Children that have the sign of the covenant

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by gwine
In reality Scott I was referring to the paedo / credo debate in toto (hope the Latin is right.) Others in previous threads (which I can't seem to find the reference to right now - maybe 1984 hit again) have made similar comments, along the lines of "I won't respond to that since the answer is so obvious," and the like. All I am trying to say is that if it was so obvious, then we wouldn't have such division.

May I humbly suggest that the word "obvious" be used with caution?

Truly Brother! We have to have paedobaptistic eyes to see!

Of course, some issues should be perspicuous. Just because we debate with Roman Catholics on Justification doesn't mean the truth isn't manifest.

In this case, I'm willing to be patient because I know the other camp is within the Camp.

 

[Mocha]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Mike,
Simple question: Did God command a sign to be placed upon all male children?

Actually, I'm glad you challenged me on that. I was prepared to say "yes", but when I actually read Genesis 17, I saw that only Abraham's circumcision is a "sign". It is true that all males had to be circumcised, but never once is it referred to as a "sign" being placed on the male children.

I think I just caught on to something very important in this discussion. If you can prove to me that God actually did command a sign to be placed upon all male children, I would really love to see it!

Mike

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Mocha

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Mike,
Simple question: Did God command a sign to be placed upon all male children?

Actually, I'm glad you challenged me on that. I was prepared to say "yes", but when I actually read Genesis 17, I saw that only Abraham's circumcision is a "sign". It is true that all males had to be circumcised, but never once is it referred to as a "sign" being placed on the male children.

I think I just caught on to something very important in this discussion. If you can prove to me that God actually did command a sign to be placed upon all male children, I would really love to see it!

Mike

Mike, your observation here prompted me to do an online Bible search for passages containing both "circumcize" (or any variation) and "sign" (or any variation). Sure enough, Genesis 17:11 and Romans 4:11 were the only two verses that came up, both of them referring to the same command and promise to Abraham.

So going by the English, your observation above is correct. But I then thought of something on which I could not help but wonder further, and that is whether the two uses of the word "you" at the beginning and end of verse 11 were singular or plural, as that would have tremendous implications for the issue at hand, and especially for your current question.

With my limited knowledge of Classical Greek, and an online comparison of Koine and Attic verb forms, I looked at Genesis 17:11 in the LXX, and found that both uses are indeed plural. The imperative (command-verb) at the beginning ("You shall be circumcized...") is indeed conjugated for the plural form of "you" rather than the singular, and the promise at the end ("...between me and you") contains the plural form of the "you" pronoun, rather than the singular.

Thus, in the command and promise in Genesis 17:11, both referring to circumcision as a corresponding sign, the "you" being spoken to is properly interpreted as referring to Abraham and his offspring, rather than Abraham singularly - at least in the LXX. For anyone who knows Hebrew, I would be interested to know if the Hebrew agrees with the LXX on the imperative and pronoun both being written as plural cases of "you."

 

[Steve Owen]

Hello Rich,
You wrote:-

This truly takes my breath away. Only an atomistic reading of the Scriptures or a reading so intent on avoiding covenantal language would ignore the parallels here. It is pure eisegesis to make the promise to the children of the listeners contingent upon adult repentance and faith.

[/b]
No brother, it is you who is intent on reading the Old Covenant into the New, when you are clearly told that it will be, 'Not according to the [Old] Covenant.' Just look at the context of Acts 2. Peter focusses on Joel's prophecy of the New Covenant, which ends, 'And....whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' He does not come near to Abraham and it is not for you to import him into the text. That is eisogesis.

Scott's note about Biblical Theology is right on target. You not only parse texts into individual terms to ignore a larger point but you seem to challenge the immutability of God's character itself. Is God a God that saves us and our children or not.

If you mean that God promises to save our physical children purely because we are Christians, then absolutely not! John 1:13 and 3:6 should be sufficient proof against that presumption. But listen to the words of our Lord.

Luke 8:21. 'My mother and My brothers are they who hear the word of God and do it.'

Luke 12:51-53. ' Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided, three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother aganst daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-lw and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.'

Luke 21:16. 'You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death.'

This is absolutely the reality for many Christians today throughout the world. This, if you will, is real Christianity. It involves suffering.

Mark 10:29-30. "Assuredly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time- houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and lands, with persecutions- and in the age to come, eternal life.'

The church has to be the family for many whose blood family have rejected their faith. That is surely the meaning of the verses above. We must put, as Paul puts it, 'No confidence in the flesh.'

I really don't know how you can even utilize the Old Testament faithfully given the need to protect yourself from any covenantal implications that apply to you.

Well your lack of understanding is your problem and not mine. I absolutely do not reject the Old Testament in any way, but it must be read in the fuller light of the New.

The book of Proverbs is written from a father to a covenant son and showing the way of wisdom. Can't use that for your kids anymore. Out goes Proverbs.

Don't talk rubbish. 'My son, if you receive my words, and treasure my commandments.......' The promises are conditional. We would doubtless agree that the father here is Solomon, and so the son is presumably Rehoboam. Not much room for 'confidence in the flesh' there!

Among the Psalms it seems you've got to jettison at least Psalm 78.

On the contrary. 'He also gave His people over to the sword, and was furious with His inheritance. What a splendid illustration of Gal 3:7! Read it in conjunction with Hosea 2:23. But you must also read the OT in the light of the New, and understand that the OT is about Christ (John 5:49 ), not about Abraham.

Your system allows you to explain away all the Scriptural "anomolies" you face but it's terribly complicated to have to keep reading things into Scripture passages, is it not? It just seems like so much plate spinning to me.

Well you would think that, wouldn't you, because you're locked in your hermeneutical system and you can't escape. To me it is just reading what the Scripture says and comparing Scripture with Scripture to explain seeming anomalies. I see no true 'anomalies'; the word of God is consistent. But if you try to impose Abraham onto Christ you are placing the shadow before the substance and putting the new wine into old bottles.

Further, you have never addressed the absence of any kind of "paedobaptist heresy" in the apostolic Church. Why the silence?

I don't believe that paedo-baptism is a heresy. It is a mistaken view, but hey, no one's perfect. I do have the deepest reservations concerning Presumptive Regeneration since it seems to deny John 1:13 & 3:6, and indeed the whole doctrine of the New Birth.

But if you want to talk Church history, I'm your man! Bring it on!

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[LawrenceU]

Very well said, Martin!

 

[Mocha]

Is baptism a 'seal' at the moment an infant is baptized?

James Bannerman, a Presbyterian, comments on this in the following excerpt:

In this respect there is an obvious distinction between the Baptism of infants and the Baptism of adults. Infants are not capable of faith and repentance; and Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration. But it may become a seal of such blessings afterwards, when the child has grown to years of intelligence, and has superinduced upon his Baptism a personal act of faith, and thereby become possessed of the salvation which he had not before. In such a case, he can look back upon his Baptism with water, administered in the days of his unconscious infancy; and through the faith that he has subsequently received, that Baptism which his own memory cannot recall, and to which his own consciusness at the time was a stranger, becomes to him a seal of his now found salvation. In adults it is otherwise; and the difference is appropriate to their condition as adults. Baptism to the believing adult is a seal at the moment of his interest in the covenant of grace; a sensible attestation of the blessings of justification and regeneratrion, of which at the time he is in possession, through the exercise of his faith contemporaneously with his Baptism. In the case of the adult, Baptism is a present seal in connection with the faith which he presently has. In the case of the infant, it is a prospective seal in connection with the faith which he has not at the moment, but which he may have afterwards. The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the adult experiences at the moment of its administration, in virtue of the faith which at the moment makes him a partaker in the blessings of the covenant. The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the infant cannot experience at the moment of its administration, in virtue of his incapacity of faith; but it may be experienced afterwards, when, in consequence of his newly formed faith in Christ, he too is made partaker of the covenant, and can look back in believing confidence on his former Baptism as a seal. (James Bannerman, "The Church of Christ", 2:116-117)

According to James Bannerman, baptism is not a seal to an infant until there is faith. Infant baptism is only a 'prospective' seal.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, also a Presbyterian, says the following:

When the person is baptized, he should be conscious that that grace is conveyed to him personally in a special way, as the lady does with a [wedding] ring. It's to you, in the same way, when we take the bread and the wine at the communion table, we should regard it as God saying, "Now, this is the way I have chosen to tell you that My grace is given to you in particular. You are admitted to this, you are a member of the body, and I am telling you through this bread and through this wine that My grace is coming to you." That's His way of saying it!...It is God's way of telling us that directly. He speaks to us in symbols, and He does it in this special way, that what I have believed in general, I know now personally is mine. That's it's intent and object. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Audio Tape "Sacraments", #2234)


The truth comes, the grace comes, primarily by the word. So that you see it is essential that anybody who is to derive any benefit from the sacrament must be a man of faith. Without faith in the recipient, there is no value whatsoever in baptism or in the Lord's Supper. Because obviously the whole definition rests upon that idea. It is because she already knows this love of this person that that woman values that [wedding] ring. It is confirmation of faith. It's something that seals the faith. So that we emphasize not only the preaching of the word, but the absolute necessity of faith in the recipient. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Audio Tape "Sacraments", #2234)

According to Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the person being baptized should:
- be conscious that the grace is conveyed to him personally
- have faith, otherwise baptism has no value whatsoever

Both Bannerman & Lloyd-Jones see baptism as being a 'seal' only if there is faith.

Dr. Alan Cairns, yet another Presbyterian, says:

I want you to see this. Circumcision might have been a 'sign'. It signified something to Ishmael, as it signified something to the fleshly line, or the children born after the flesh to Abraham, or natural descedants. But it was not a 'seal' to Ishmael. And I will make the point according to the wording of Romans chapter 4, circumcision could not be a 'seal' to anybody who was yet unjustified. It is a 'seal' of that which has already been given or imputed...In other words, a sacramental 'seal' is retrospective, it is never prospective...I say again, the only language of Scripture describing a sacramenatal 'seal', makes the 'seal' retrospective and looks back to what God has already done. It is never said to look forward to what he's going to do...I believe a sacrament is a 'sign' and a 'seal', but I believe that in paedobaptism, it can never be a 'seal' to that child. Do you see what I'm saying? If I believe then in infant baptism, what I'm doing, is that I'm excluding the major significance spiritually of the entire sacrament.Click here to listen to the sermon audio

Three Presbyterians agree that baptism is not a 'seal' the moment an infant is baptized! Faith is needed in order for baptism to be a 'seal'. I realize that this is only three Presbyterians and that there are many more Presbyterians that would disagree with them. But I do believe that they have raised some valid points that deserve our consideration.

Mike

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
No brother, it is you who is intent on reading the Old Covenant into the New, when you are clearly told that it will be, 'Not according to the [Old] Covenant.' Just look at the context of Acts 2. Peter focusses on Joel's prophecy of the New Covenant, which ends, 'And....whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' He does not come near to Abraham and it is not for you to import him into the text. That is eisogesis.

Thanks for the correct spelling of eisogesis so I can label your arguments more accurately. Nevertheless, your orbital equations became even more complicated.

Joel 2:32
And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved .
For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
As the LORD has said,
Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.

That Peter. Reading things from the Old Covenant into the New! But I guess the remnant is only in the New Covenant so he really wasn't. The connection between Joel and Peter is established because he announces: "Hey you Guys! I'm quoting Joel here!" If he hadn't said those words were from the prophet and I said that he was quoting Joel I guess you would be telling me that Peter never brings Joel in either.

Just so we're clear - If an NT writer writes something using the same language as an OT prophet without saying the name of the prophet then we are reading the Old into the New if we connect the two? I'll try to remember that exegetical rule.

But I find it hard to break old habits...

Gen 17:7
And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.

and

Acts 2:39
For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

Are not connected because Peter doesn't say anything about Abraham here? No Jew in his right mind would ever connect those two Scriptures! What was I thinking?!

Oh and also, I'm reading the Old Covenant into the New because I believe God's promise to Abraham was an everlasting covenant?

I claim:

Rom 4:11-14
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

I believe that the promise made to Abraham was everlasting and that Abraham was the father of circumcision to all who believe. I believe that everlasting covenant was to us and to our children. I believe that everlasting covenant has always been spiritual in substance. If that is what you refer to as reading the Old into the New then I am guilty.

If you mean that God promises to save our physical children purely because we are Christians, then absolutely not!

No. I believe the Covenant God who calls me Abraham's heir by faith and I also don't blindly reject Covenantal language because it would gore a sacred cow.

John 1:13 and 3:6 should be sufficient proof against that presumption.

Let's see...

John 1:13
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Yes brother. Read Romans 4:11-14 again. It explains both quite nicely. Only dispensationalists can truly read those verses and still believe the promise to Abraham and his children is some bare fleshly act.

Luke 8:21. 'My mother and My brothers are they who hear the word of God and do it.'

Ah yes and prior to that it was acceptable to be in true Covenant with God and disobey His Word. Are you trying to establish something new here with Christ?

Luke 12:51-53. ' Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided, three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother aganst daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-lw and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.'

Do you have any children? If so, does the proper exegesis of these verses teach you that your children are your enemies?

"Good night James. Sleep tight my enemy."

Paul must have been very confused when he told children to honor their parents based on a promised blessing.

Luke 21:16. 'You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death.'

Again, so our children are our enemies?

This is absolutely the reality for many Christians today throughout the world. This, if you will, is real Christianity. It involves suffering.

On the part of suffering I can agree but not for the reasons you're insinuating. I do experience such contention with my mother and brothers who are in Roman Catholicism. As for my son and daughter, I love them and discipline as a loving father does. I do not believe God suddenly made them my enemies because a new dispensation of the Covenant came along. Instead I rejoice that:

Ps 127:3-5
Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
So are the children of one's youth.
5 Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them;

Mark 10:29-30. "Assuredly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time- houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and lands, with persecutions- and in the age to come, eternal life.'

The church has to be the family for many whose blood family have rejected their faith. That is surely the meaning of the verses above. We must put, as Paul puts it, 'No confidence in the flesh.'

Agreed on the first part but you certainly have a warped view of parenting if you believe those Scriptures extend to our children who are still in our household and haven't the ability to even rebel in such a way yet.

I really don't know how you can even utilize the Old Testament faithfully given the need to protect yourself from any covenantal implications that apply to you.

Well your lack of understanding is your problem and not mine. I absolutely do not reject the Old Testament in any way, but it must be read in the fuller light of the New.

You mean like Romans 4:11-14 perhaps?

The book of Proverbs is written from a father to a covenant son and showing the way of wisdom. Can't use that for your kids anymore. Out goes Proverbs.

Don't talk rubbish. 'My son, if you receive my words, and treasure my commandments.......' The promises are conditional. We would doubtless agree that the father here is Solomon, and so the son is presumably Rehoboam. Not much room for 'confidence in the flesh' there!

My point is that you cannot use any Proverbial wisdom for your own children for your very poor understanding of the Covenant as just demonstrated by that statement. What a sad view of being a Christian parent to see nothing here but Solomon and a reprobate son.

Among the Psalms it seems you've got to jettison at least Psalm 78.

On the contrary. 'He also gave His people over to the sword, and was furious with His inheritance. What a splendid illustration of Gal 3:7! Read it in conjunction with Hosea 2:23. But you must also read the OT in the light of the New, and understand that the OT is about Christ (John 5:49 ), not about Abraham.

You just have to cut out the verses that talk about parental responsibility to train your children because they don't apply to you.

Your system allows you to explain away all the Scriptural "anomolies" you face but it's terribly complicated to have to keep reading things into Scripture passages, is it not? It just seems like so much plate spinning to me.

Well you would think that, wouldn't you, because you're locked in your hermeneutical system and you can't escape. To me it is just reading what the Scripture says and comparing Scripture with Scripture to explain seeming anomalies. I see no true 'anomalies'; the word of God is consistent. But if you try to impose Abraham onto Christ you are placing the shadow before the substance and putting the new wine into old bottles.

Of course you see no anomalies. You're too busy working your complicated math.

Further, you have never addressed the absence of any kind of "paedobaptist heresy" in the apostolic Church. Why the silence?

I don't believe that paedo-baptism is a heresy. It is a mistaken view, but hey, no one's perfect. I do have the deepest reservations concerning Presumptive Regeneration since it seems to deny John 1:13 & 3:6, and indeed the whole doctrine of the New Birth.

But if you want to talk Church history, I'm your man! Bring it on!

Crickets chirping....

So nobody tried to baptize their children and the Apostles never had to deal with the abuse even if it is not "heresy".

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Mocha
According to Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the person being baptized should:
- be conscious that the grace is conveyed to him personally
- have faith, otherwise baptism has no value whatsoever

This is important to clarify. Lloyd-Jones and others like him are not saying that the recipient need exhibit those qualities at the time of the baptism, for as the Confession states, "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" (28.6). They certainly are saying, however, that the fruit of true conversion is absolutely necessary to look for in time, so that the covenant child's conversion through faith as evidenced by that fruit will thereby render him a keeper of that visible covenant he entered at baptism, rather than a breaker. This is the key area where Federal Visionists and the like accuse good Presbyterian and Reformed paedobaptists of being "Baptistic," when in reality the former is merely in the grave error of blurring and ignoring the necessity of true conversion.

One thing that would likely help to clarify the substance and importance of that concept in paedobaptistic thought is the issue of presumptive election versus presumptive regeneration. I personally hold to the former, as I believe the majority of the historic paedobaptist camp does as well, and while certainly not all who hold to the latter exaggerate the sacraments at the expense of conversion and fruit, it is related to some of the same concepts that lead to that road so often. There was a long discussion about the distinction between the two here.

Also, another resource that may help you further understand how confessional paedobaptists understand (and embrace) statements like Lloyd-Jones' in light of their view of the covenant and the sacraments is a sermon my pastor gave a few weeks ago from Joshua, entitled "The Necessity of True Conversion," which you can hear here. Coming from a paedobaptist frame of mind, Pastor Spink specifically mentions and gives attention to the covenantal importance of the sacraments in that whole issue, but at the same time could hardly emphasize the sermon's title to a greater extent, consistently setting us apart from the dissenters who abuse the covenantal mindset of presumption at the expense of conversion, faith and fruit. Let me know what you think of it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Mocha
Is baptism a 'seal' at the moment an infant is baptized?

Mike

Hey Mike, some expended some great energy in this thread on this very topic:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=14681

It was very useful for me.

This thread is a great discussion!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Mocha
Is baptism a 'seal' at the moment an infant is baptized?

James Bannerman, a Presbyterian, comments on this in the following excerpt:

In this respect there is an obvious distinction between the Baptism of infants and the Baptism of adults. Infants are not capable of faith and repentance; and Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration. But it may become a seal of such blessings afterwards, when the child has grown to years of intelligence, and has superinduced upon his Baptism a personal act of faith, and thereby become possessed of the salvation which he had not before. In such a case, he can look back upon his Baptism with water, administered in the days of his unconscious infancy; and through the faith that he has subsequently received, that Baptism which his own memory cannot recall, and to which his own consciusness at the time was a stranger, becomes to him a seal of his now found salvation. In adults it is otherwise; and the difference is appropriate to their condition as adults. Baptism to the believing adult is a seal at the moment of his interest in the covenant of grace; a sensible attestation of the blessings of justification and regeneratrion, of which at the time he is in possession, through the exercise of his faith contemporaneously with his Baptism. In the case of the adult, Baptism is a present seal in connection with the faith which he presently has. In the case of the infant, it is a prospective seal in connection with the faith which he has not at the moment, but which he may have afterwards. The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the adult experiences at the moment of its administration, in virtue of the faith which at the moment makes him a partaker in the blessings of the covenant. The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the infant cannot experience at the moment of its administration, in virtue of his incapacity of faith; but it may be experienced afterwards, when, in consequence of his newly formed faith in Christ, he too is made partaker of the covenant, and can look back in believing confidence on his former Baptism as a seal. (James Bannerman, "The Church of Christ", 2:116-117)

According to James Bannerman, baptism is not a seal to an infant until there is faith. Infant baptism is only a 'prospective' seal.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, also a Presbyterian, says the following:

When the person is baptized, he should be conscious that that grace is conveyed to him personally in a special way, as the lady does with a [wedding] ring. It's to you, in the same way, when we take the bread and the wine at the communion table, we should regard it as God saying, "Now, this is the way I have chosen to tell you that My grace is given to you in particular. You are admitted to this, you are a member of the body, and I am telling you through this bread and through this wine that My grace is coming to you." That's His way of saying it!...It is God's way of telling us that directly. He speaks to us in symbols, and He does it in this special way, that what I have believed in general, I know now personally is mine. That's it's intent and object. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Audio Tape "Sacraments", #2234)


The truth comes, the grace comes, primarily by the word. So that you see it is essential that anybody who is to derive any benefit from the sacrament must be a man of faith. Without faith in the recipient, there is no value whatsoever in baptism or in the Lord's Supper. Because obviously the whole definition rests upon that idea. It is because she already knows this love of this person that that woman values that [wedding] ring. It is confirmation of faith. It's something that seals the faith. So that we emphasize not only the preaching of the word, but the absolute necessity of faith in the recipient. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Audio Tape "Sacraments", #2234)

According to Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the person being baptized should:
- be conscious that the grace is conveyed to him personally
- have faith, otherwise baptism has no value whatsoever

Both Bannerman & Lloyd-Jones see baptism as being a 'seal' only if there is faith.

Dr. Alan Cairns, yet another Presbyterian, says:

I want you to see this. Circumcision might have been a 'sign'. It signified something to Ishmael, as it signified something to the fleshly line, or the children born after the flesh to Abraham, or natural descedants. But it was not a 'seal' to Ishmael. And I will make the point according to the wording of Romans chapter 4, circumcision could not be a 'seal' to anybody who was yet unjustified. It is a 'seal' of that which has already been given or imputed...In other words, a sacramental 'seal' is retrospective, it is never prospective...I say again, the only language of Scripture describing a sacramenatal 'seal', makes the 'seal' retrospective and looks back to what God has already done. It is never said to look forward to what he's going to do...I believe a sacrament is a 'sign' and a 'seal', but I believe that in paedobaptism, it can never be a 'seal' to that child. Do you see what I'm saying? If I believe then in infant baptism, what I'm doing, is that I'm excluding the major significance spiritually of the entire sacrament.Click here to listen to the sermon audio

Three Presbyterians agree that baptism is not a 'seal' the moment an infant is baptized! Faith is needed in order for baptism to be a 'seal'. I realize that this is only three Presbyterians and that there are many more Presbyterians that would disagree with them. But I do believe that they have raised some valid points that deserve our consideration.

Mike

Bannerman is flat out wrong; as is Jones and Cairns! They have shut the door on Gods power and mercy. It extends far out beyond our visual parameters and spectrums. Tell me this, how is it that elect infants dying in infancy are received into glory? Or the imbecile? Or the unborn fetus? I will tell you; by Gods word. The Lord goes to these individuals in a way only the Lord can and imparts grace, faith, repentance, justification. The ordo is packed nicely together for these cases. Who is to say that an infant cannot be regenerate? Based upon what you have Bannerman et. al. saying, no infant can be saved. I would have to believe, knowing Bannerman Jones and Cairns, they would agree with what I have said.

As far as it being a seal, the WCF states:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20



[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Martin (or any other who would like to tackle this):

How would you understand this:

Mal 4:5-6
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.
6 And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers ,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse."

Was it John's job to restore fathers to their children in a fleshly sense in the day of the Lord so Christ could then turn them against one another since they would be disconnected therefafter in a Spiritual sense?

 

[Mocha]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Mocha

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Mike,
Simple question: Did God command a sign to be placed upon all male children?

Actually, I'm glad you challenged me on that. I was prepared to say "yes", but when I actually read Genesis 17, I saw that only Abraham's circumcision is a "sign". It is true that all males had to be circumcised, but never once is it referred to as a "sign" being placed on the male children.

I think I just caught on to something very important in this discussion. If you can prove to me that God actually did command a sign to be placed upon all male children, I would really love to see it!

Mike

Mike, your observation here prompted me to do an online Bible search for passages containing both "circumcize" (or any variation) and "sign" (or any variation). Sure enough, Genesis 17:11 and Romans 4:11 were the only two verses that came up, both of them referring to the same command and promise to Abraham.

So going by the English, your observation above is correct. But I then thought of something on which I could not help but wonder further, and that is whether the two uses of the word "you" at the beginning and end of verse 11 were singular or plural, as that would have tremendous implications for the issue at hand, and especially for your current question.

With my limited knowledge of Classical Greek, and an online comparison of Koine and Attic verb forms, I looked at Genesis 17:11 in the LXX, and found that both uses are indeed plural. The imperative (command-verb) at the beginning ("You shall be circumcized...") is indeed conjugated for the plural form of "you" rather than the singular, and the promise at the end ("...between me and you") contains the plural form of the "you" pronoun, rather than the singular.

Thus, in the command and promise in Genesis 17:11, both referring to circumcision as a corresponding sign, the "you" being spoken to is properly interpreted as referring to Abraham and his offspring, rather than Abraham singularly - at least in the LXX. For anyone who knows Hebrew, I would be interested to know if the Hebrew agrees with the LXX on the imperative and pronoun both being written as plural cases of "you."

Chris, I checked on another discussion group as to whether the 'you' in Gen. 17:11 is plural in the Hebrew. I received a private email back from someone that knows Hebrew and he confirmed that the 'you' is plural.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention!

Mike

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Mocha]

 

[Mocha]

Chris,

Do you believe that baptism is a 'seal' to the infant the moment they are baptized?

James Bannerman says:

Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration. But it may become a seal of such blessings afterwards, when the child has grown to years of intelligence, and has superinduced upon his Baptism a personal act of faith, and thereby become possessed of the salvation which he had not before. In such a case, he can look back upon his Baptism with water, administered in the days of his unconscious infancy; and through the faith that he has subsequently received, that Baptism which his own memory cannot recall, and to which his own consciusness at the time was a stranger, becomes to him a seal of his now found salvation.

Alan Cairns says:

In other words, a sacramental 'seal' is retrospective, it is never prospective...

It seems to me that these two men are saying that the 'sealing' does not take place at the 'time of its administration', but 'may become a 'seal'...afterwards'. So, having believed, one looks back at their baptism, and at that point, it becomes a 'seal'.

Would you agree with them on this?

BTW, I'm planning on reading that thread you recommended on PR and PE later on tonight. I'll let you know what I think later.

Mike

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Mocha
Chris,

Do you believe that baptism is a 'seal' to the infant the moment they are baptized?

James Bannerman says:

Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration. But it may become a seal of such blessings afterwards, when the child has grown to years of intelligence, and has superinduced upon his Baptism a personal act of faith, and thereby become possessed of the salvation which he had not before. In such a case, he can look back upon his Baptism with water, administered in the days of his unconscious infancy; and through the faith that he has subsequently received, that Baptism which his own memory cannot recall, and to which his own consciusness at the time was a stranger, becomes to him a seal of his now found salvation.

Alan Cairns says:

In other words, a sacramental 'seal' is retrospective, it is never prospective...

It seems to me that these two men are saying that the 'sealing' does not take place at the 'time of its administration', but 'may become a 'seal'...afterwards'. So, having believed, one looks back at their baptism, and at that point, it becomes a 'seal'.

Would you agree with them on this?

BTW, I'm planning on reading that thread you recommended on PR and PE later on tonight. I'll let you know what I think later.

Mike

Not trying to answer for Chris, but did you read what the WCF states? I provided it in an earlier post.

 

[Mocha]

Chris,

You said:

Also, another resource that may help you further understand how confessional paedobaptists understand (and embrace) statements like Lloyd-Jones' in light of their view of the covenant and the sacraments is a sermon my pastor gave a few weeks ago from Joshua, entitled "The Necessity of True Conversion," which you can hear here. Coming from a paedobaptist frame of mind, Pastor Spink specifically mentions and gives attention to the covenantal importance of the sacraments in that whole issue, but at the same time could hardly emphasize the sermon's title to a greater extent, consistently setting us apart from the dissenters who abuse the covenantal mindset of presumption at the expense of conversion, faith and fruit. Let me know what you think of it.

I listened to Pastor Spink's this afternoon and enjoyed his sermon very much. I found it ironic that he drew a connection between the crossing of the Jordan with conversion, and then after Israel crossed the Jordan, then the sons of Israel were circumcised. I couldn't help but smile when I heard that!

Mike

 

[Me Died Blue]

to Scott. Mike, I fully agree with the Confession on the issue. As Scott posted above, in 28.1 it notes that "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world."

I cannot emphasize enough here how crucial it is to understand where the divines are coming from in terms of the visible and invisible aspects of the Church, and thus of the Covenant of Grace. The sign does actually seal the infant in the visible Covenant at the time of administration, but as you noted, if and when the child exercises faith in Christ, it is only then that the baptism and their membership in the visible Covenant is also confirmed as having been a sign and seal to his membership in the invisible Church and Covenant as well, as they look back on it as such. It makes perfect sense when circumcision is considered in the same way, noting all of the spiritual references to it in Scripture alongside the significance of its visible role.

And though paedobaptists do sometimes disagree on whether to presume regeneration or just election, we all fully agree that the visible is a very real element, meant to foreshadow the invisible, and a biblical and trustworthy basis on which to presume eventual membership in God's invisible Covenant, similarly to how such presumption is made on one's profession of faith, even though such a profession is never any more a guarentee than is the baptism signifying God's covenant promises. So basically, when you say, "It seems to me that these two men are saying that the 'sealing' does not take place at the 'time of its administration', but 'may become a 'seal'...afterwards'. So, having believed, one looks back at their baptism, and at that point, it becomes a 'seal,'" I would agree with that only insofar as it refers to one's sealing in the invisible Covenant via conversion, justification and adoption, and I would add that we simply presume until fruit shows otherwise that that sealing will come to being from the sealing in the visible Covenant that was actually sealed at the time of baptism, all the while actively encouraging and looking for that fruit.

Am I making sense?

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Question 3: What is the promise of God?

Answer: That God would be a God to Abraham and his descendants after him for an everlasting covenant,[4] and that the children of believers are entitled to such a promise since it was made with Abraham and his children.[5]



4. Genesis 17:7; 17:13; 17:19; Psalm 105:9-10; Hebrews 13:20.

5. Genesis 17:7; 26:24; Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 32:40; Joel 2:28; Matthew 22:32; Acts 3:25; Romans 4:13

Here is my problem. The promise was made with Abraham and all his descendents. The sign of circumcision was place on the physical descendants of Abraham as they were brought under the Mosaic covenant (8 days after birth). When we get to the New Testament, we discover from Romans 4 and 9 that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham. These descendants are under the New Covenant and receive the sign of that covenant - baptism. How do we propose that infants are of the faith of Abraham? They have not yet even professed, let alone shown any signs of, faith.

To be given the sign of the Old Covenant (circumcision), one had to be born a child of Abraham. To be given the sign of the New Covenant (baptism), one has to be born a spiritual child of Abraham. We call that birth regeneration. Now, I believe that regeneration preceeds faith, but we do not know who is regenerated until they show it by their faith. Baptism should not be given out willy-nilly to every child of a believer regardless of a show of faith or not. Baptism is reserved for those who are a part of the New Covenant. (With an understanding caveat that none of us truly knows the hearts of men, so we all have a dillema.)

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Mocha
Chris,

You said:

Also, another resource that may help you further understand how confessional paedobaptists understand (and embrace) statements like Lloyd-Jones' in light of their view of the covenant and the sacraments is a sermon my pastor gave a few weeks ago from Joshua, entitled "The Necessity of True Conversion," which you can hear here. Coming from a paedobaptist frame of mind, Pastor Spink specifically mentions and gives attention to the covenantal importance of the sacraments in that whole issue, but at the same time could hardly emphasize the sermon's title to a greater extent, consistently setting us apart from the dissenters who abuse the covenantal mindset of presumption at the expense of conversion, faith and fruit. Let me know what you think of it.

I listened to Pastor Spink's this afternoon and enjoyed his sermon very much. I found it ironic that he drew a connection between the crossing of the Jordan with conversion, and then after Israel crossed the Jordan, then the sons of Israel were circumcised. I couldn't help but smile when I heard that!

Mike

I can imagine. Actually, I think that's a perfect illustration for the covenantal understanding of the family and its unique and necessary role in the Church; for everyone knows that we would never think of going around baptizing random infants left and right in an attempt to "confer God's blessing" - but asking "Why not?" would actually be a perfectly logical question if one did not yet understand the family's biblical role as the covenantal unit in the Church. For it is only on the basis of the external profession of faith of the parents (and hence the parents' presumed membership in the invisible Church) that a child is biblically considered a part of God's visible community and presumed an eventual part of the invisible, and thus given the sign.

So long story short, that observation you made from the crossing of the Jordan preceding the circumcisions is an excellent reminder on the high importance of examining the parents for true fruit of conversion and faith before giving the sign to both them and their children - for notice that as soon as the adults actively crossed the Jordan (conversion), with the children still being passively carried along, both the adults and their children were then given the sign.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Question 3: What is the promise of God?

Answer: That God would be a God to Abraham and his descendants after him for an everlasting covenant,[4] and that the children of believers are entitled to such a promise since it was made with Abraham and his children.[5]



4. Genesis 17:7; 17:13; 17:19; Psalm 105:9-10; Hebrews 13:20.

5. Genesis 17:7; 26:24; Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 32:40; Joel 2:28; Matthew 22:32; Acts 3:25; Romans 4:13

Here is my problem. The promise was made with Abraham and all his descendents. The sign of circumcision was place on the physical descendants of Abraham as they were brought under the Mosaic covenant (8 days after birth). When we get to the New Testament, we discover from Romans 4 and 9 that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham. These descendants are under the New Covenant and receive the sign of that covenant - baptism. How do we propose that infants are of the faith of Abraham? They have not yet even professed, let alone shown any signs of, faith.

To be given the sign of the Old Covenant (circumcision), one had to be born a child of Abraham. To be given the sign of the New Covenant (baptism), one has to be born a spiritual child of Abraham. We call that birth regeneration. Now, I believe that regeneration preceeds faith, but we do not know who is regenerated until they show it by their faith. Baptism should not be given out willy-nilly to every child of a believer regardless of a show of faith or not. Baptism is reserved for those who are a part of the New Covenant. (With an understanding caveat that none of us truly knows the hearts of men, so we all have a dillema.)

Doug,
If I am following you, here is how I explain this:

One needs to first distinguish between the visible and invisible body of believers and what and who a disciple is. The visible body has believers and unbelievers. The sign is placed upon disciples. God is immutable; the command to place the sign has not changed and has not been abrogated. What has changed is what is used as the sign, i.e. circumcision/Baptism.

You cite Rom 4 & 9:

Romans 4 and 9 that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham.

This is an example of the invisible body of Christ. How is this different from Abrahams day? It is no different! The true descendants, even then, are those whom are of faith. Not all that were circumcised in Abrahams day were of faith and not all whom are baptized today are of faith either; no different.

You continue:

These descendants are under the New Covenant and receive the sign of that covenant - baptism.

I agree. Where we differ is when the NC began. I say in Genesis, you say at the cross. Martin says that the NC was inaugurated at the cross, I say it was consummated. The only problem with Martin´s view and yours is that under this premise, you revert back to dispensationalism.

How do we propose that infants are of the faith of Abraham?

How can you say that an infant cannot have faith?

They have not yet even professed, let alone shown any signs of, faith.

Profession does not a Christian make. Many a man has confessed only later to show his true colors as apostate.

 

[Steve Owen]

Chris wrote:-

This is important to clarify. Lloyd-Jones and others like him are not saying that the recipient need exhibit those qualities at the time of the baptism

I think you'll find that Lloyd-Jones is saying exactly that. Although he pastored first a Welsh Presbyterian ('Calvinistic Methodist') church and then a Congregational one, MLl-J was in fact an antipaedobaptist. Check out page 790 of Vol II of Iain Murray's biography.

On the question of Abraham and circumcision, there's no doubt that it was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant. But it wasn't a seal. Rom 4:11 makes it very clear that circumcision was to Abraham a seal of the faith he had while still uncircumcised. But it wasn't a seal to anybody else.

Martin

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist
Here is my problem. The promise was made with Abraham and all his descendents. The sign of circumcision was place on the physical descendants of Abraham as they were brought under the Mosaic covenant (8 days after birth). When we get to the New Testament, we discover from Romans 4 and 9 that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham. These descendants are under the New Covenant and receive the sign of that covenant - baptism. How do we propose that infants are of the faith of Abraham? They have not yet even professed, let alone shown any signs of, faith.

I'd like to re-state what Scott said using my own words for what it's worth.

Do you see what you're saying here that:

"When we get to the New Testament, we discover from Romans 4 and 9 that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham. These descendants are under the New Covenant and receive the sign of that covenant - baptism."

Let's examine that passage again:

(Romans 4:11-13) He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

Romans 4 speaks of a spiritual circumcision for ALL who walk in the footsteps of faith. Let's say that again: ALL who walk in the footsteps of faith. Thricely: ALL who walk in the footsteps of faith! The promise to Abraham and his offspring came through faith. Through what? Faith!!

Who? Both physically circumcised and physically uncircumcised.

So, here's the main crux of the issue (I swear my head is bleeding because some keep ignoring what the implications of these verses are)

The Old Covenant community received a physical sign which represented spirtual circumcision. EVEN THOSE THAT MIGHT BE REPROBATE. OH MY GOSH!!! EVEN BEFORE THEY DEMONSTRATED THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM! SAY IT ISN'T SO!

I'm trying to be a bit hyperbolic here to drive home a point so you can see where we are coming from.

You guys are creating a "dilemna" that always existed. Shall we apply a sign and seal to our kids before they demonstrate the faith that the sign always represented (either circumcision in the Old or bapstim in the New)? God says DO IT!

Any attempts to show a material difference between the spiritual circumcision of true OT belief and NT belief are dispensationalist as Scott has repeatedly stated.

Martin said: "The seal was only to Abraham"

No Martin. That's eisogesis and I can spell it correctly now!!

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by SemperFideles]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Can someone point to one clear reference/analogy (one from the NT preferably) that associates entering the promised land with conversion?

I know it served both members of the Old Covenant and the New as a type of glory, Heb. 11:8-10. Crossing Jordan figures prominently in the good baptist John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress in exactly that way.

 

[Mocha]

Scott,

You said:

Not trying to answer for Chris, but did you read what the WCF states? I provided it in an earlier post.

Sorry about that! I'm not ignoring you. I should make a list of the posts I want to respond to, because if I don't, I tend to forget. I appreciate how you and Chris have been challenging me. It has been very helpful!

You said:

Bannerman is flat out wrong; as is Jones and Cairns! They have shut the door on Gods power and mercy.

How specifically have they shut the door on God's power and mercy?

Tell me this, how is it that elect infants dying in infancy are received into glory? Or the imbecile? Or the unborn fetus? I will tell you; by Gods word. The Lord goes to these individuals in a way only the Lord can and imparts grace, faith, repentance, justification. The ordo is packed nicely together for these cases. Who is to say that an infant cannot be regenerate? Based upon what you have Bannerman et. al. saying, no infant can be saved.

I don't think Bannerman, Lloyd-Jones, and Cairns are saying that an infant can't be regenerate. They are instead saying that an infant's baptism is not a 'seal' to him until there is faith.

As far as it being a seal, the WCF states:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visiblechurch;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, byChrist's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

I agree that baptism is both a 'sign' and a 'seal' to the one being baptized. What is it a 'sign' and a 'seal' of? Well, one's ingrafting into Christ, regeneration, remission of sins, etc. Is baptism a 'seal' to the reality that these things have been accomplished in them? Or, is baptism a 'seal' to the reality that these things are possible if there is faith? Or am I misssing the mark completely?

Mike

 

[Scott Bushey]

Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration.

I assume Bannerman is taken out of context here to a degree (not saying that you have presented him erroneously); acknowledging that he would agree that an infant can be regenerated and even converted if God chooses. God accomplishes this in the elect infant dying in infancy, does He not? Anyone denying this assuredly is limiting Gods power and mercy.

You earlier responded to this Bannerman quote with:

According to James Bannerman, baptism is not a seal to an infant until there is faith. Infant baptism is only a 'prospective' seal.

I asked:

Who is to say an infant cannot have faith?

The quote from Jones seems to be directed at an adult:

When the person is baptized, he should be conscious that that grace is conveyed to him personally in a special way, as the lady does with a [wedding] ring.

You ask:

What is it a 'sign' and a 'seal' of?

The WCF is clear:

a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[pastorway]

Where is the Bible is baptism referred to as a seal? It is not!

The Holy Spirit seals members of the New Covenant (Eph 1:13; 4:30) and that sealing happens AFTER faith.

To believe that baptism is a seal is to make baptism equal to circumcision, also something the Bible never does.

Let's get back to what the Bible says and cast off the confessions and traditions of men when they err.

Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). It is never referred to as a seal. And in fact, if it is, as the Bible clearly tells us, the answer of a good conscience toward God then the one being baptized must be able to express that answer of a good conscience toward God, hence making a profession of his faith.

Phillip

 

[Mocha]

James Bannerman said:

Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration.

Scott, you responded:

I assume Bannerman is taken out of context here to a degree (not saying that you have presented him erroneously); acknowledging that he would agree that an infant can be regenerated and even converted if God chooses. God accomplishes this in the elect infant dying in infancy, does He not? Anyone denying this assuredly is limiting Gods power and mercy.

Well, here is more from Bannerman. Maybe it will help clarify his view.

The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants...It is abundantly obvious that adult Baptism is the rule, and infant Baptism the exceptional case; and we must take our idea of the ordinance in its nature and effects not from the exception, but from the rule...The Sacrament in its complete features and perfect character is to be witnesses in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual nature has been fully developed and is entire, and not in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual being is no more than rudimental and in embryo. Infants are subjects of Baptism in so far as, and no furthur than their spiritual and intellectual nature permits of it. And it is an error, abundant illustration of which could be given from the writings both of the advocates and opponents of infant Baptism, to make Baptism applicable in the same sense and to the same extent to infants and to adults, and to form our notions and frame our theory of the Sacrament from its character as exhibited in the case of infants. It is very plain, and very important to remember, that the only true and complete type of Baptism is found in the instance of those subjects of it who are capable both of faith and repentance, not in the instance of those subjects of it who are not capable of either. The Bible model of Baptism is adult Baptism, and not infant.
(James Bannerman, "The Church of Christ", 2:108-109)

I'm not sure if that helps clear up Bannerman's view with regard to your point or not.

Mike

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by pastorway
Where is the Bible is baptism referred to as a seal? It is not!

The Holy Spirit seals members of the New Covenant (Eph 1:13; 4:30) and that sealing happens AFTER faith.

To believe that baptism is a seal is to make baptism equal to circumcision, also something the Bible never does.

Let's get back to what the Bible says and cast off the confessions and traditions of men when they err.

Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). It is never referred to as a seal. And in fact, if it is, as the Bible clearly tells us, the answer of a good conscience toward God then the one being baptized must be able to express that answer of a good conscience toward God, hence making a profession of his faith.

Phillip

1. Baptism is said to be the "...circumcision made without hands..." (Col 1:11-12)
2. Spiritual circumcision ("...the sign of circumcision...") is said to be "...a seal of the righteousness by faith..." (Rom 4:11)
3. baptism = circumcision without hands = seal

If you agree with Martin on this then I am certain you disagree with the exegesis but I would humbly submit that you ought to cast aside your own man-made doctrine that would keep you from seeing the clear teaching of Scripture.

You write as if the WCF and other Reformed writers came up with the idea from some gold tablets. Those are the Scriptures appealed to.

 

[Mocha]

Originally posted by pastorway
Where is the Bible is baptism referred to as a seal? It is not!

The Holy Spirit seals members of the New Covenant (Eph 1:13; 4:30) and that sealing happens AFTER faith.

To believe that baptism is a seal is to make baptism equal to circumcision, also something the Bible never does.

Let's get back to what the Bible says and cast off the confessions and traditions of men when they err.

Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). It is never referred to as a seal. And in fact, if it is, as the Bible clearly tells us, the answer of a good conscience toward God then the one being baptized must be able to express that answer of a good conscience toward God, hence making a profession of his faith.

Phillip

Phillip,

What's your response to this quote by Martyn Lloyd-Jones?:

Baptism is nothing but a seal. The teaching of baptismal regeneration is a plain denial of the doctrine of justification by faith only, and is to be utterly rejected. To build anything on baptism save God's sealing to us our justification by faith alone is to deny this vital teaching. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, "Romans 3:20-4:25", pgs 187-188)

Mike

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What is a sign? What is a seal?

The sign is the "pointer" to something else.

The seal is the "signet mark" of God's ownership.

Under the Old Covenant, circumcision served as the external mark of God's internal, spiritual mark. That mark, the real mark, could only serve its purpose when faith appropriated it.

The same is no less true of the New Covenant sign, baptism.

The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is adminstered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance {by faith}, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time. WCF 28.6

When does God mark somebody as his spiritual property? The baptist says that he only does so when the person exercises faith the first time. The presbyterian says no. It happens in conjunction with baptism--not by the operation of sacramentalism--and not in violation of the principle that "grace and salvation are not so inseperable annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved without it; or, that all who are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated" (WCF 28.5).

God declares ownership of the children of true believers, in a way he does not do with the children of the unsaved. Why? 'Cause he wants to. When does he do this? At their birth. Signifying and sealing the Covenant of Grace, the mark (be it circumcision or baptism) even declares their election ("promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit" WCF 7.3), though not infallibly (just as adult baptism also does not declare the same thing, infallibly). How fit, then, that such should be placed on designated persons as soon as humanly possible.


The newness of the new covenant consists in no small part of its sheer scope. The Spirit of God is "poured out on all flesh." Thousands, millions swept into the kingdom of grace. The borders of Israel, the tents of Shem are too small. "Lengthen the cords." Hebrews 8:8 "Finding fault with them...." With what? the covenants? the administration? No, with them, the people of the Old Covenant. Even then, with all the externals, all the means of grace, all the blessings given by God, sin still ruled. Wickedness reigned in their hearts. Idolatry, idolatry, idolatry. Nothing was too immoral or too dispicable.

The grace of regeneration dripped out like an eyedropper. The grace of parental faithfulness was restricted. Haven't you ever wondered how it was that over and over and over children did not adopt their parent's faith? Start in Judges. The next generation, chapter 2 verse 10! Eli's sons. Samuel's sons. David's sons! Where do we find intergenerational faithfulness? It is the exception, and not the rule! What makes the New Covenant new? The phrase "I will be a God to you, and to your children after you," has seen fulfillment since Pentecost! No, not every child. Not every generation the same. The ebb and flow of saving grace is still a reality. But the tide is coming in.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
The grace of regeneration dripped out like an eyedropper. The grace of parental faithfulness was restricted. Haven't you ever wondered how it was that over and over and over children did not adopt their parent's faith? Start in Judges. The next generation, chapter 2 verse 10! Eli's sons. Samuel's sons. David's sons! Where do we find intergenerational faithfulness? It is the exception, and not the rule! What makes the New Covenant new? The phrase "I will be a God to you, and to your children after you," has seen fulfillment since Pentecost! No, not every child. Not every generation the same. The ebb and flow of saving grace is still a reality. But the tide is coming in.

Your whole post was like enjoying a fine wine. Thank you. The above tied in very well with:

Mal 4:5-6
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction."

In fact, more covenantal faithfulness and connectedness is expected now and not less.