Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn
Dear Dr. Clark,
...A large section of your first paper constantly refers to, and seems to depend on, the concept of "believer's and their children". These, you argue, are the proper subjects of baptism, just as they were the proper subjects of circumcision.
My question is this: where does the OT say that circumcision was for believer's and their children? Was it not for any male associated with Abraham's household, regardless of faith, ethnicity or age (Gen 17:7-14)? And then during the time of Israel, was it not for anyone within the territorial boundaries of that state?
Cheers,
Shawn
Hi Shawn,
It would be helpful for the purposes of discussion if you could also read the essay on the church as it is material to this discussion.
I think the baptism essay gives answer my answer to your question, at least implicitly. Under Abraham, initiation was certainly for believers and their children. The essay does not address explicitly the question of whether others might also properly receive initiation because its burden is to establish that there is a biblical pattern of covenant initiation for believers and their children. Whether others can be properly administered is immaterial to that question. If the narrower question is established, then it is established, regardless of what else might be true.
To address your question directly, Gen 17:10-14 makes it clear that men other than Abraham were to be circumcised, including slaves. These subjects of initiation had the social status of children. They were not legal persons (i.e., autonomous). They are image-bearers of course, and under divine protection as human beings (Gen 9), but for purposes of covenant administration, they are regarded as subsidiaries of the covenant head. They are recipients of the promises of the covenant of grace just as the children and so are included in the initiation rite.
As I understand it, the generic Baptist view is that only believers are eligible for covenant initiation, but under Abraham unbelieving adults (or at least some whose profession we can reasonably doubt) were initiated into the covenant of grace by divine command. Thus, the Baptists must establish that whatever God did under Abraham, that pattern has been altered in the NT, so that only believers are initiated into the covenant community now.
This is why I asked you to read the two essays. If the term "œOld Covenant" is used very narrowly by Paul to refer to the Mosaic epoch, as seems clear in 2 Cor 3 (by Hebrews and in Jer 31) then Abraham is not, strictly speaking, an "œold covenant" figure. He is a pre-Christian or proto-Christian figure and this is how Paul seems to view him in Rom 3-4 and Gal 3-4.
In that case, the presumption would seem to lie with general, substantial continuity between Abraham and New Covenant practice. I say "œsubstantial" to distinguish between substance and accidents. Circumcision was accidental to covenant initiation. It was capable of being changed. It does not appear that the proper subjects of covenant initiation have changed.
It seems clear to me (as to most paedobaptsts) that just as there were those under Abraham who were not covenant children but were subsidiaries of the head of household received covenant initiation. This is the ground for appealing to the example of Acts 16. Whether "œoikos" contains children, it must contain adults. Do we know that everyone of them came to faith? Luke does not say? Why not? The pattern of Abraham is assumed. This would seem to be the best explanation of Paul's language in 1 Cor 7. How else can children of believers be considered ritually "holy" and thus eligible for covenant initiation, unless Paul assumes a strong continuity with Abraham?
Remember, covenant initiation does not confer righteousness before God. It initiates. It initiates folk into the authorized, official sphere of God´s saving work. The promise of initiation is that whoever believes has what the sign signifies. To those who actually do believe, it guarantees that the promise is true not only generally, but specifically.
Thus, regarding the administration of covenant initiation the question is not "œhas one believed" but to whom has God commanded that the sign and seal be applied? The command in Genesis 17 is quite clear and there is no equally clear revocation of that command in the NT. Hence the presumption of continuity with Abraham, the father of all who believe,
rsc
ps. I did a quick electronic check of the web page:
http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Infant_Baptism.html. I don't think I used the expression "believer's and their children." This is ungrammatical. I did say: "Both believing adults and their children are described by the word 'household.'" My theology might be wrong, but, in this case anyway, my grammar wasn't.
Why? Because we will come with Western, individualistic assumptions about the covenant instead of biblical ones (which from the beginning included believers and their seed).