian, see See Exodus 19:5 for example on covenant faithfulness.
“5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.””
Arthur Sido said
Les, the New Covenant is a covenant NOT LIKE the Old. I don’t understand why that is so hard to grasp. Different head, different membership. Not like the Old. These conversations always come back to that, a fundamental misunderstanding of the New Covenant by paedobaptists. You still insist on going back to the Old Testament for a New Covenant ordinance.
Les Prouty said
Arthur, I agree it is not like the old covenant. It stands in contrast to the Mosaic covenant though, nut the Abrahamic covenant as you seem to be connecting it to. I don’t think we are “misunderstand” the New Covenant. I think we understand it quite well as a matter of fact. We just do not mistakenly connect it with the Abrahamic covenant as you seem to do.
Fundamentally, this is why we are called “covenant theologians” as opposed to some form of “dispensational theologians.” We see continuity where you see discontinuity.