tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post5495982785645667274..comments2023-09-17T02:56:56.917-07:00Comments on Reason From Scripture: A Defense of Covenant Infant Baptism Part 1Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-74510938777097529862011-03-01T04:20:19.047-08:002011-03-01T04:20:19.047-08:00Hi Nathanael,
You seem to be totally committed to ...Hi Nathanael,<br />You 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.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />JohanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-11176333178383874902010-07-19T22:34:05.115-07:002010-07-19T22:34:05.115-07:00Response to post 6: The author of Hebrews is only...Response 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.<br /><br />This 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. <br /><br />In Christ Jesus,<br /><br />NPTNathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-38530849926645068352010-07-19T22:20:26.463-07:002010-07-19T22:20:26.463-07:00Response to Post 5: The way the author of Hebrews ...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.Nathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-25493187610895372462010-07-19T22:05:17.450-07:002010-07-19T22:05:17.450-07:00Response to Post 4: As for the two different inter...Response 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. <br /><br />As 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). <br /><br />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.Nathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-76895653479329808032010-07-19T21:40:52.383-07:002010-07-19T21:40:52.383-07:00Response to Post 3: I do not think that appealing ...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.Nathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-19575884942319251382010-07-19T21:15:29.687-07:002010-07-19T21:15:29.687-07:00Response to Post 2: To be clear my explanation of ...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. <br /><br />I 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.Nathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-89656452192671449632010-07-19T20:47:49.414-07:002010-07-19T20:47:49.414-07:00I would say that the reason why we do not build an...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). <br /><br />The 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.Nathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-33438733221543511452010-07-19T20:47:08.407-07:002010-07-19T20:47:08.407-07:00Hello Micah, Thank you for a very stimulating dis...Hello Micah, Thank you for a very stimulating discussion. I have responded below.<br /><br />Response 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. <br /><br />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.Nathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-2037155383439481582010-07-19T12:10:12.448-07:002010-07-19T12:10:12.448-07:00Hey Nate, I just wanted to let you know that I am ...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.Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-12390622647108346492010-07-14T17:59:23.026-07:002010-07-14T17:59:23.026-07:00Hello Micah!
I see we are in for a good discussio...Hello Micah!<br /><br />I 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.<br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />NPTNathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-84422384749686751392010-07-14T10:35:02.671-07:002010-07-14T10:35:02.671-07:00Sorry about all the deleted comments. I had made a...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.Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-85813517752957978062010-07-14T10:33:35.172-07:002010-07-14T10:33:35.172-07:00Furthermore, this New Covenant spoken of in Jer 31...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. <br /><br /><br />For 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I am looking forward to seeing you back at school Nate! I hope your summer is going well!Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-39374391735578419552010-07-14T10:32:41.917-07:002010-07-14T10:32:41.917-07:00By contrast I would like to suggest another passag...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. <br />"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."<br /><br />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:<br />1) God says He will put His law in their minds, and write them on their hearts.<br />2) No one will have to teach his neighbor or his brother to Know the Lord.<br />3) Because everyone in this covenant will Know the Lord.<br />4) This applies to everyone in the covenant, from the least to the greatest.<br />5) God will be merciful to these people by no longer remembering their sins, unriughteousness, or lawless deeds.<br /><br />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? <br />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).<br />Has God been merciful to unregenerate people by no longer remembering their sins, unrighteousness, and lawless deeds?<br /><br />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).Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-50133330454145765452010-07-14T10:31:47.068-07:002010-07-14T10:31:47.068-07:00will now respond to some of the comments you made ...will now respond to some of the comments you made in response to Sam.<br /><br />You 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." <br /><br />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: <br /><br />“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" <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-62175971680601051492010-07-14T10:14:36.656-07:002010-07-14T10:14:36.656-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-86459739606528787242010-07-14T09:58:59.361-07:002010-07-14T09:58:59.361-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-84561504792947568512010-07-14T09:56:50.736-07:002010-07-14T09:56:50.736-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-13273687090608753522010-07-14T09:54:11.246-07:002010-07-14T09:54:11.246-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-44824720176301000762010-07-14T09:53:07.323-07:002010-07-14T09:53:07.323-07:00Your third argument is that Children are in the Co...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."<br /><br />Jesus 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).<br /><br />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.Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-65114487947024861102010-07-14T09:51:11.585-07:002010-07-14T09:51:11.585-07:00Your second argument was that Baptism replaced Cir...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. <br /><br />Interestingly, 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?<br /><br />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.Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-983622808169965232010-07-14T09:46:54.357-07:002010-07-14T09:46:54.357-07:00Hi Nate!
This is Micah Renihan. Sam told me about...Hi Nate! <br />This 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.<br />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.<br /><br />First, I would like to offer my own responses to your three arguments.<br />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"<br /><br />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”."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).Micahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11609292401041793666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-77360031958703043812010-07-13T12:55:25.811-07:002010-07-13T12:55:25.811-07:00Hello Sam,
Take your time, I know how preaching c...Hello Sam,<br /><br />Take 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.<br /><br />In Christ Jesus,<br /><br />NPTNathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-12033687530708510312010-07-13T11:39:26.355-07:002010-07-13T11:39:26.355-07:00Hey Nate,
Sam here, I'm not sure if I will h...Hey Nate, <br /><br />Sam 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?Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06846154290165445292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-14085218850547361652010-07-13T00:48:10.562-07:002010-07-13T00:48:10.562-07:00Hello Aaron,
I never appeal to church history, ju...Hello Aaron,<br /><br />I 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.<br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />NPTNathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6694031944500217799.post-11923142063848929522010-07-13T00:32:11.943-07:002010-07-13T00:32:11.943-07:00Response to post 3: I would actually take the Klin...Response 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:<br /><br />Matthew 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. <br /><br />So we see at the end of the age there will be no mixed covenant community.<br /><br />Thank you for your time Sam. I have enjoyed this discussion.<br /><br />God Bless,<br /><br />NPTNathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.com