Hello Paul, [/quote]
Let's try again. You wrote:-
Originally posted by Paul manata
Anyway, my point is the same as Calvin's: what can the anti-paedobaptist bring against us that could not have been brought against Abraham. So, you're focusing on a minor. Credocircumcisionist is not germain to what I have said, it was rhetorical. But instead of picking on that name, deal with the underlying theme.
Paul, Abraham received a command from God to circumcise all his male offspring and household, even Ishmael, whom he knew beyond all doubt was
not in the covenant (Gen 17:18-21, 26-27 ). We have received no such command. We are commanded to baptize disciples. I really can't follow your argument here.
You continued:-
You *tried* to make an argument:
[1] We are in the New Covenant,
[2] which according to Heb 8:9 is "Not according to the [first] Covenant."
[3] Therefore there should be no such thing as a Paedobaptist, because it confuses the two covenants.
This isn't a valid argument. You've not tied any of the premises to the conclsuion. Paedobaptism is not in any of your premises, but your conclusion uses the term. Therefore, your conclusion goes beyond the premises. So as it stands, I don't need to respond, unless you think we are in the dispensation of concluding things based upon poor reasoning?
Well, the construct of my argument above is yours, not mine, but it will serve. The point is clear enough. If we are told by the Holy Spirit that the New Covenant will be 'Not according to' the First Covenant, then it is not for us to second-guess Him by imposing Moses upon Christ, which is to impose the shadow upon the substance (Col 2:17 ).
You continued:-
You wrote: "Well, I think you need to think about this a little more. It might be interesting to look at what the Bible says about physical circumcision and circumcision of the heart, and then at physical baptism and baptism in the Spirit. I'd be interested to know what you find."
So you're telling me what I need to think about more. Then you tell me what would be interesting for me to see. This just seems highly general. Maybe you're just throwing out something that has the look of an interesting point, but without anything to go on, how should I respond? That is to say, what the heck are you getting at here?
The point I'm making is that the First (Mosaic) Covenant is totally different from the New Covenant. The First was written on tablets of stone and was 'a ministry of death' because it gave no power to keep it; the NC is writtem on 'tablets of flesh, that is, on the heart' (1Cor 3 ). And so it is written of circumcision:-
'"Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "that I will punish all who are circumcised with those who are uncircumcised- Egypt, Judah, Edom, the people of Ammon, Moab........ For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart' (Jer 9:25-26 ). Physical circumcision did not lead to heart circumcision. But of the New Covenant it is written:-
'For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit' (1Cor 12:13 ). Paul is speaking of Sprit baptism here, not water baptism. All the Corinthians, says the Holy Spirit, possess the reality- they are in the body of Christ. It is those who are the proper subjects of water baptism. In other words, in the OC, fleshly circumcision (the sign) came first and rarely led to heart circumcision (the reality). In the NC, Spirit baptism (conversion- the reality) comes first and water baptism (the outward sign) comes afterwards.
That mistakes are often made and unconverted people baptized, even in NT times is quite true, but that in no way negates the command of Christ.
'Let God be true and every man a liar!' As far as in us lies, we need to seek a pure church. Israel was the harlot; the Church is the chaste bride.
You continued:-
I previously wrote: "My point is that baptism is, among other things, the sign of membership in the New Covenant. If children are in said covenant then they should receive the sign. So, I don't technically need any link between circumcision and baptism. I just need to show that children are in the NC.
Well, do so, brother. But you'll have to do better than you've done so far.
Now, some *similarities* are helpful between the two because then, when the baptist tries to say that baptism signifies, say, X, and so based on that I can't give baptism to infants because infants don't (or should be presumed not to) have X, I just point out that circumcision also signified X and so if we exclude the one then how is it not arbitrary to not exclude the other. The credocircumcisionist would have to argue against Abraham. "
I
think I've covered this above, but if you want to take this further, then you'll have to tell me what X is. And straw man arguments are not valid ones.
You continued in response to me:-
You wrote:
"No, Paul. based on that principle, you don't need any verses that say you should circumcise (male) infants (But cf. Gal 5:3 etc). However, you do need one saying that you should baptize infants, and you haven't got one, not even in the OT " 
My reply: Where did you show I don't need any verses which say to circumcise infants? I previously said that, as a basic and general rule, I assume that if God commands something I consider it binding until he revokes it. But, using logic, if the Bible said that all male covenant members should be circumcised, then I can conclude that male infants, in the covenant, should be circumcised.
So far, so good. Why then, are you not still circumcising your male children?
Also, I've explained why I don't need a verse which says I need to baptize infants, you didn't respond but again used the "emoticon refutation." But, if you're serious, that is, about me needing a *specific* verse for me to do something, then where is you specific verse which says: "Give the Lord's supper to women?" Now, I know it is easily *inferred,* but there is no "verse" which *specifically* says to do this. I think you know we can infer things, using that little thing called a mind that God gave us, to conclude doctrinal positions.
I showed that the inference concerning women and the Lord's Supper was both good and necessary. If there were a text that spoke of only men partaking, then it would be a different matter. You need to prove to me that the alleged inference of paedo-baptism is both good and necessary in the teeth of numerous texts which either command, relate or assume the baptism of adults.
Now I'd like to deal with Jer 32:37-41 which someone brought up earlier (cf. also Deut 30:6 etc.).
Behold, I will gather them up out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, in My wrath and in great indignation; and I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety. And they shall be My people and I shall be their God; and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may always fear Me, for their own good and FOR THE GOOD OF THEIR CHILDREN AFTER THEM. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I WILL PUT THE FEAR OF ME IN THEIR HEARTS SO THAT THEY WILL NOT TURN AWAY FROM ME.'
Now if this is supposed to be saying that God will always convert the children of believers, then God is the most monstrous liar and Eli, Samuel, David, Soloman, Hezekiah, Josiah and many others will rise up on the Last Day to tell Him so, not to mention men like Francis Turretine and J.C.Ryle whose children were baptized as infants, received high position in the Church because of their fathers' piety, yet apostacized (most dreadfully in the case of Turretine).
But of course that is not what this text means. It is a promise of the New and Everlasting Covenant (cf. Heb 13:20 ). Every heart in this covenant is changed and will not break the covenant. They will not turn away. The New and Everlasting Covenant cannot be broken because God promises to give a heart to keep it. Jeremiah does not say that every physical seed of the heart-changed will be heart-changed (Gal 3:7 again!), but only that it will be for
'the good of their children after them.' Obviously it is 'good' for children to be raised in a Christian home where they can hear the word of God and where their parents are in constant prayer for them, but I do not think that is Jeremiah's meaning; the children are the spiritual children, not the physical (Isaiah 54:1-3. cf. Mark 10:29-31 ).
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
Never have been; never will be. Straw man!
(That's a really nice theological term, isn't it? Well, if you can use it, then I can use it.)
and start reading the Bible 
for what it is: ONE book . . . not 2. ONE covenant of grace, not 2. Children always have been, and always will be, included in the covenant along with their parents. Scripture is plain about that in both the OT and the NT.
.
here, so I think we may as well draw this exchange to an end.