This was my sermon manuscript that was preached @ Grace URC, but I have adapted it for this blog.
In this blog post we will be looking at the issue of Covenant Infant Baptism. I say Covenant Infant baptism because I will be arguing for the Reformed understanding of Infant Baptism which says that we do not baptize infants because they are regenerate nor do we baptize infants to make them regenerate rather we baptize infants because God commands us in his word that we ought to administer the visible sign of the covenant (in the New Covenant Baptism) on the covenant members which include children. This view is contrasted from believers or professors baptism which says we only are to baptize persons who profess faith in Jesus Christ. But the classical Reformed Infant baptism position says that if a person were not baptized as a infant and became a Christian latter on in life then that person should be baptized when he is a professing believer. It would make very little sense for Reformed people to go around baptizing people who do not want to be in the Christian church. My basic contention is that there are good reasons to believe in covenant infant baptism and that there are no good reasons for thinking that believer's baptism is true. The first part of this series will look at the good reasons in favor of covenant baptism and the second part I will demonstrate that none of the believer's baptism arguments are successful.
Argument 1: Covenant Continuity
The first argument we will look at is the argument from presumed continuity of the covenants and the commandments of God. This argument relies on a very reasonable philosophical and theological principle which is this: If God commands or reveals a way of functioning in His word we ought to follow it unless God gives us a implicit or explicit indication that a commandment is no longer ethically binding or a indication that God is no longer functioning that way. I am going to support this principle both philosophically and theologically but first I need to tell you why this principles supports infant baptism. This principle supports infant baptism because God in his word clearly commands that Infants of believer's are in the covenant community and that male infants are to have the sign of the covenant which is circumcision. This is taught explicitly in Genesis 17:1-14 which reads: When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. 2 I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers." 3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God." 9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-- those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." In this passage we have the sign of the covenant administered to infant boys, so if my principle of continuity were true then it would follow that the sign of the covenant (baptism) would be administered to male infants in the New covenant. The reason why this principle would follow is because there is no verse in the New Testament were God implicitly or explicitly abrogates this commandment or the Abrahamic covenant in general. But what we do find are alterations and additions to the commandment to put the covenant sign on infant males who are in the covenant. For example we see that the covenant sign is added on to so that it includes women (Acts 8:12) and that the covenant sign is altered to baptism (Col. 2:11-12). So we see that the principle I discussed earlier gives warrant to infant baptist position. It is appropriate that I give philosophical and theological arguments in favor of the principle I developed earlier, let us call this principle “the principle of presumed continuity”. The philosophical reason for holding to this principle is that if one did not hold to it then consistency would then allow for the possibility that when God gives you a commandment you could just presume that it no longer applies to you. But surely this is not right because we could use this to rationalize away commandments like “you shall not murder” or “you shall not commit adultery”. The rationalization for no longer following the commandments not to murder and not commit adultery could go something like this: “well God has not told to me that I should stop following it, but he has not commanded this in awhile so I am not longer obligation to follow these commandments”. Because rejecting the principle of presumed continuity has ethically disastrous results then we are rational in affirming the principle to avoid these absurd results. Not only is this principle reasonable but the scriptures teach it. We see an example of this principle being carried out in Paul's theological reasoning in Galatians 3:15-18 which reads “15 Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.” Paul is saying that when the Mosaic covenant came to be it did not abolish nor do away with the Abrahamic Covenant. But the Mosaic covenant did add and qualify the Abrahamic covenant by giving different Laws and regulations. So Paul's principle in this verse is that we are to assume covenant continuity even if a additional covenants comes about. Lastly, this verse connects the Abrahamic covenant to the Mediator of the New Covenant Jesus Christ. Therefore, we see that in the same text that teaches the principle of presumed continuity it also implicitly connects the New Covenant with the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, we have strong reason for thinking that the principle of continuity is true and that the Bible even implicitly teaches that the Abrahamic covenant is connected to the New Covenant. The natural inference from this data is that because there is no hint of abrogation of the Abrahamic covenant and because the Word of God connects to the Abrahamic covenant to the New Covenant then we ought to give the covenant sign to covenant children by virtue of it being commanded in the Abrahamic covenant.
Argument 2: Baptism Replaces Circumcision
The second argument for infant baptism is that circumcision is connected to and is replaced by baptism so we should assume that the replacement functions the same unless there is a sufficient reason to doubt it. Now let us look at the various ways circumcision and baptism connect and parallel. We see in Colossians 2:11-12 that both circumcision and baptism points to our salvation and the death of Christ, Colossians 2:11-12 which reads 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. In this case circumcision points to the death of Christ and Baptism points back to the death of Christ. Ultimately circumcision and baptism are related in that they both are connected in Jesus Christ and his death. We also see that circumcision and baptism are connected by external visual symbols of the representations of the inward realities of our salvation in Christ Jesus. We are circumcised by Jesus cutting off our sinful flesh and this is done by being buried with him in baptism. In Paul's mind baptism and circumcision were so linked and connected that he could use them as overlapping imagery to point to Christ's death and to describe our inward regeneration. The implications of this text for infant baptism is 1) that baptism and circumcision both point to regeneration and 2) that those who are regenerated have a circumcision of the heart by having been baptized by the Holy Spirit. Paul does not use this visual salvation language for no reason, but rather he uses this imagery to show the truth that we have the equivalence of the sign physical circumcision having been baptized physically. This interpretation can make sense of the context and concerns of the book of Colossians because Paul is dealing with Jewish mystical moralist who wants to follow the Jewish Laws (which circumcision was one of them) in this letter (Col. 2:16-23). The way Paul deals with this moralist that want to follow the Old Testament Laws is that he uses this new regeneration by Jesus and his death by using physical signs that point to the death of Christ. Paul shows in the same statement that we need not follow the system of the circumcision anymore because we have that and more in our baptism. Now if circumcision is equivalent to baptism in the sense that baptism now functions in the place of circumcision. Therefore, we ought to assume they function the same unless we have reason to doubt it. My contention is that we have no reason to doubt that baptism should be also applied to covenant children as circumcision was. This is then my second argument for infant baptism, so with that in mind let us move to my third argument for infant baptism.
Argument 3: Children in the Covenant
My third argument for Infant baptism is that 1) if children are in the covenant community we ought to give them the sign of the covenant which is baptism. 2) Children are in the covenant community, 3) therefore, we should baptize them. The text I am going to be using to justify this argument is Matthew 19:13-14 which reads 13 Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." There are a few things I want to point out before I give my support for the infant baptism argument from this text. My contention in this text is that kingdom of heaven means the new covenant. Now you might ask: How do you know this text is referring to the new covenant? Well by eliminating all the other plausible meanings of the phrase “kingdom of heaven” and this process of elimination shows that in this specific text the most plausible meaning of the phrase kingdom of heaven is the new covenant. There are three plausible meanings of the phrase kingdom of heaven: 1) The entire world, 2) the regenerate, or 3) the new covenant (Matt. 16:19) It cannot be the entire world because that would make the words of Jesus trivial and insignificant. If this were the meaning why would Jesus even need to mention it? Jesus would be in effect saying, “hey you have the same status as every person in the world so that justifies you coming to me” The reason I put it like this is because if all people are in the kingdom of heaven why would this justify Jesus' actions of blessing them and allowing others to bring children to Jesus? This would make Jesus' reasoning absurd because even his unbelieving enemies like the Pharisees were in the kingdom of heaven on this understanding. This understanding of the kingdom of heaven is inappropriate in immediate context and it makes Jesus' reasoning trivial therefore this cannot be plausibly the meaning of “kingdom of heaven” in this text. The second meaning of kingdom of heaven is that it refers to those who are regenerate. This is even more absurd because this would suggest that all of the children of believers are regenerate, but we know that children of believers can later become unbelievers. So in order to hold to this meaning of kingdom of heaven one would have to reject the doctrine that once someone is truly justified they cannot lose their justification (perseverance of the saints), but the bible clearly teaches perseverance of the saints or that once one is truly justified they cannot lose their justification. Therefore, the kingdom of heaven cannot refer to those who are regenerate in this context. The only plausible option that remains is that kingdom of God is referring to the New Covenant and that according to Jesus children are in the New covenant. Therefore, it follows that children are in the new covenant, the kingdom of heaven, and it is plausible that we should baptized those who kingdom/covenant members.
Conclusion
I have established that there is good reason to believe that children are to be given the sign of the New Covenant which is baptism. There are many baptist objections to infant baptism and in the next week I shall argue that all objections are insufficient to defeat the arguments that I have given. When we give covenant children the sign of baptism we are doing what Abraham did with his sons and this shows God's consistency in working with his church throughout the ages.
Hey its Aaron.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good defense of the classical reformed position. I hope God blesses your ministry. :) I'm excited to read your next post.
Are you also going to deal with non baptistic arguments from Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, and Catholics. And church tradition? Because this view is distinct from pretty much everybody (which in some ways everyone's views are distinct) but the relationship of faith and regeneration to baptism is specifically what I mean.
Hello Aaron,
ReplyDeleteI will not be dealing with arguments from the other perspectives because they are all logically incompatible with the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance of the saints which is clearly and explicitly taught in scripture (John 6:44; Rom. 8:39). I reject all church tradition that is incompatible with the clear deliverances of reason and scripture. I hope you are well.
God Bless,
NPT
I would like to respond to each argument. Forgive the length.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the principle of presumed continuity in God’s decrees as it relates to the covenants, it is certainly is a very “reasonable principle” as you have said. You have demonstrated that passage of time is no grounds for disregarding the decrees of God, and you have demonstrated that allowing such an approach has potentially fatal ramifications, particularly in the arena of moral obligations. However, I would like to suggest that an appropriate interpretation and understanding of the Abrahamic covenant yields a result that clearly does announce the termination of the way in which the old covenant was administered, thus upholding the principle of the presumed continuity of God’s decrees by showing that Christ has heralded the end of the old covenant administration. What I believe scripture teaches to be an appropriate interpretation and understanding of the Abrahamic covenant is a two-level understanding of the promises and their fulfillment.
In his book Kingdom Prologue, Meredith Kline does some great work on understanding the two-level promise and fulfillment in the Abrahamic covenant (pgs 332-355). I will quote him several times. He breaks up the two levels into three main things: The Promised King, The Promised Kingdom-People, and the Promised Kingdom-Land.
The promised kingship began with Abraham, continued through his sons to Judah and on to David. “David and his successors under the old covenant, were level one. Then David’s dynasty reached a distinctive second level of kingship in the coming of Jesus Christ…and his inauguration of the new covenant in his blood. In the kingship of Christ, Judah’s scepter became eternal as well as universal.” (333)
Concerning the promised kingdom-people Kline says “We have found that in the course of biblical revelation two distinct levels of fulfillment, one provisional and prototypal, the other messianic and eternal, are clearly distinguishable in the king promise given to Abraham. What is true of the promise of the king must inevitably be true of the promise of the kingdom, both kingdom-people and kingdom-land.” (334) He then proceeds to explain that the promised seed is understood individually as Christ “through whom the blessings of the covenant were to be mediated to the nations…” (335) He continues to explain that the seed is also understood corporately on two levels. On one level, the physical seed of Abraham truly multiplied and became many great nations in the twelve tribes of Israel. “Equally obvious is the Bible’s identification of a realization of the promise of the Abrahamic seed at another level. As we have seen, when Paul, in Romans 9-11, defends God’s covenantal faithfulness in the face of Israel’s fall, he bases his case on the identification of the promised seed as the individual election, a remnant-fullness of Jews and Gentiles, spiritual children of Abraham, all like him justified by faith. The apostle finds within the Lord’s revelation of the promises to Abraham explicit warrant for distinguishing this spiritual seed of Abraham from the physical offspring. What is remarkable is how he bypasses the more literal first level significance of Abraham’s seed and takes for granted the second, spiritual level of meaning as the meaning of the promise.” (335) “Moreover, the promise of the many nations as seed is equivalent to the gospel-promise that Abraham through his messianic seed would mediate blessing to all nations. That is, the promise of the seed is thereby lifted into the messianic, or new covenant, level where Gentile and Jewish believers are gathered together in the united assembly of the heavenly altar.” (336) He later qualifies that the promise of the kingdom-people is different from the promise of king or kingdom land in that the second level of “spiritual election” was already “in process of realization under the old covenant.” (336)
Finally, concerning the promised kingdom-land, the first level was a geo-physical territory in Canaan which was attained and filled by the Israelites in their conquests. After remarking on how mistaking the level one land-promise as continuing on to today is foolish, he continues and says “Moreover, and more decisively, in the New Testament there are clear indications of a positive kind of shift to the second level of meaning of the land promise. Indeed, with surprising abruptness the New Testament disregards the first level meaning and simply takes for granted that the second level, cosmic fulfillment is the true intention of the promise…Paul identifies Abraham’s promised inheritance as the world. What is more, the New Testament attributes to Abraham himself as a subjective expectation an eschatological hope based on a second level understanding of the land promise.” (339) He concludes by establishing that the second level land promise will also be a geo-physical realm, but it will be a new heavens and a new earth.
ReplyDeleteThis is all to say that this two-level understanding of the Abrahamic covenant proves that God himself, in scripture, through Christ’s inauguration of the new covenant, disbands and does away with level one. To assume that the level one physical membership of the old covenant continues into the level two spiritual membership of the new covenant is impossible to hold according to scripture. Paul argues in Galatians 3 that “it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.” Later he makes it crystal clear when he says “23Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” Notice the way that Paul makes faith the central marker of those who are truly the offspring of Abraham. In Christ Jesus we are all sons of God, through faith. He then proceeds to assume that those who have believed have been baptized. In verse 28, Paul clearly destroys any possible physical marker of covenant members, because physical birth has nothing to do with spiritual covenant membership. Jews have no advantage over Greeks, nor do free persons over slaves, or males over females; rather all are one in Christ. And all those who are in Christ through faith (as was stated in v.26) are Abraham’s offspring, the true heirs of the promise.
As you have rightly pointed out, Paul does establish continuity between Christ and Abraham, but the continuity is seen in the fulfillment of level two, thus discarding level one, as Paul clearly does. The Abrahamic covenant is abrogated, and the new covenant which was announced to Abraham is inaugurated. In the old, the kings were the dynasty of Judah, the people were members by birth, and the land was Palestine. In the new, the king is Christ, the people are his spiritual children by rebirth, the elect, and the land is a new heavens and new earth for which we still wait.
"The new covenant is not a renewal of an older covenant in the sense of confirming the continuing validity of the old. If we speak of the new covenant as a renewal of the old it must be to express their continuity as two administrations of the Covenant of Grace or, more specifically, the continuity of the new covenant with the underlying, foundational stratum of the old covenant, the substratum of the gospel-grace as the way to the ultimate heavenly hope in Christ. But with respect to the old covenant as a typological realization of the promised kingdom realm, the new covenant does not confirm the continuing validity of the old bur rather announces its obsolescence and end." (345)
ReplyDeleteConcerning argument two of baptism and circumcision I don’t wish to say much other than that the relationship of the two is not one of analogy, but typology. In the same way that the spiritual seed, the elect, are the fulfillment of the shadowy type of the physical seed, Israel, baptism is the fulfillment of the type, circumcision. Baptism is applied to all new covenant members, who have already been established to be those who are in Christ through faith. The same two-level fulfillment idea does give us reason to believe that baptism does not function exactly as circumcision did in the sense that scripture does teach the abrogation of the old and the establishment of the new.
Finally, concerning children in the covenant. If “the kingdom of heaven” in Matthew 19 refers to the new covenant, ought we to assume that Jesus is speaking of something else when he said in John 3 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”? If the “Kingdom of God” and the “Kingdom of Heaven” are the same thing, and if we substitute your understanding of the phrase to be “The new covenant including non-professing children” then Jesus’ statement makes no sense. Jesus would be teaching that belief is necessary to enter a covenant wherein non-believers reside. I would suggest that you are right to say that the kingdom of heaven is the new covenant, however, I would suggest that the new covenant is comprised of the elect. Thus, Jesus teaches in Matthew that even children can grasp the gospel at an early age and should not be dissuaded from coming to Christ. Even more explicit is his statement that unless one is born again, which neither of us would deny necessitates faith, one cannot see the kingdom of God, in other words, cannot enter into the new covenant. The new covenant involves a king, people, and land, and unless one is born again, they cannot claim that king, they cannot claim that citizenship, and they cannot claim that inheritance. They cannot see the kingdom of God.
Thus, in conclusion, while upholding the presumed continuity of God’s decrees, there is reason to believe that the Abrahamic administration has been abrogated because of the two-level nature of the promises and their fulfillment, baptism is the typological fulfillment of circumcision, and the kingdom of heaven is the new covenant comprised of those who have been born again in Christ by faith.
"The new covenant is not a renewal of an older covenant in the sense of confirming the continuing validity of the old. If we speak of the new covenant as a renewal of the old it must be to express their continuity as two administrations of the Covenant of Grace or, more specifically, the continuity of the new covenant with the underlying, foundational stratum of the old covenant, the substratum of the gospel-grace as the way to the ultimate heavenly hope in Christ. But with respect to the old covenant as a typological realization of the promised kingdom realm, the new covenant does not confirm the continuing validity of the old bur rather announces its obsolescence and end." (345)
ReplyDeleteConcerning argument two of baptism and circumcision I don’t wish to say much other than that the relationship of the two is not one of analogy, but typology. In the same way that the spiritual seed, the elect, are the fulfillment of the shadowy type of the physical seed, Israel, baptism is the fulfillment of the type, circumcision. Baptism is applied to all new covenant members, who have already been established to be those who are in Christ through faith. The same two-level fulfillment idea does give us reason to believe that baptism does not function exactly as circumcision did in the sense that scripture does teach the abrogation of the old and the establishment of the new.
Finally, concerning children in the covenant. If “the kingdom of heaven” in Matthew 19 refers to the new covenant, ought we to assume that Jesus is speaking of something else when he said in John 3 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”? If the “Kingdom of God” and the “Kingdom of Heaven” are the same thing, and if we substitute your understanding of the phrase to be “The new covenant including non-professing children” then Jesus’ statement makes no sense. Jesus would be teaching that belief is necessary to enter a covenant wherein non-believers reside. I would suggest that you are right to say that the kingdom of heaven is the new covenant, however, I would suggest that the new covenant is comprised of the elect. Thus, Jesus teaches in Matthew that even children can grasp the gospel at an early age and should not be dissuaded from coming to Christ. Even more explicit is his statement that unless one is born again, which neither of us would deny necessitates faith, one cannot see the kingdom of God, in other words, cannot enter into the new covenant. The new covenant involves a king, people, and land, and unless one is born again, they cannot claim that king, they cannot claim that citizenship, and they cannot claim that inheritance. They cannot see the kingdom of God.
Thus, in conclusion, while upholding the presumed continuity of God’s decrees, there is reason to believe that the Abrahamic administration has been abrogated because of the two-level nature of the promises and their fulfillment, baptism is the typological fulfillment of circumcision, and the kingdom of heaven is the new covenant comprised of those who have been born again in Christ by faith.
forgive the double post, nothing's different in the second one.
ReplyDeleteHello there,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the thoughtful response to my arguments. I will respond to this after I finish preaching on sunday, but may I ask: Who are you? Do I know you (it's okay if I do not know you)? I just want to know who I am going to be spending three hours of my time writing to. I appreciate you taking the time to think through this issue with me. I hope you are well!
In Christ,
NPT
:) Yes you may ask who I am. I'm Sam Renihan. You probably know me, but just in case you don't, I'll be a second year at WSC this fall. Three hours is a lot! haha. I appreciated your thoughts as well, and I trust that you understand that my comments are not intended to come across in an attacking way. I suppose it's rather difficult to disagree with much of what someone says without making it sound like an attack, but I respect the fact that you're (as I am) striving to develop and defend a consistent and complete biblical understanding of theology. I look forward to your reply. I can't help but think though, since our replies have been so long, is there a format more appropriate for such lengthy discussion? Would you prefer email?
ReplyDeleteHello Sam,
ReplyDeleteIt's a great honor to have you on here interacting with my arguments. I had prayer group with your brother last semester. This blog is not exclusively Paedobaptists by the way. It is broadly Reformed so we have writers on this blog that are both credo and paedo (Beau and Christian are the Reformed credobaptists writers). I appreciate your care and love for trying to develop a consistent biblical worldview. Your arguments came off entirely academic and respectful and in no way did they come off rude. But I shall interact with your arguments next week on this blog. And by the way I am a big James White fan and Douglas Moo fan :)
God Bless,
NPT
Hey Nate,
ReplyDeleteSo because baptismal regeneration is inconsistent with perseverance of the saints (because all baptized children would persevere and then we'd have ex opere operato salvation?)you won't even deal with the traditional arguments? That makes sense. I'm just curious because I usually hear that the reformed tradition goes with church history and that baptists are inconsistent with the tradition but arguably the reformed church changed the doctrine just as much if not more and maintained only superficial continuity, because the church has always maintained that faith and Baptism were interconnected chronologically. I mean I know Baptists changed the doctrine significantly, I was just hoping to see your exegesis of passages that baptismal regenerationists use to argue agaisnt the classical reformed understanding because I've never seen a reformed person deal with those, only baptistic arguments (agaisnt symbol and creedo theology). Thanks
Aaron
Hello Sam,
ReplyDeleteI hope you are doing well...here is my response.
Response to Post 1: I would agree that David and the Land are fulfilled on two levels one type and the other anti-type (the land being eschatologically fulfilled and Christ in some sense as well). I would even say the people of God presently are a type of the antitypical people of God to come in the new heavens and the new earth. However, I believe that the New Testament indicates to us that the people of God are not in a fully eschatologically realized state so there is a mix of believer and unbeliever in the New Covenant community. Romans 9 mentions that there was a mixed community in the Abrahamic covenant and that only the believers are the true spiritual offspring, but it never abrogates and says that the church and the new covenant community will not be a mix of believer and unbeliever. Even now in the New covenant I would say that only believers are true Christians and true offspring of Abraham, but the unbelievers in the New Covenant community are only the children of Christians and are not really Christian even though they are in the covenant. These unbelieving children are Christians of the flesh by being related to their parents but they are not true spiritual offspring that profess faith in Christ. It seems to me that Romans 9 only mentions this truth but it does not explicitly or implicitly abrogate it. I believe the way to establish this truth that new covenant community is mixed is not by appealing to obscure typology principles in Meredith Kline, but to rather to appeal to specific biblical texts to establish that the New Covenant community is mixed with believers and unbelievers.
Here is one text that shows that we are in a mixed covenant community:
Hebrews 10:29-31 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
The person here is falling away from the covenant community. Now if you take the covenant community to be the same as salvation then this would logically entail the falsehood of perseverance of the saints because someone has lost their salvation in this text. But since Romans 8 and John 6:44 clearly teach perseverance of the saints then this would mean that Hebrews 10:29-31 ought to be interpreted as unbeliever falling away from the covenant community. This means that the New Testament clearly teaches that the new covenant is a mixed community of believer and non-believer. In verse 30 in the future tense it tells us that God will judge his people eschatologically. This would mean that the unbeliever was a part of the people of God or the church, but because he has fallen away from the covenant community he will be judged more harshly as verse 31 indicates “ It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Response to post 2: First, I would say that the true spiritual children of Abraham are those who are of faith, that is true in the old as well as the new. But just because that was also true in the Old does not negate the fact that there were internal and external distinctions in the covenant community back then. This internal and external distinction still remains today in the New Covenant or else the only alternative option is to reject Calvinism (Heb. 10:29-31; 2 Peter 2:1; John 15). The argument also assumes a intimate connection between the land promise and circumcision which I reject. There was circumcision prior to the land first level fulfillment of the land promise which means that they are distinct so just because one shows the abrogation of one does not implicitly or explicitly entail the abrogation of the other. Circumcision is the sign of the covenant of Abraham, whereas the land promise is the first level fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham. There is something true of one that is not true of the other which logically entails that they are distinct which means that they ought to be abrogated in a distinct fashion. Even granting your conclusion it would still seem that the people of God and the land of God would be fulfilled in the new heavens and the new earth, which would mean it may be not fulfilled not and still in a typological stage. The language of the Guardian is in reference to the Mosaic covenant which is abrogated clearly in Hebrews 8:13. So it seems that has nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant because Paul's whole argument has to do with the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant the only odd phenomenon he has to explain is why the Law had to come about in Galatians 3. I would agree that salvation by faith alone it is not based on ethnicity, but it is based in faith in Jesus Christ alone, this was true in the Old Testament as well. Now you had to join the Old Covenant community which means in the Old Testament you were obligated to be circumcised and be a Jew. But if we were to apply the logic of the argument consistently then that would mean that one would not have to join a Christian church and be physically baptized all one would need is to have faith in Jesus, but this is odd because the outworking of this conclusion would mean people would not have (as an obligation before God and for Christian sanctification) to join a physical church body. As for all those being baptized being believers in Galatians, I would take this passage to be about baptism of the Holy spirit or regeneration rather than physical baptism. I think the whole context of the passage is talking about soteriology and spiritual inward aspects of the covenant rather than the outward physical rites like water baptism and physical entrance into the covenant community.
ReplyDeleteResponse to post 3: I would actually take the Kline quote to be referring to the Mosaic covenant rather than to all covenants of grace including Abraham, but I am not a pure Klinean so I may not agree with everything you cite from him. I agree that Colossians 2:11-12 is a typology to Christ, but the text itself and the larger context suggests more. The context says that we have the circumcision by baptism or “having been baptized”. Why would Paul say this? Well the proceeding context indicates (read my post on this passage in argument 2 above) that Paul was struggling with Judaizing mystics that wanted to follow the Mosaic Law, but Paul tells them they need not do this because of the sufficiency of Christ and we do not need to be circumcision because we have it's same benefits in baptism. So Paul counters with the sufficiency of Christ and a new covenant sign so that they will feel no need to follow the Jewish Laws including circumcision. Furthermore, the sign and the seal are connected (Romans 4 justifies sign and seal language) and the seal of circumcision of the heart by Christ is had by the baptism of regeneration. So because the seals are replaced so are the signs (since they are connected). The reason why it would make sense for Jesus to bless the children is that when children go to the covenant community to hear the Gospel preached this is an opportunity for the Spirit to work and for them to be saved so in this sense they are blessed. So on my interpretation it makes perfect sense why Jesus would bless them and say that they are in the covenant community. But to say that Jesus is saying all that are in the kingdom of God are saved and that children are in this kingdom of God is inconsistent. It is inconsistent with Calvinism because not all children are saved because they fall away (I have seen this unfortunately). So if one were to hold your conclusion then they would hold to the position that all children are saved and hence those who fall away have lost their salvation. Furthermore, the kingdom of God does not equal salvation because Matthew teaches us that there will be unbelievers at the end of the age who were in the kingdom of God who were taken out of it:
ReplyDeleteMatthew 13:37-42 37 He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40 "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
So we see at the end of the age there will be no mixed covenant community.
Thank you for your time Sam. I have enjoyed this discussion.
God Bless,
NPT
Hello Aaron,
ReplyDeleteI never appeal to church history, just reason and the Bible. I would say that even if the baptists were inconsistent with tradition it would not matter because they would be in line with what the Bible said. We do not have a trustworthy tradition because there was confusion over the Gospel of justification by faith alone, the sacraments, and church discipline in Corinth and Galatia in the first century. So if things were so messed up in the first century when the apostles were around then how trustworthy is going to be when the Apostles die? Not at all, which is why I am never persuaded by these arguments from Rome and Constantinople about the trustworthyness of their tradition. If you want to see how a Reformed person deals with their arguments they use I will tell you: Romans 6:3-4, Colossians 2:11-12, and 1 Peter 3:20-21 when they speak of baptism it means regeneration or baptism of the Holy Spirit. They will say that these texts show that baptism regenerates you but 1 Peter 3:20-21 says that the baptism that saves you is not from a removal of dirt (it is not physical), but rather it is spiritual and it regenerates you. These texts must be interpreted this way to be consistent with perseverance of the saints. Although I have some Reformed friends who think that Paul presumes that all people in the church are regenerate so when Paul writes to them he assumes all who have baptized physical have been baptized spiritually. All of this is consistent with the clear biblical teaching of perseverance of the saints whereas the other systems are logically inconsistent with it. I hope you are well.
God Bless,
NPT
Hey Nate,
ReplyDeleteSam here, I'm not sure if I will have time to reply this week. I am preaching on Sunday once in Spanish and once in English and I need to finish both sermons by Wednesday because I need to prepare sermons for a 3 week Cuba trip I'm leaving for next week. I appreciate your response though, and I look forward to continuing the discussion as we go! If you get a chance, would you mind commenting on if you think that the "Kingdom of God" in John 3 is the same as "Kingdom of Heaven" in Matthew?
Hello Sam,
ReplyDeleteTake your time, I know how preaching can make someone really busy. In John's Gospel the kingdom of God is synonymous with salvation, but in the two examples I offered in Matthew the kingdom of God or heaven can be used to refer to the broader new covenant community which would include believers and non-believers. If one does not accept that then it would seem to be logically incompatible with perseverance of the saints. I hope you do well in preaching the Gospel and I hope you have a safe trip. Thanks for your time.
In Christ Jesus,
NPT
Hi Nate!
ReplyDeleteThis is Micah Renihan. Sam told me about the discussion you two were having here. In light of his not being able to respond himself, I thought I might throw in my 1 or 2 cents.
First of all, I want to thank both of you for the spirit in which you are having this discussion. So many times online discussions like this can deteriorate very quickly into very nasty exchanges. I hope that my own comments do not lead to that. I also mean no offense and certainly no personal attacks in what I say.
First, I would like to offer my own responses to your three arguments.
Your first argument is for covenant continuity. You say, "If God commands or reveals a way of functioning in His word we ought to follow it unless God gives us a implicit or explicit indication that a commandment is no longer ethically binding or a indication that God is no longer functioning that way"
You argue for this philosophically by saying, "The philosophical reason for holding to this principle is that if one did not hold to it then consistency would then allow for the possibility that when God gives you a commandment you could just presume that it no longer applies to you. But surely this is not right because we could use this to rationalize away commandments like “you shall not murder” or “you shall not commit adultery”."
However, this argument assume that there is no difference in the type of command between the command to circumcise (or baptize) and the command "You shall not murder." But there is a difference. It is the difference between an absolute, moral command and a positive command. An absolute, moral command is always applicable to everyone at every time because it flows out of the very nature of God and is directly related to what is always right and what is always wrong. Positive laws are laws that are separate from this absolute morality and do not always apply to everyone everywhere. Your philosophical argument is completely right when applied to absolute moral commands, but not to positive commands. If we treated positive laws the same way as moral laws then we would have chaos in this world. Everyone would be required to go and preach against Ninevah while at the same time everyone would have to be fleeing to Egypt, at the same time everyone would also be required to build an ark and put all kinds of animals on it.
We know that both circumcision and baptism are positive commands. Therefore, our understanding of the limits and extents of both of these must be solely driven exegetically and cannot be treated as universals in the way that "You shall not murder" is treated. The context in which the covenants are given and the way the Bible interprets the covenants must determine our understanding of who the covenants apply to and when the covenants apply. I do not intend to get into the exegetical arguments here since that would be too large of a task at the moment, but of course I would argue that exegetically examining the passages concerning the New Covenant and Baptism show that the New Covenant applies to the elect, those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. To be able to argue that we assume the complete continuity of all the details of the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant (except where the NT specifically changes them) requires first establishing that both the NT and the OT tell us that that is how we should view the covenants. I do not see such an argument made anywhere in scripture.
In Gal. 3:15-18, Paul does not argue that all covenants are necessarily eternal or everlasting covenants, but that the terms of the covenant cannot be changed once they are established. This actually seems to contradict the claim that the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant have been changed in the NT. Rather, we should see the New Covenant as a NEW Covenant. It is that second tier fulfillment of what was typologically pointed to in the first tier of the OT covenants (like Sam said so well).
Your second argument was that Baptism replaced Circumcision. You quoted Col 2:11-12 in support of this claim."11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." However, I do not think this passage teaches that baptism replaces circumcision. Paul never actually refers to physical circumcision. He refers only to spiritual circumcision, which is regeneration. When you say, "Paul does not use this visual salvation language for no reason, but rather he uses this imagery to show the truth that we have the equivalence of the sign physical circumcision having been baptized physically" I think you go too far. As I said earlier, Paul is not making a comparison between physical circumcision and physical baptism. He is showing that they have a better circumcision than the physical Jewish circumcision. they have received regeneration. And he says that they have been baptized with Christ as a result.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, Paul goes on to say more of these people who have been baptized, he says in the next verse, "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses." Interestingly, Paul says that all of these people who have been baptized have been regenerated and been forgiven. Unless I am mistaken, I don't think that is something you would claim to be true of all baptized people (infants and adults together). Would you say it is true of baptized infants that they are regenerate and that their trespasses are forgiven? Well, we know that not all baptized infants are elect, not all of them become regenerate. If their sins were forgiven already, then it would be unjust for God to punish them with condemnation. And yet we know that there are infants who are baptized that ultimately grow up, reject God, and eventually, face condemnation. God does not condemn those whose sins have already been paid for, whose sins have already been forgiven. Certainly, this understanding does not at all fit with Reformed Theology. We must say that either Refromed Theology is terribly wrong or not all baptized people are regenerate and forgiven. Now, I assume that you will gladly affirm the second option. That being the case we have to ask ourselves the question: Why does Paul write to the church (as you would call it the "Covenant Community") and speak of them as baptized and having been forgiven and regenerate if indeed they are a mixed community?
I would argue that Paul can write to the church in this way because all those who are baptized have made a profession of faith, do claim to be regenerate, do claim to have had their sins forgiven. Paul can speak of them as a regenerate and elect because only those who have made a profession of faith are to be baptized.
Your third argument is that Children are in the Covenant. In defense of this you bring up Matt 19:13-14: 13 Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
ReplyDeleteJesus says this key phrase, "For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." the Greek word translated "such" means "such a kind." It means that there is something about the children that is the same as the people that make up the kingdom of heaven. What is is about them? Is it their age? I really don't think that is the point. There are 2 parallel passages to this one in Mark 10:13-16 and Luke 18:15-17. I do not see anything in the Luke passage that is not also in the Matthew and Mark passages, so I will not quote that passage. The Mark passage says, "Let the little children come to me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it." In this account, there is a little more explanation of what Jesus is trying to teach in this moment. He says "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it." If what Jesus is trying to teach is that the kingdom of God is made up of people of a young age, then Mark tells us that that is the only way anyone can enter the kingdom of God. After all, Jesus says that unless we enter it as a child we will by no means enter it! Of course once again there is that little word "as." We must enter the kingdom "as" a child. What does this word mean? Well, it is the word "ως." This adverb means here "how" or "in this manner." It is in the manner of children that we enter the kingdom of heaven. Again we must ask the question, what manner is that? Is it age? It cannot be, otherwise, as we said, only those who enter the kingdom at a young age will ever enter into the kingdom of heaven at all. Instead it must be something like what John Gill says in his comments on this passage, "laying aside all pride and prejudice, attending thereunto with humility and meekness." Jesus is communicating that we must have the attitude that children have, not the age that the children have. If we argue that Jesus has in mind the age of the children then we run into big trouble very quickly. As Calvin says, we must, "lay aside malice and pride, and put on the nature of children." (Calvin does argue for infant baptism from this passage, but he also certainly recognizes the that Jesus is primarily speaking of taking on the nature of children).
One other note is that even if Jesus were thinking of age, we are not anywhere told what age these children are. It would be an argument from silence to say that they are children who are too young to have the mental capacity to make a credible confession of faith.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewill now respond to some of the comments you made in response to Sam.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that NT scriptures show that the New Covenant is a mixed community. You quote Hebrews 10:29-31 in support of this, "29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
Your argument is that the author here is discussing the covenant community and showing how someone who is in that covenant community can leave it. However, I would disagree with the premise that the author is speaking of someone who is in the covenant community. Nowhere in this passage does the author imply that this person was truly in covenant with God. It seems to me that the issue revolves around what you understand this passage to mean by "sanctified." John Gill's comments on this verse are this:
“and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing”; or "common thing"; putting it upon a level with the blood of a bullock, or at most counting it "as that of another man"; as the Syriac version renders it; yea, reckoning it as unclean and abominable, as the blood of a very wicked man: this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so"
This passage shows an interpretation that neither claims that the person is in Covenant with God nor does it claim that the person is regenerate (as you think baptists claim). Instead, it gives us a third option, someone who claims to be a Christian, but has made a false profession of faith and on the basis of that false profession has been baptized and taken part in the Lord's Supper. Thus, there can be interpretations of this (and other similar passages) that can be understood from a credobaptist perspective without compromising the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. To claim that the credobaptist position necessitates denying the Perseverance of the Saints is really to misunderstand the credobaptist position. All we are saying is what is said in the Parable of the Sower in Matt 13. There is seed that falls on thorny soil and though it springs up at first is choked by the cares of this world. And there is other seed that is thrown on stony soil and springs up quickly but doesn’t last. This is no denial of Perseverance of the Saints but the reality of false professions in the church.
Gill also suggests another interpretation of Heb 10:29 in which the one who is sanctified is Christ Himself. This interpretation allows even less room for understanding this passage to be talking about someone who has been in Covenant with God.
By contrast I would like to suggest another passage that shows a non-mixed community on the New Covenant. I know that you said that Jer 31:31-34 is an "obscure and foggy prophetic text," but I think that it’s use in Hebrews 8: 7-13 shows other wise. The author of Hebrews seems to see it as an important text in understanding the New Covenant.
ReplyDelete"For if the first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with this, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
In this passage the author tells us a number of things that will characterize the New Covenant. These are things that did not characterize the Old Covenant in the same way(that was the problem with Old Covenant). These are the specifically different things about the New Covenant that are pointed out:
1) God says He will put His law in their minds, and write them on their hearts.
2) No one will have to teach his neighbor or his brother to Know the Lord.
3) Because everyone in this covenant will Know the Lord.
4) This applies to everyone in the covenant, from the least to the greatest.
5) God will be merciful to these people by no longer remembering their sins, unriughteousness, or lawless deeds.
Can these things be said of unregenerate people? Has God written His law on the minds and the hearts of unregenerate men in this way?
Do unregenerate people actually Know the Lord? Of course, knowing the Lord here means much more than mere intellectual assent, but a personal relationship (I am assuming I don't need to argue for that, but I can if you would like).
Has God been merciful to unregenerate people by no longer remembering their sins, unrighteousness, and lawless deeds?
I think that we must answer "No" to these questions. To answer "Yes" to any of them would be to contradict basic principles of Reformed Theology (and of course scripture). In fact, we can see here that the problem with the Old Covenant was that the law wasn't written on the minds and hearts of everyone in this way. Those in the "covenant community" did have to teach their brothers and neighbors to Know the Lord. It wasn't true that everyone from the least to the greatest Knew the Lord. It wasn't true that God had been merciful to everyone in the covenant community by no longer remember their sins. Here, Jeremiah as well as the author of the Hebrews shows a fundamental difference between the Old Covenant and the New. The Old Covenant was a mixed community in its First tier understanding. But, the New Covenant is not mixed and that makes it a better covenant as the author here says (Heb 10:6).
Furthermore, this New Covenant spoken of in Jer 31 and now in Heb should not be understood only eschatologically. The context of Heb 8 shows that is must be understood in the context of the present day. It comes in the middle of the discussion of how Christ is a better mediator and better priest than any in the Old Covenant. This high priest is currently active in performing His priestly duties. In fact, just off the top of my head, I wonder if Christ's priestly duties will cease entirely in the New Heavens and the New Earth. After all, there will no longer be any sin that will need a priest or mediator. If that is the case, then it is impossible to understand the context of Heb 8 as referring to the future eschatological culmination. It must be seen as operating during this time where there is still sin in the world and we do still need a mediator.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part I think what I have said above also addresses the other issues raised in your comments to Sam, so I will not address them further.
Again, I hope these comments don't come as a personal attack, they certainly aren't meant that way. If you need me to clarify anything I have said please feel free to ask and I will be glad to attempt to state things more clearly.
I am looking forward to seeing you back at school Nate! I hope your summer is going well!
Sorry about all the deleted comments. I had made a mistake in one of the top posts, and so I deleted and reposted several of them so that they would stay in the correct order. Hopefully that won't make it too confusing to try to read.
ReplyDeleteHello Micah!
ReplyDeleteI see we are in for a good discussion! I will respond sometime next week after I am finished with writing my sermon. Just to clarify my arguments: I am not saying that Reformed Baptists reject the P in TULIP, rather I am saying if they were consistent then they would deny the P in TULIP. So I wanted to quickly clarify that lest you or anyone else thinks I am saying such an absurd thing as Reformed Baptists reject TULIP. Well thank you for your time and your great arguments. I cannot wait for next week when I get to respond to them! I hope you are doing well.
In Christ,
NPT
Hey Nate, I just wanted to let you know that I am getting too busy to be able to respond again myself. I am looking forward to hearing your final response to these things. I suppose it is also only fair that since this is your blog that you get the last word. Thanks for this interaction, it has been fun and edifying.
ReplyDeleteHello Micah, Thank you for a very stimulating discussion. I have responded below.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Post 1: Both of you have handled yourselves in a very honorable and academically respectable fashion. I am proud to have interacted with both of you on this level. I could only hope to have conducted myself as respectable as you two men have. So with that being said nothing you have said in your response was the least bit nasty nor where there anything close to a personal attack.
As for your refutation of my philosophical argument you made a distinction between the absolute commandments of God that flow from his nature that apply to all times/places and just a mere positive command. There are two problems with this distinction as it functions to defeat paedobaptism. The first problem is that I could even grant your distinction and I would argue that children being in the a redemptive covenant community is an absolute commandment of God. This commandment seems like a good candidate for an absolute commandment of God because the Reformed argue that if God is to create and redeem then it necessarily follows that these redemptive covenants would include persons in the covenant and their children. This would seem to follow naturally because 1) this is what the Father did with the Son in the intertrinitarian relationship and 2) in every redemptive covenant God has made it has included believers and their children. So for these two reasons it seems that children in the covenant community is a part of the essential natural operation of God and so this would then prove the conclusion that having children in the covenant community would be one of God's absolute operations. The second problem is that there are good philosophical and biblical reasons to believe that this distinction is not tenable. My contention is that in one way or another all moral laws reflect the nature of God, but I would agree that there are commandments that are specific to a time and a set of circumstances. You might ask: how do these circumstantial laws reflect God's character necessarily. Well I would say they reflect God's character in a consequentially necessary fashion, that is to say once God has set up the world with properties x and y then God's nature is such that he would command S*. Furthermore, if you were consistent with your reasoning then lying would not be an absolute commandment because it does not apply to all times and places (I will support this below). This entails that because it is not absolute commandment of God that it does not flow of God's nature. But clearly lying which is a part of the Law of God does flow out of God's character. The support that lying does not apply to all times and places is the story of Rehab who lies to saves in the book of Joshua and in the book of James 2:25 she is praised for the act of lying to save peoples lives. This is also true of the mid-wives in Exodus 1. There can be no doubt that lying reflects the nature of God if one reads Hebrews 6 (God's unchanging promise to Abraham and being impossible for him to lie in his Divine nature), but your distinction would entail that lying does not flow from the nature of God. So your distinct does not really hold because 1) all of God's commandments reflect his nature, 2) some of God's commandments that do not apply to all places and times are even said to be based on God's nature. Therefore, this distinction cannot defeat my principle because it is untenable.
I would say that the reason why we do not build an Ark or flee from Exodus are implicitly abrogated because those commandments clearly come out of specific circumstances like us being enslaved to Egypt and God wanting to start a covenant to point to our redemption in Christ. The same is true of Noah it was to function as a sign of redemption and as recreation event. God even says it will never occur against so there is no reason for us to build an Ark and put animals in it. The same cannot be argued of children being in the covenant community and given a sign because it was binding on the people of God throughout most of the Old Testament period and it stays in force through two covenants (Moses and David).
ReplyDeleteThe Abrahamic Covenant has built into a fulfillment in the New Covenant so it is not abolished or set aside but fulfilled. But having the promise met does not destroy the covenant that was previously established as Paul teaches in Galatians. So there would be no contradiction between the Abrahamic and New Covenant because the New covenant is a promise of the Abrahamic covenant. But what is in the Abrahamic covenant should be assumed to binding unless it abrogated. I did not argue that all covenants are eternal (Mosaic covenant is abolished in Galatians 3), but merely Paul is using that argument to establish that of the Abrahamic covenant. I believe I have refuted Sam's argument about the two tiers, so I will appeal to my previous response to that argument.
Response to Post 2: To be clear my explanation of the Col. 2:11-12 is that Paul is talking about regeneration, but Paul is using circumcision and baptism as signs of regeneration. These signs that refer to the inward reality have now been replaced and this evident by Paul saying we have “this circumcision by having been baptized”. You say that Paul is referring to spiritual circumcision and baptism, but the problem is these are physical images. The spiritual reality is the same in the Old and New Testament with those who regenerated, but what does differ is the physical sign, so it would make no sense for Paul to draw a difference because regeneration in the Old and New Testament is the same. I think the paedobaptist has a better explanation of this text because we can explain why Paul using visual physical language as signs to refer to spiritual reality of regeneration. You have said that Paul is telling the Jews that they have a better circumcision than physical circumcision because they have been regenerated. But circumcision and circumcision of the heart (regeneration) are compatible and true of the Old Testament Jews who were believers so clearly Paul cannot refute the practice of circumcision by referring to regeneration because that is true of the Old Testament. But what would refute the Jewish legalists would be an appeal to the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice and an appeal to the fact that baptism has been replaced by circumcision. Therefore, I do not believe I have gone to far in saying that circumcision is replaced by baptism because that is what the text says it and any other interpretation does not explain the text as well as the paedobaptist interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI would say that Col. 2:11-12 is referring to regeneration and the sufficiency of Christ, so I am not saying that baptism and circumcision when they are applied suggests that everyone they are applied to are saved or regenerate. But what I am claiming is that baptism and circumcision are physical signs of the regeneration. So to be clear I do not think Col. 2:11-12 is teaching that all applications of physical baptism or circumcision brings about regeneration, but what I would say every instance of baptism or circumcision points as a sign to regeneration the reality of regeneration even though the person may not be presently regenerate. Just like how Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the righteousness that he had by faith alone, but that does not mean every infant that received circumcision was justified by faith alone.
Response to Post 3: I do not think that appealing to parallel Gospel texts will help interpret this passage because Matthew is the only one who separates Jesus telling the disciples to be like children (Matt. 18:1-5) and Jesus telling children that they are in the kingdom of God (Matt. 19:13-14). So Matthew separates these two historical events to communicate different theology than the other Gospel writers were. The type of children that Matthew is appealing to in the context are the sort of children that are brought and are very small children (this is what the Greek word means, can mean Infants). So children who being raised by those who trust Jesus enough to bring their children to Jesus, children of those parents are in the covenant community. Not all children are in the kingdom of God, but only children such as those. Thus, it is not the children themselves, but rather it is those who bring them to Jesus that get them into the kingdom of God.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Post 4: As for the two different interpretations of Hebrews 10:29, no where in the New Testament is the word covenant ever used for the Lord's supper and/or a mere profession of faith. The text draws a parallel between those who were in the covenant of Moses and those who are in the New covenant (v. 28). Lastly, the person who falls away is seen by the author to be a person part of the people of God (v. 30-31). Only those who are actually in the covenant in the Old Testament were those who were the people of God and here we see that predicated of those who are unbelieving and in the new covenant.
ReplyDeleteAs for Christ being the one who is sanctified: This interpretation is implausible because the emphasis on the passage is on the persons who were punished who are in the Old Covenant and those who are punished eternally in the New covenant. The argument is based on the transgressor in the covenant rather than Christ bringing about his own sanctification or being set apart in the covenant. This still does not get around the clear phrase that this person who is judged eschatologically is of the people of God (v. 30).
Therefore, it seems that someone who holds to the historical grammatical method of exegesis cannot consistently hold to the five points of Calvinism while rejecting a mixed covenant community.
Response to Post 5: The way the author of Hebrews 8 interprets Jeremiah 31 by saying that the passage is teaching that it is better than the Mosaic covenant and that the Mosaic covenant is coming to the end. This interpretation has nothing to do with the Reformed baptist claim that all in the covenant are regenerate. As I have argued your points 2-4 of exegesis from Jeremiah 31 could be in a Post-mill (referring tons of being saved in the world and the new covenant) or it could be understood in a amill way referring to the state of affairs that will obtain in the New Heavens and the New Earth. It cannot mean that all are regenerate in the New Covenant because we have to let the New Testament interpret the Old (Hebrews 10:29), and we have to let the clear interpret the unclear. 1 through 5 only refer to the regenerate in the New Covenant and not to the regenerate (post mill view). But on the a-mill interpretation it applies to all in the New heavens and the New earth. So there is still stronger reason to interpret this passage in a-mill or post-mill way rather than a Reformed baptist way.
ReplyDeleteResponse to post 6: The author of Hebrews is only addressing the superiority of the New covenant and the fact that Mosaic covenant is ending. He using Jeremiah 31 to justify those conclusions but there could be other aspects of Jeremiah 31 that deal with effects of the New Covenant like it bringing about heaven earth or by a massive conversion. We are not getting that all people are saved in the New covenant from the author of Hebrews interpretation of Jeremiah 31, rather he thinks that the covenant community now is mixed (10:29) and he never mentions this in the preceding and proceeding context of his interpretation of Hebrews 8.
ReplyDeleteThis was a great discussion and I have enjoyed this very much. I hope you enjoy the rest of the summer and I look forward to seeing you as well next semester. We should hang out sometime and get some lunch. You were very friendly in this discussion and this is a Reformed baptist friendly blog, so all is well.
In Christ Jesus,
NPT
Hi Nathanael,
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be totally committed to the covenant of grace view of the covenants. I have developed an alternative view based on a detailed exegesis of Genesis 17. I found that there is no such thing as a covenant of grace. You may be interested in reading my document.
Regards,
Johan