“It is illegitimate to identify and equate the Abrahamic covenant with the New covenant without noting the diverse aspects within it (national/physical, typological, spiritual) and the discontinuity that results as we move from Abraham to Christ. For example, to identify and equate the natural/special seed (Israel) with the spiritual seed (church) as well as to equate to covenant signs of circumcision and baptism is a mistake often made by paedobaptists. It not only fails to do justice to diverse aspects of the Abrahamic covenant, but also to the way that covenant is ultimately fulfilled in Christ.” (Schreiner and Wright, Believer’s Baptism, Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, pg. 136)
Paeodobaptists rightly argue that the Old Covenant was a mixed covenant, mixed with believers and non-believes, and they wrongly argue that the New Covenant is also a mixed covenant. Paedobaptist rightly argue that circumcision was administered to infants of whom many were to become men of faith and many more were not. But Paedobaptist wrongly argue that baptism replaces circumcision and should therefore be administered to infants just like circumcision was administered to the Jewish children. Of course they argue that infant girls should be baptized too, even though that is a departure from their argument for continuity. But I will not deal with that issue in this post.
And speaking of problems for the paedobaptist theology: the Bible no where teaches that baptism replaces circumcision. But before we deal with that big problem , first lets refresh ourselves as to what the purpose was for Old Covenant circumcision.
In the OT, circumcision had multiple meanings such as:
1. First it marked out those who had the faith of Abraham
2. Secondly it marked out the genealogical seed of the Messiah which was the male line of descent from Abraham to David to Christ,
3. Thirdly it marked out the nation of Israel and was thus incorporated into the Mosaic covenant.
Baptism only has continuity with circumcision when it comes to the first purpose, namely that it marks out those who have the faith of Abraham. Since purposes two and three are have not continuity in baptism then it is wrong to use baptism in a genealogical sense such as baptizing the infants of believers.
BLOOD KIN
In the Old Covenant, circumcision identified one with a physical family and a nation, and it typified one’s relationship to the spiritual family of God. But not all who were Israel were truly of the spiritual Israel of God. In the New Covenant, however, Christ only has His spiritual family, no physical nation or physical family. Neither the visible nor invisible church of the New covenant is a family by physical descent. It is a family by spiritual birth. Membership in the church should be only for those who are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. Thus baptism should only be administered to those who are in the New covenant by God’s grace through regeneration and saving faith.
COVENANT KEEPERS
Furthermore, Jeremiah 31 teaches that New covenant members are not covenant-breakers, so to teach that the warning passages in the NT teach that New covenant members are covenant-breakers, as paedobaptists do, signifies an error hermeneutically. Jeremiah 31 cannot teach the opposite of the rest of Scripture. Paedobaptist Richard Pratt, Jr. says of Jeremiah 31:34, “In this sense, ‘knowing the Lord’ means ‘properly acknowledging and recognizing him.’ This is why Jeremiah 31:34 concludes, ‘For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.’ In a word, to know god as Jeremiah spoke of it would be to receive eternal salvation. In the covenant of which Jeremiah spoke, salvation would come to each participant. There would be no exceptions.” (Pratt, Infant Baptism and the New Covenant, pp. 159-60.)
So, Pratt properly notes that Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant describes a church that is not mixed but regenerate. But Pratt goes on the argue that this is not fully fulfilled yet in the New Covenant and will not be fully realized until the 2nd Coming of Christ. But even though it is true that the New covenant is not fully consummated, it is still here. Baptism should signify the New Covenants arrival not just its future consummation. There is no “remnant” in the New Covenant. There is only those who are in it and those who try to illegitimately join it and are to be excommunicated from it. In fact, such people who received baptism on false pretenses were never one with us — EVER! (1 John 2:19)
BY FAITH ALONE
Besides, which came first Abraham’s faith or Abraham’s circumcision? Abraham’s faith came first. That is really the end of the discussion. In fact, that is Paul’s argument in Romans 4:9-12. Paul says, “[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith that he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe…” both Jew and Gentile (Romans 4:11).
BELIEVERS ONLY
“In fact, one cannot find in Israel the idea that circumcision was only for “believers and their children” since many unbelieving Jews circumcised their infant boys and were still considered part of the covenant nation. The paedobaptist understanding already reads into circumcision a meaning that is not there.” (Schreiner, 156) And, on top of that, no where in the New Testament will you find that circumcision has been replaced by baptism. Check out all the passages that teach that circumcision is no longer required for believers (Acts 15:1-35; Galatians 1:6-9; Galatians 2:11-16; Galatians 6:15; 1 Corinthians 7:18-19). No where will you find the teaching of Paedobaptist that baptism is the replacement for circumcision, nor will you find a passage that teaches that baptism is a sign of physical descent, nor will you find a passage that teaches that baptism is just a sign that promises something that is not already a current reality in the recipient of baptism.
THE NEW COVENANT
Jesus was truly the last one that should have received circumcision as a covenantal sign. He is the true “seed” of Abraham, He is true “Israel”, and He is our faith. Then Jesus was baptized and started His public ministry revealing Himself as King of kings. Circumcision was placed upon a mass of men pointing towards the coming of kingdom, but baptism is only for those who are living in that kingdom.
Here is the New Covenant promise to remember: Acts 2:38-39 says,”Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
Notice that the promise is not to all who heard Peter and to their children, nor was it for all who were afar off. It was for all you were called, who believed and repented. That did not include all who heard Peter or their children or people who were afar off. Even the next verse proves that only those who received Peter’s words were baptized, not all hearers, not all children, and not everybody afar off.
To understand the scope of the promise one must remember that to the OT language of “you and your children” are added the distinctions of faith, repentance, the Holy Spirit’s indwelling and the effectual call of God.”
NEW REVELATION BRINGS NEW RESPONSIBILITY
Credobapist respect the progression of revelation in Scripture as the covenants within the Covenant of Grace each add to clearer understanding of Redemption and the nature of God’s church. And with further revelation comes further responsibility. With the manifestation of the Spirit in the New Covenant we now have a responsibility to limit the scope of the visible church to those who bear fruit of the Spirit.
It is only with a credobaptist view of baptism that one can say as Paul in Galatians 3:26-27, “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ.” And only credobaptist say with Paul to the Romans that all who are baptized are dead to sin and alive to God (Romans 6:1-4) and to the Colossians that all who are baptized into the death of Jesus are currently living the realities of new life in Christ (Colossians 2:11-13).
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
Where does Scripture assert that the purpose of circumcision was to mark out “the genealogical seed of the Messiah which was the male line of descent from Abraham to David to Christ?” And how was it originally designed to mark out the NATION of Israel, since it was first given to Abraham, and was administered to Ishmael and Esau?
Paedobaptists historically would distinguish between what was typical and national in regard to Israel, and what was spiritual and ecclesiastical with regard to them. How do you determine that circumcision was national, rather than ecclesiastical?
“There is no ‘remnant’ in the New Covenant. There is only those who are in it and those who try to illegitimately join it and are to be excommunicated from it. In fact, such people who received baptism on false pretenses were never one with us — EVER! (1 John 2:19)” At the time of the writing of 1 John 2:19, that would be the case. But think a few centuries on to the Reformation; at one point, the true faith would have been represented by “a remnant,” the same as would occur under the Old Testament.
“Besides, which came first Abraham’s faith or Abraham’s circumcision? Abraham’s faith came first. That is really the end of the discussion.” It might be the end of the discussion, if circumcision was only for Abraham. But Abraham was circumcised by virtue of a covenant, the same as Isaac. Which came first, Isaac’s faith or Isaac’s circumcision?
“Credobapist respect the progression of revelation in Scripture as the covenants within the Covenant of Grace each add to clearer understanding of Redemption and the nature of God’s church.” No, you posit a radical discontinuity between God’s dealings with His people before and after Christ — not “progression.” And confusing the visible for the invisible church is not adding to a “clearer understanding of…the nature of God’s church.”
“And with further revelation comes further responsibility.” Uncle Ben? Is that you?
“With the manifestation of the Spirit in the New Covenant we now have a responsibility to limit the scope of the visible church to those who bear fruit of the Spirit.” We have no duty or responsibility beyond what God demands of us; and God has not prescribed that His church be thus limited.
I made the following remarks on the PuritanBoard a while back, but they didn’t generate any discussion. Maybe I’ll have more providence (I’d say “luck,” but…) here.
Thoughts on Circumcision
1. Circumcision was the initiatory sacrament of the covenant of grace, beginning with Abraham.
2. It was initiatory because it marked “initiation,” or entrance, into the covenant/church. Exodus 12:43-49 makes it clear that proselytes from “the nations” (Gentiles), in order to be considered Jews (in the religious sense), had to be circumcised.
3. It was a sacrament because it signified and sealed spiritual graces which the Old Testament believers possessed; most principally, justification and regeneration/sanctification (what is commonly called the “double cure” or “twofold benefit” of Christ).
4. Circumcision was not intrinsically a type of these graces, since types point forward to a reality not presently experienced. However, there was something typical about circumcision, in that (like the Passover) it was a bloody rite, and so pointed forward to the shedding of the blood of Christ. (On an interesting note, Scripture attributes both our justification and sanctification to the blood of Christ — again speaking of the “double cure” signified and sealed in circumcision.)
5. Circumcision was a part of the “everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:7). This means that circumcision must continue in some capacity into the New Testament dispensation. Since we manifestly no longer have literal circumcision, it must be replaced by another rite (baptism).
6. The covenant of grace had been with “believers and their children” before Abraham, and the principle of “covenanters and their children” previously existed in the covenant of works and the (eternal) covenant of redemption; this principle therefore was not intrinsically bound with circumcision, to be done away with when that rite ceased under the New Testament.
7. Circumcision represented an advancement made in the administration of the covenant of grace; since it had the sign of the covenant particularly applied to the members of the covenant. But it was not a perfect advancement, in that it was not applied to all members of the covenant (females).
8. This pointed forward to the time when its replacement (baptism) would be applied to all members of the covenant, regardless of their gender: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:27-29).
9. “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also” (Rom. 4:11). God gave Abraham circumcision in Genesis 17 as a sign and seal of “the righteousness of faith” (justification), which was pronounced upon him in Genesis 15. But God gave him circumcision in “the covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8); so that circumcision, in regard to Abraham, cannot be considered apart from circumcision being given to him with his seed. If it was given to him as a sign and seal of justification, it was likewise given to his seed as a sign and seal of justification.
10. Circumcision presented the Gospel of free salvation in Christ. In its application to believers (like Abraham, or proselytes), it was a proclamation of Gospel pardon and assurance. In its application to infants, it was a proclamation of Gospel offer, to be laid hold of by faith alone — like the Word preached, but particularly applied and proclaimed to them, individually.
11. “In whom (Christ) 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” (Col. 2:11, 12). This passage speaks of being “circumcised in Christ” (note the strong parallel with baptism “in Christ,” spoken of throughout the New Testament; indeed, in the very next verse); and explicitly identifies “the circumcision of Christ” (which we might render “Christian circumcision”) as being New Testament baptism; or, that the Old Testament rite of circumcision has been replaced by baptism.
12. The apparent New Testament rejection of circumcision was not a rejection of any of these points; but only a rejection of how it was maintained by the Pharisees and Judaizers. The fact that some were circumcised, as well as baptized, in the New Testament, does not demonstrate that baptism did not in fact replace circumcision; any more than Paul’s circumcising of Timothy in Acts 16:3 was a repudiation of the decision of the synod which convened in the preceding chapter. Many replaced or abrogated rites continued through the New Testament, until the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem in A.D. 70
Acts 2:38-39 says,”Repent and let every one [who repents] of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you [whom God calls] and to your children[whom God calls], and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
Welcome to the clarity of the New Covenant!
And concerning the “national” purpose of circumcision: From the very beginning circumcision was not just for Abraham and his sons. No, it was also for the slaves of his sons. See Genesis 17:23. This meant that circumcision went beyond the genealogical purposes and spiritual purposes but also had national purposes.
So, you must deal with the biblical reality that the DEFINITION for the scope of circumcision and baptism is extra-biblical at least and un-biblical at worse.
No where in the OT was circumcision administered only to believers and their children. As I have shown above slaves, even unbelieving slaves were circumcised. Wayne Grudem noted on page 176 of his theology book that among ADULT males, circumcision was applied to everyone, not just those who gave inward evidence of faith.
So the paedobaptist DEFINITION of the SCOPE of circumcision is unproven biblically and becomes then even destructive in the New Covenant.
Every time in the New Testament that children are referred to in relation to the kingdom of God or as members of the New Covenant, their faith in Christ is either explicitly mentioned.
The Bible does not say that Lydia in Acts 16 even had infants. Nor does it imply that her household did not believe but were baptized anyway. In fact, Lydia was a worshiper of God prior to her regeneration (Acts 16:14). Hmmm. She was rearing her household in the fear of God before she was even in the New Covenant. (No sarcastic comment inserted here due to brotherly kindness.)
Paul told the Philippian jailer that if he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, that he would be saved, he and his household. Now paedos use that to support infant baptism but IF YOU DO THAT then you are forced to believe that a parent’s faith not only saves them but also their children. NO PAEDO THAT I HAVE EVER MET WANTS TO DEFEND THAT. Rather, it is best to understand that Paul told the man if you believe you will be saved and if your household believes they will be saved.
All those in 1 Cor. 1 who are baptized are considered by Paul to be saved. BUT PAEDO’S DON’T BELIEVE THAT ALL WHO ARE BAPTIZED ARE SAVED.
And when Jesus blessed the little children as recorded in Mark 10:15 he mentions the fact that they have received the kingdom of God. BUT PAEDOS ADMIT THAT THEIR INFANTS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED ANYTHING YET AND MAY NEVER WILL.
I don’t have time to comment on all this…will later. Just wanted Jason to know he is wrong about there not being a remnant in the NT. Romans 11:5 “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.” ;o)
I agree that the Bible does refer to a remnant in Romans 11:5. That remnant is a remnant of believing Jews within national Israel — not a remnant of believers within the visible church. Paul is very clear about that when he talks about his kinsman according to the flesh in Romans 11:1.
Luvvom, as you have been arguing for paedobaptism, it would be a mistake to use this reference to a remnant as a the Bible supporting baptizing infants of believers.
These are some thoughts of mine on Acts 2:38, 39 which I posted on my blog almost exactly one year ago, just before I went to Fort Benning for some training.
—–
Acts 2:38, 39: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
(a.) Against the claims of Reformed Baptists, I cannot help but consider this passage to be a virtual republication of the covenant made with Abraham: that the promise, or covenant, “is unto you, and to your children” (corresponding to Genesis 17:7, “And I will establish my covenant with thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee“); “and to all that are afar off” (corresponding to Genesis 12:3, “And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed”; cf. Genesis 17:4, “As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations“).
(b.) Reformed Baptists usually maintain that the last phrase refers to effectual calling, and is therefore a limitation placed upon the preceding categories of people; and that therefore it does not respect the children of the hearers, in their capacity as children, but only as they are effectually called (which would be demonstrated by a credible profession of faith). This construction of the passage seems to be forced, for the following reasons: (1.) Verse 39 is presented as an argument or motive why Peter’s hearers should repent and be baptized. What kind of argument is it to tell people that they should repent, because only the elect and regenerate will do so? How does the one naturally and logically follow from the others? (2.) It seems more natural to suppose that this refers to the outward call of the gospel: that “the promise [that is, the gospel offer] is unto you [to whom it is preached, and to whom it was just preached in Peter's preceding sermons], and [in you] to your children [whom you represent], and to all that are afar off [when the gospel will be preached to them as well], even as many as the Lord our God shall call [outwardly by the preaching of the gospel].”
(c.) Here we have Peter preaching the very first apostolic, New Covenant sermon ever preached. When the Jews begged of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” He responded, “Repent, and be baptized… For the promise is unto you, and to your children.” We tend to think of these words in terms of modern-day, twenty-first century Reformed polemics; consider his audience for just a moment. He was addressing a large company of Jews and Jewish proselytes (Acts 2:8-11) — men who were actually in the Abrahamic covenant, together with their children. The men to whom he spoke these words had their children in covenant with God at that very moment; although some may question whether the particular “household baptisms” mentioned in the New Testament included infants, I hope that no one will suggest that not one person in an assembly of Jews that produced three thousand converts (Acts 2:41) had any infant children. So Peter says to them, “The promise is unto you, and to your children.” What would they think? How would they understand such terminology? Is it not highly suggestive of continuing the practice fo the covenant inclusion of children in which they were presently engaged? Again, this is the first New Covenant sermon, where Reformed Baptists posit a vast change in the constitution of the church, or the members of the covenant. If Peter was, by these words, trying to tell these Jews and Jewish proselytes that the New Covenant is only open to believers, and that their children are positively excluded and cast out of the covenant; then all I can say is that he used some very funny language to express it.
I find it almost humorous that, although Genesis does not say that Abraham’s slaves were “unbelieving,” you automatically insert that in there; and when the New Testament doesn’t explicitly mention some baptized individuals as having believed, you automatically insert that in there. On what ground do you say that Abraham’s slaves were unbelievers?
Acts 16:14, 15: “And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying,” etc. I’m not finding in here any ground for your comment, “Hmmm. She was rearing her household in the fear of God before she was even in the New Covenant. (No sarcastic comment inserted here due to brotherly kindness.)” Nowhere does the passage speak of her “rearing her household,” with your attendant insertion of the idea that they were all old enough to make a profession of faith.
Acts 16:31. What’s it say? Why does the passage consistently emphasize his personal, individual faith (including verse 34), and say “his household,” “and all his”? His believing places him in the covenant of grace… “he and all his.”
It’s interesting to see how you’re trying to eliminate the testimony of 1 Cor. 1:16 (have you heard Bill Shishko on this text, btw? He argues that it demonstrates the preponderance of household baptisms in the NT period); but you’ll have to argue a bit more closely to the text to make your point.
Mark 10:15 does not say that those children which were blessed had “received” the kingdom.
Again, I turn to comments I’ve made before on this passage, elsewhere:
Jesus says that the infant children of believers are members of the church.
I refer here to the parallel account recorded in the synoptic gospels, Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, and Luke 18:15-17.
Matthew 19:13-15: “Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.”
Mark 10:13-16: “And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.”
Luke 18:15-17. “And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.”
1. As far as I am aware, all commentators, whether Baptist or Presbyterian, admit that “kingdom of heaven” or “kingdom of God” in these passages refer to the church.
2. I take it for granted that the parents were believers. Only those who professed to believe in Christ for who He claimed to be would go to Him, to have Him bless their children. This is therefore an account regarding not just children in a general sense, but the children of believers.
3. These are “little children,” “young children,” “children” (all translating the word paidia), or “infants” (brephe), small enough that Jesus “took them up in his arms.” Some have objected that “Jesus called them,” that is, these children or infants; so that they must be old enough to answer His call. However, grammatically, it seems to make better sense that Jesus called the same “them” that were rebuked by the disciples; which were the parents (according to Mark).–”When his disciples saw it, they rebuked them (autois, referring to “those that brought them,” i.e. the parents). But Jesus called them (auta, referring again to the parents),” etc.
Again, it is objected that Christ’s central statement is, “Suffer little children to come unto me”; so that children must themselves “come” (erchesthai) to Christ–the same verb that is used in many places of the New Testament to speak of faith in Christ. But plainly, their “coming” to Christ in these passages is on account of the fact that their parents “brought” them to Him; so that it is not saying that these children have faith, or are old enough to exercise faith.
4. It cannot be argued that by saying “of such,” that Christ meant only those who have childlike faith, and other similar qualities, without describing the children themselves. Christ in these passages did not bless adult believers with childlike qualities; He blessed children. And the word “such” (toiouton) is not used to exclude those of whom it is spoken, and to refer only to those “like” them. When Paul refers to those who do “such things” (Rom. 1:32; 2:2, 3), he is referring to those sins mentioned, and similar sins; he does not thereby exclude the sins he had just mentioned in Romans 1:21-31.
5. Baptists frequently object that these parents brought their children to be blessed, not to be baptized. I am quite aware of that; especially since Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. But Christ here says that their infant children are members of “the kingdom of heaven,” or “the kingdom of God” — which, as I said, all admit refer to the church. If the infant children of believers are members of the church, then they ought to be received into the church by baptism.
hamptom,
) Besides, I only scanned this post and saw that and commented on the inaccuracy of it. When I get done with my 12 hour night shifts on Friday, I’ll sit down and read why he even said that and how it relates to baptism. So, at this point I’m not trying to snag this as proof for infant baptism. I normally use the term elect which is the same thing as remnant if you take the time to think about both terms in all their benefits. Now it’s off to bed with me!
Jason said this:
“There is no “remnant” in the New Covenant. There is only those who are in it and those who try to illegitimately join it and are to be excommunicated from it.” Are we to say that the remnant that Paul talks about is only for that moment in time? Even if it was Jason said that there is NO remnant in the New Covenant which is wrong to say. There at least was and you cannot prove there isn’t today. He used 1 John to try to prove there isn’t which is NO proof at all. The OT threw people out of their community too and yet there was a remnant there. Throwing someone out of the church doesn’t prove that there is no remnant within the church. All that proves is that they left because they were not of them. OT people left…many by way of stoning and yet there remained those who were not of the elect. Do you really think that our churches are undercover, unregenerate-adult free? I know Jason thinks he can spot an unregenerate when he sees one but he is just kidding himself. Even Gene his buddy said in the debate that he only knew for sure that he was regenerate but not anyone else…that’ not a quote but that’s what he meant. I hear, by way of Paul Washer who is a Baptism himself, that the Baptist church is full of unregenerate people. I cannot verify this myself since I’ve only step foot into a Baptist church twice, but I trust Paul Washer even if he is a Baptist
I agree with Jason that there is no remnant within the New Covenant. By it’s very nature — God giving those within the New Covenant a heart of flesh and removing their heart of stone — one must be a regenerate and hence a believer. To say that a remnant exists implies that the majority of the people within the New Covenant are unregenerate and therefore unbelievers. When God talks to Elijah about a remnant and when Paul talks about a remnant in Romans they are both speaking of a few believers among a multitude of unbelievers.
How do you interpret 1Cor. 7:14?
As for baptism replacing circumcision, the main reference is Acts 15. Circumcision was not mandated while baptism is perminted to stand. And Col. 2:11,12.
Luvmom Just wanted Jason to know he is wrong about there not being a remnant in the NT.
I just wanted you to know you were wrong about Jason saying there was no remnant in the NT. He actually said New COVENANT not New TESTAMENT. They are not the same thing. This is more than oversight on your part considering you quoted Romans 11:5 shows you didn’t understand the difference or did’nt take the time to be accurate.
As to whether there is a remnant in the New COVENANT. I agree that you will not find a New COVENANT remnant in the New TESTAMENT.
Hey Robert,
I interpret the 1 Cor. passage in the context of “marriage”. Not who should be baptized. The issue is about staying married in a “mixed marriage” (unequally yoked).
The question being answered by Paul is “Does being married to an unbeliever defile you?” The answer is no, and neither does it defile your children. In fact, if one of the parents is a believer then the other in the home (spouse, children, grandma, whoever) are living in home that is being blessed. The home is holy because someone who is holy lives there. That does not guarantee that anyone else but the believer is saved, will be saved, should be baptized or anything else.
The “bottom line” of the context is don’t use the spiritual condition of your spouse as a “get-out-of-marriage-free card”. In fact, the presence of God in you will be a blessing to that home.
But don’t start baptizing the children and unbelieving spouse and start making promises that you have no control over (v.16)! Don’t baptize your unbelieving spouse even though they aren’t hostile to your faith (v.13). And don’t baptize your children because of your Christian faith.
But you can circumcise them if you want them to be Jewish
(Acts 15).
And Robert, ol friend, baptism is not even discussed in Acts 15. It would have been an ideal place to teach paedobaptism if it were true, but no one made mention of it. Baptism wasn’t even a side-issue. It is literally not found in the Jerusalem Council discussion or anywhere in Acts 15. Not even in the parts of Acts 15 that have nothing to do with the Jerusalem Council.
But like I said, if the Apostles believed what paedobaptist believe then it WOULD MOST DEFINITELY BEEN DISCUSSED AT THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL.
And finally, Robert, you mentioned Colossians 2:11,12 as if it may support an assertion that circumcision was replaced by baptism. But that would only be true if you believe that circumcision actually saved the one who was circumcised. Because in that passage, “circumcision made without hand” is defined as the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh. And the phrase “circumcision of Christ” is defined as His death, burial and resurrection with which one is currently united with by faith.
In fact, you need to go at least one more verse in your reference to see that this is clearly a reference to salvation and not the sprinkling of infants (unless you think they are saved when you sprinkle them). For in verse 13 it says that when your heart was uncircumcised you were dead in your sins, but now in your spiritual circumcision, being baptized into Christ, you are forgiven.
So, if we go to Colossians 2:11-13 we do not find that baptism has replaced circumcision. We find that circumcision of the flesh is useless. But circumcision of the heart saves — and that comes by faith. It doesn’t come by circumcision of the flesh or baptism or anything else.
Another way to look at this issue of “did baptism replace circumcision” is if baptism had replaced circumcision then the Apostles would have said “Tell Jews to no longer circumcise.” And Paul would not have circumcised Timothy.
No it becomes clear that baptism is a new ordinance in the New Covenant. It has its meaning rooted in circumcision, but it did not replace it. Circumcision was a sign that became useless as a sign the day Jesus got circumcised. Although there are some parallels theologically, no apostle taught that one replaces the other. And that is just a fact.
I did not mean to imply that baptism was explicitly mentioned in Acts 15. But this is the argument–it is not mentioned. An inference is made that circumcision is no longer required. And what is left to take its place is baptism. I admit the weakness of the argument because it is from silence and as such has difficulty finding support because of the falacious nature of arguments from silence.
Ok, so now the apostles nor the Jewish believers were apart of the new covenant which just happened to be during the NT times? Are you guys serious? Are you apart of a different sect of dispensationalism of which I’ve never heard? The dispensationalists’ writings that I have read even agree that the Jews during this time until the rapture of the church are apart of the church. Dispensationalism is dangerous business and distorts your thinking which has affected yours. Who on earth do you think brought in the new covenant? Do you remember that it was Christ? Do you remember that this was during the NT times? Do you think it started….when pray tell? Scott, you do find a remnant in the NT…these people were in fact in the new covenant…Rom 11:5 says that there is a remnant at that present time saved by GRACE. Do you know what new covenant means?
Can you give a point of clarification? Do you see the new covenant as including in its scope both believers and unbelievers?
Oops! I did make a mistake. The new covenant was completely fulfilled during the NT but was active during the OT too. OT saints were saved the same way we are. So you have old and new covenants in both eras just in different physical presentations. Since this is true, then it should be no surprise that there is a remnant in both eras.
Hampton,
“By it’s very nature — God giving those within the New Covenant a heart of flesh and removing their heart of stone — one must be a regenerate and hence a believer.” Hampton, would you not agree that this very thing took place with OT saints or do you believe there are two ways and not One Way?
“To say that a remnant exists implies that the majority of the people within the New Covenant are unregenerate and therefore unbelievers.” Again, do you not believe that God saved OT saints the same way He saves us? God called many in the OT but saved only a few. God still calls many but saves only a few in the NT.
“When God talks to Elijah about a remnant and when Paul talks about a remnant in Romans they are both speaking of a few believers among a multitude of unbelievers.” Yeah, many are called but few are chosen. Lord, Lord! Did we not do such and such in Your name? And Jesus will say I never knew you. These will not be people who were performing witchcraft but those who called themselves Christians but were not….hence only a remnant will be shown in the end to have existed in the church.
Hampton,
“Can you give a point of clarification? Do you see the new covenant as including in its scope both believers and unbelievers?”
As long as the the infant is of the elect. He obviously is not receiving the benefits of salvation until he is saved, but the very fact that he is of the elect puts him into the new covenant just assuridly as it keeps presently saved persons in the new covenant…meaning nothing shall separate any of these two groups from Christ. The only difference is the infant still needs to come to salvation, but this WILL happen just as we WILL be kept in salvation…we are written on the palms of His hands.
Oops, I meant Robert not Hampton…sorry!
Jason,
1. Why is there even a talk of “circumcision of the heart,” if the OT rite of circumcision didn’t signify a spiritual reality (i.e. regeneration)? And if it did, it did not typify that reality, since OT believers already experienced regeneration; rather, it would have signified or sealed that reality (to use the language of Romans 4:11).
2. Circumcision was the mark of entrance into the people of God under the OT; and baptism is the mark of entrance into the people of God under the NT. In that regard, at least, wouldn’t you have to admit the correlation between the two rites?
And to answer the question at the top: No, it seems that Baptists “mix up” the ideas of the visible and invisible church, which are clearly distinct and distinguished throughout the Scriptures, New Testament no less than Old Testament.
Luvvom,
In response to your asking whether I believe that OT saints were saved the same way we are, the answer is yes. Yes, Abraham was saved by faith just as I am saved by faith. However, since you are referencing my statement of God giving the believer a heart of flesh and removing their heart of stone. Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel talk about God doing this work in relation to the New Covenant. They both speak of it in the future tense as something that God will do and not as something that He has done in the past. Therefore, since God Himself references it as a future work, I have not reason to believe that this “circumcision of the heart” took place in OT saints. Now I know that many people will disagree with me on this point. That’s fine.
I do agree that the way is narrow that leads to salvation and that there are few who find it. How does that point to only a remnant? How do those who cry out “Lord, Lord…” in the final judgment point to a remnant? Doesn’t Jesus Himself give us that answer when He says, “I never knew you”? Isn’t He pointing out that they were never part of the New Covenant?
I agree that unbelievers are intermixed with believers in the visible church (i.e. all those who profess belief). But to say that the visible church is in the New Covenant is not correct. Only those who truly believe are part of the New Covenant. Look at Jeremiah 32 where those who are part of the New Covenant are described. Verse 34 says, “…And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them…” Where is the remnant in the New Covenant? God says they shall all know Him. Just in case someone might say all doesn’t mean all, He clarifies it by saying that the least to the greatest will know Him. Within the New Covenant only believers exist. Now tying this entire discussion back into the issue of baptism, if only believers are part of the New Covenant, and baptism is a sacrament of the New Covenant shouldn’t only those who are part of the New Covenant receive baptism? And since we do not have God’s knowledge to know who will be part of the New Covenant, shouldn’t we only baptize those who profess to be believers?
I’ve had fun discussing these things… but I’m deploying to the Middle East before the week is through, and tomorrow my Internet will be turned off. Have a good time in the States!
Sean, Thank you for protecting our nation. We can pick up these helpful discussions when you get back. They don’t effect regeneration and we have more in common than not. So God bless you.
Robert,
I see the New Covenant according to its biblical definition having a scope that only includes the redeemed. Now there are few instances in the NT where baptism was mistakenly given to someone who wasn’t redeemed. And in each instance their was great efforts to correct the “records” to protect the testimony of the church.
But those who were in the visible church illegitimately were disciplined out and considered to have never been truly of us. These were not covenant-breakers like you had in the OC but covenant intruders who are liars from the beginning like Judas. (And that of course is a harsh way to look at them, and maybe only God has a right to judge people that harshly. So we lovingly discipline them out of the fellowship and pray for them until we discover that we should no longer pray for them — but that is for a different discussion.)
Luvmom, do YOU know what New Covenant means? What is the difference in the OC and the NC. Is just the fact that we now look back to the cross instead of forward? If you will go back and read what was actually written. Which is what I asked to do the first time, you will discover that what was said is that there is no NEW COVENANT remnant. Not that the word remnant wasn’t in the NT. Do you not understand the concept? Do you even understand what the remnant is?
The idea is that in the NC the church is, unlike the OC, only believers. Only regenerate. There is no mix of regenerate and unregenerate. That has been the nature of the entire discussion. It has been a major part of the division between Credo’s and Paedo’s. Hence the statement in the post “Furthermore, Jeremiah 31 teaches that New covenant members are NOT covenant-breakers, so to teach that the warning passages in the NT teach that New covenant members are covenant-breakers, as paedobaptists do, signifies an error hermeneutically.” The reason this is error is because Paedo’s teach that baptized infants who are part of the visible church and have received the promises of the NC but who later become apostate are covenant breakers. The author of Hebrews goes to great lengths to clarify this concept.
Since you seemed determined to bring up Romans 11:5 though it contextually doesn’t help your argument, let’s deal with it. In the OT there were two elections. One of national Israel which was made of circumcised Jewish descendants and one of spiritual Israel that was made up of those elected to salvation. The later is referred to the Israel of God(check Galatians for the concept) Paul has just spent pretty much 10 chapters destroying the pharisaical Jewish concept of salvation. He has told them that God has rejected Israel as a nation. Thankfully in chapter 11 he gives the Jews hope and the Gentiles a warning to not get arrogant. The remnant being referred is a group of elect Jews who are elected to salvation. God was true to his covenantal promise to the patriarchs, insofar as he did not completely destroy the nation but preserved a remnant from it.
I still think you fail to see the point in this discussion of a remnant. In the OC there were promises made to national Israel and to spiritual Israel. The nature of the NC is although God rejected Israel he has renewed the covenant not with the entire nation but only a remnant from it. The difference, and this is where the entire discussion hinges, is that in the NC there are only promises to spiritual Israel i.e. the elect, or regenerate, or saved, or whatever you want to call them. So what is being said is that in the NC you will not find a remnant as part of the NC community. If this was the case then the church would be primarily unbelievers with a few “remnant” scattered around. No in the NC community those who are part of the NC i.e. believers, kick out any who try to enter the NC community i.e. the church but are not part of the elect. The promises in the NC are only for the regenerate. Thus the concept of a NC remnant is actually in opposition to the entire nature of the NC.
Also, who are the dispensationalist you are referring to?
Kaalvenist, God bless you and protect you over there. Thanks for your service.
kaalvenist,
you will be in our prayers! I have family over there and we are so thankful for you guys! God bless you!
I just stumbled upon your presence in the Murrieta area by accident today, so first let me say, “Greetings brother(s) and I am glad to see Biblically sound churches in our area.” Also, I would love to get a chance to meet with you all and get to know other Calvinistic ministers in the area.
Now, the irony is I stumble across you today, and the topic of the day is “baptism” of all things, and so Aaron and his beard will have to remain oil free for the time being!
I dont have much time to invest at the moment but will be checking back in. For now let me ask, “Don’t you find it odd that Jere. 31 is quoted in Hebrews 8, in the midst of a book dealing with ‘apostosy’ in the church?” Doesn’t the very need to right warnings against apostasy undermine the whole idea that the New Covenant is an elect community and no longer a mixed one like the OT? Curious as to how you begin to deal with the wider context of Hebrews in light of all the warnings and even the idea that many had come in and had their “bodies washed with pure water” and still there is the danger of “counting the blood of the covenant” by which they were santified a “common thing”?
So if the New Covenant is only dealing with the regenerate or the elect, why the need to warn that some might count that covenant as common and thus find themselves undone?
Sorry, a bit of context, I am the Orthodox Presbyterian Minister in Temecula. http://www.temeculaopc.org
Jesse, I just wanted to say — NICE Website! And we would love to get together for lunch. Our differences about baptism are fun discussion, but it definitely does not divide. We Reformed must stick together — and Calvinists too!
I will send you an email soon about times we can get together starting next week.
Concerning the warning passages, they are warnings to Hebrews who are wavering between the two covenants in a religious sense. But we must remember when interpreting warnings that Jesus said that He would lose none! If you believe that the warning passages are speaking of covenant-breakers you are eventually forced to abandon Calvinism, are you not?
This is the fork in the road that divides the two systems. It is how you view the continuity or discontinuity of the covenants throughout history that determins where you land on baptism. The question boils down to Jesus’ promise to the world that whosoever believes in him will be saved. Those that say the covenant is only for those that do believe are on the one side of the fense while those that say the covenant is open ended with a warning given for those that reject it are on the other side of the fence. Which side is more true to God’s history of redemption? That is the million dollar question. But regardless, under no dispensation of history has God not received sinners. And this is what unites. Amen?
Robert, amen!!
Jason,
Glad to hear from you and I will look to hear from you when time allows.
For the time being, I would only want to say that texts like Hebrews 3.7-19, 4.1-13, 1 Cor 10:1ff etc., press where we have continuity with the OC. When it comes to our present situation, we NC believers, like our forefathers, are on this side of the Promise Land and therefore while we have the Gospel (as did they) and we have the Sacraments (as did they) we must “persevere in faith” in order to inherit the fullness of the promise (as did they). Those who do so, show that they are God’s elect (it does not make them so but it proves them to be so.).
As long as it is called “Today (this present age until the 2nd coming)” we must hear His voice and continue to cling to Christ by faith, lest we perish in the wilderness of this world as we wait in exile for the fullness of the New Covenant to be made known by sight in the New Heavens and the New earth.
Practical question; if the warnings are not genuine for the church, why do we have church discipline?
Jpirschel, I read the liturgy on your website and was shocked. I didn’t know Presbyterians could raise their hands when they sang.
Jesse, thanks for the biblical interaction. Much of what you say I agree with of course… as Robert says, the continuity/discontinuity issue is a fine line for the most part. Concerning church discipline and the warnings let me say:
First of all, the warning passages are “genuine.” Paedo’s do not argue that God was disingenuous — ever. So please don’t poison the well.
Secondly, can you give me a biblical example of someone who was a member of the New Covenant and then lost their salvation?
Third, church discipline is for redemptive/protection purposes. If one is proven to be of true faith, then they repent during the church discipline process. If they continue in sin, then the seed of God is not in them — and NEVER HAS BEEN — as John says in his first epistle.
As a Calvinist I believe that the “warning” of Revelation 3:5 is more of a “promise” than a “warning”.
Hebrews 3:12 warns that a Hebrew “believer” may actually not be a believer but have “an evil heart of unbelief.” He can’t have both. As a Calvinist I don’t believe that he can be given the gift of faith and then lose it. In verse 14 the writer explains that “we are partakers of Christ IF we hold…to the end.” That is an “if statement” not a doctrine of losing one’s salvation. “IF” you are faithful then you were and will be saved… but “IF” you don’t remain faithful then it is proof that you never were partakers of Christ — who is the personification of the New Covenant by the way.
Paedobaptist friends, if you push the “continuity” too far in Hebrews 3 and 4 then you have created a new nation of Israel with the same problems as the old nation of Israel. We must remember that the writer of Hebrews was using historical-redemptive illustrations to argue his points to a group who understood all to well the spiritual warnings. And ultimately the Book of Hebrews stressed the discontinuity of the OC and NC — NOT THE CONTINUITY! The Book begins by alerting all its readers that the purpose of the book is to theologically prove the NEWNESS and Better-ness of the NC and the spiritual reality that JESUS IS THE NEW COVENANT. If you are in Christ then you are in this new covenant, and if you are not in Christ by faith then you are not in this new covenant. You are either in or out. If I am mistaken about this, then I don’t see how Calvinism will stand.
If one is not in Christ and therefore out of the covenant how do you make the transistion to being in Christ apart from any covenant ratified by God. Is this not one and the same covenant that is offered to all that will believe?
Scott,
Just think how I felt when I saw this blog and realized some baptists read books! (please hear the humor in this…)
Yes, we raise our hands, it wasnt easy my friend but we got it down. A bit like patting your head and rubbing your tummy…we OPC’ers thought raising your hands only took place in Sunday School when you wanted to sound smarter than the teacher so you asked your question that had no question.
I think this can be simplified some, though I am willing to go through this point by point when time allows.
Jason from what I have read thus far you equate election/new covenant/church. The church is the New Covenant people who are the elect and them only (am I getting this right?). The New Covenant is unbreakable, ala Jere. 31 and Heb. 8. To say otherwise is to put us back into the OC situation, which we are not.
First, we clearly aren’t in the OC. Yet, there are still areas of continuity to go along with the discontinuity. Hebrews deals with this to no small extent. Surely we have a better word, a better mediator, a better Promised Land, a better understanding, a better temple, a better sacrifice etc.
Now as far as continuity goes, where do we find that in Hebrews? Well, in each of the warnings. Each is grounded in the wilderness generation and their fall before the Promised Land. The analogy in 3-4 of Hebrews only works if the situation is actually “analogous” in some way.
So let me begin with this question to you, in what way is our current situation in the New Covenant the same as the wilderness generation of Heb. 3-4?
Does the name “frozen chosen” mean nothing to you hand raisers?:)
and we’re reading Presbyterian books at that. Which should be even more impressive considering you guys can’t say anything in a few sentences.
Kaalvenist wrote:-
“Against the claims of Reformed Baptists, I cannot help but consider [Acts 2:38-9] to be a virtual republication of the covenant made with Abraham: that the promise, or covenant, “is unto you, and to your children” (corresponding to Genesis 17:7, “And I will establish my covenant with thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee”); “and to all that are afar off” (corresponding to Genesis 12:3, “And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed”; cf. Genesis 17:4, “As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations”).”
This is to miss the point rather spectacularly. Who is the seed of Abraham? Christ (Gal 3:16). Who are the sons of Abraham? Believers (Gal 3:7 etc). The “You and your seed” formula of the Old Tetament is replaced by ‘Christ and His seed’ in the New Testament (Isaiah 53:10; Heb 2:13). Check out the WCF Larger Catechism Q.31.
Isaiah 54:13 says, “All your children shall be taught of God.” The LOrd gives the true interpretation of that in John 6:45. “It is written in the prohets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Therefore everyone who has learned and heard from the Father comes to Me.”
Steve Owen