Children that have the sign of the covenant

[pastorway]

Intersting....still not a single verse from SCRIPTURE that identifies baptism as seal......

We could argue that:

1. Baptism is this water baptism?? is said to be the "...circumcision made without hands..." (Col 1:11-12)
2. Spiritual circumcision I thought Abraham's circumcision was physical, not spiritual ("...the sign of circumcision...") is said to be "...a seal of the righteousness by faith..." (Rom 4:11)
3. baptism = circumcision without hands uh, Scripture please?= seal

but that is so complicated one might think we had the planets out of alignment. Why not just provide one verse anywhere from Holy Scripture that shows us that baptism is referred to as a seal. Keep it simple, right?

I'll wait.

[Edited on 11-15-05 by pastorway]

 

[Mocha]

I read the following quote on another thread:

The difference in external form was in each case conditioned by the circumstances of the time. In circumcision it bore respect to the propagation of offspring, as it was through the production of a seed of blessing that the covenant, in its preparatory form, was to attain its realization. But when the seed in that respect had reached its culminating point in Christ, and the objects of the covenant were no longer dependent on national propagation of seed, but were to be carried forward by spiritual means and influences used in connection with the faith of Christ, the external ordinance was fitly altered, so as to express simply a change of nature and state in the individual that received it. Undoubtedly the New Testament form less distinctly recognises the connection between parent and child - we should rather say, does not of itself recognise that connection at all; so much ought to be frankly conceded to those who disapprove of the practice of infant baptism, and will be conceded by all whose object is to ascertain the truth rather than contend for an opinion. (Fairbairn: The Typology of Scripture, Vol I, 313-314)

Can somebody tell me why the circumcision of male infants cannot have a 'typological' element that finds its fulfillement in Christ?

Mike

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Wait, you don't believe in paedobaptism, Phillip??? *shocked*

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by pastorway
Intersting....still not a single verse from SCRIPTURE that identifies baptism as seal......

I'm starting to categorize some fascinating exegetical rules from the credo-Baptists in this thread. Would you like to announce that we can now require all your arguments be based on a single verse from Scripture? It's not a rule I'm familiar with but I'm willing to remind you when necessary:

Your single, solitary verse that tells you not to Baptise your children? The single verse that calls children born to believers the children of the devil? The single verse that says the seal was only to Abraham?

1. Baptism is this water baptism?? is said to be the "...circumcision made without hands..." (Col 1:11-12)

In the verse, no. It is baptism with Christ. Our water baptism can be distinguished from our baptism with Christ but they are not separate. (Except when our theological system forces them to be - as dispensationalism must)

2. Spiritual circumcision I thought Abraham's circumcision was physical, not spiritual ("...the sign of circumcision...") is said to be "...a seal of the righteousness by faith..." (Rom 4:11)

Please step away from the Scoffield Study Bible. That the physical act of circumcision is tied to spiritual circumcision is apparently obvious to the casual observer.

3. baptism = circumcision without hands uh, Scripture please?= seal

The number 3 after a 1 and a 2 denotes that you might want to refer to the above to determine that Scriptures were already quoted.

But that is so complicated one might think we had the planets out of alignment. Why not just provide one verse anywhere from Holy Scripture that shows us that baptism is referred to as a seal. Keep it simple, right?

I'll wait.

Complicated? I think I could explain the 3 sentence argument to a 6 year old. It's trying to explain around those verses that requires some sophistication as we've seen in a previous thread where the aorist tense is parsed in a unique way to interpret the Collosians verses differently than the normal reading.

My main point anyway was in response to your spurrious charge of using no Scripture to support the argument but bare tradition.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by SemperFideles]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

2 Corinthians 1:21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by 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

Mike,
Again, dealing with the presented statement by Bannerman, since it is clearly obvious God gives all the elements of the ordo salutis to the infant dying in infancy, or the imbecile, who is to say a sustained infant cannot have faith? As well, who says that the great commission directs to only baptise true believers? The passage clearly states "Make disciples and baptize them". The biblical description of disciples included true believers and unbelievers; followers of Christ.

Just because someone says "I believe", does not guarantee their position in Christ. ALL baptisms are based upon presumption! Ask any pastor of 30 years how many disciples he has baptised over those years and how many disciples now walk no more.

 

[Peters]

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.

What do you mean by "œexercise"?

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 inseparable 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).

What do you mean by "œspiritual property"?

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"¦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"¦How fit, then, that such should be placed on designated persons as soon as humanly possible.

Amazing! Infant baptism declares that the infant is elect unless, of course, they haven´t been ordained unto life. What kind of declaration is that? It sounds like, "œYes, we consider you a believer until we are proven otherwise."

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.

Ok.

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.

Brother, honestly, what are you talking about? Are you suggesting that certain children did not "œadopt" the faith of their parents because the parents failed?

 

[Steve Owen]

Hi Bruce,

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.

I don't want to nit-pick, but I don't think I would say that. God marks out His people from all eternity (2Thes 2:13 etc).

God declares ownership of the children of true believers, in a way he does not do with the children of the unsaved.

I don't think this is true either. Obviously there are great blessings and benefits in being the child of Christian parents; I don't deny that for one moment, but the great growth in Christ's Church today is coming from Asia and Africa where the Lord is making brand new Christians out of those who have never heard the Gospel. Not a single known Christian in Outer Mongolia ten or so years ago; more than 10,000 today! Praise the Lord!

At the same time, there is the most appalling falling away of young people in Britain today. The churches are all empty, and those who are there are almost entirely old folks. Where are their children and Grandchildren on the Lord's Day? Filling up the shopping malls or nursing their hangovers!

In my darker moments, I wonder if the Lord has given over my country for its wickedness and apostasy.

Martin

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Peters,
1) by "exercise faith" I mean "believe" (there is no English verb "to faith", although in the Greek, both noun and verb are easliy recognized as cognates). Of course I recognize that part of the debate here is that the baptist position represented by some on the thread rejects the idea of baptism as a seal, period. Nevertheless, seeing that the person confesses faith and is subsequently baptized, it certainly serves as a de facto seal, i.e. "marking out" ritual.

2) by "his spiritual property" I distinguish between the general mark of divine ownership that is on every created thing, whether visible or invisible (every fact of the universe declares God's identity and sovereignty, Rom 1:19-20); and his express declaration, in the spiritual arena, that he lays "claim" to certain people. Even in the case of the hypocrite adult who submits to baptism in a baptist church, upon his own profession, God is also declaring to the world, through the church, "this one is mine."

3)

Amazing! Infant baptism declares that the infant is elect unless, of course, they haven´t been ordained unto life. What kind of declaration is that? It sounds like, "œYes, we consider you a believer until we are proven otherwise."

Explain how this sentence would read differently to you if you replace the word "infant" with "believer".

4)

Brother, honestly, what are you talking about? Are you suggesting that certain children did not "œadopt" the faith of their parents because the parents failed?

Does God ordinarily work by ordinary means? Aren't parents supposed to train up their children in the way they should go? Isn't that effort futile unless the Spirit is also at work? I pray that God will sanctify my meager, sin-tainted, and humanly ineffectual efforts to my children's salvation.

All I said in my last paragraph was that it was abundantly obvious that the Spirit was not regenerating the great majority of Israel's sons and daughters over the centuries. Only a remnant in every generation. This, despite the promises. Did God fail? Or his promises? No. He's never been under any obligation to save any.

But then it also follows that even believing parents were not generally being faithful either, to teach the children the law and it's inner meaning. God it is God at work in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. I have no reason to boast in my ability to raise godly children. It is God who stirs me up to teach, God who works on their hearts, God who uses my weak, sinful efforts to get spiritual truth across. He provides all the strength to change the hearts of my children.

God works most often by ordinary means. To use the promise that Rich alluded to, "I will turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the children to the fathers."

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Calvibaptist
Here is my problem.

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.

Actually, that's the way it's always been yet the sign of a circumsized heart was still given to even his natural descendents.

Not always.
Abel, who was a prophet, and who is still speaking to us today, knew nothing of circumcision, nor of baptism. He stands as the first of those who are saved by faith alone. He is telling us today not to put our emphasis on outward signs, but on a redeemed heart and a naked trust in Christ and His redeeming blood.

Martin

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

That doesn't really apply to this discussion though, Martin.

 

[piningforChrist]

2 Corinthians 1:21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

Gabe, I claim that the seal is the Holy Spirit, not baptism.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]

 

[Steve Owen]

Rich wrote:-

Please step away from the Scoffield (sic) Study Bible. That the physical act of circumcision is tied to spiritual circumcision is apparently obvious to the casual observer.

'Scoff' seems to be what you do best at the moment, Rich, and it doesn't become you. Beware of trying to prove yourself a wit, lest you actually prove that you're only half the man you think you are.

It is the frequent complaint of the Lord that those who had the physical circumcision lacked its spiritual counterpart (Jer 9:25-26; Acts 7:51 etc).

We are also told that those who possess the spiritual reality do not need the physical sign (Phil 3:3; Col 2:11 ).

Martin

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by piningforChrist

2 Corinthians 1:21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

Gabe, I claim that the seal is the Holy Spirit, not baptism.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]

And what is Baptism a sign of?

 

[Mocha]

I have been reading the thread of "Presumptive Regeneration/Presumptive Election" and I'm wondering how "Presumptive" should be understood. Does it mean:

1) "Possibly"
- The baptized infant is possibly regenerate (or elect)

2) "Probably"
- The baptized infant is probably regenerate (or elect)

3) "Assumed to be"
- The baptized infant is assumed to be regenerate (or elect)

If your answer is "Probably" or "Assumed to be", what Scriptuiral evidence is there to support this?

Mike

 

[Steve Owen]

And what is Baptism a sign of?

'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'

1698 Baptist Confession

Martin

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

And what is Baptism a sign of?

'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'

1698 Baptist Confession

Martin

So ... it is a sign of the work of the Holy Spirit in a man's heart?

 

[Saiph]

As a paedobaptist, I also claim that baptism is the sign, and the Holy Spirit is the seal. But in one sense even the sign was an external seal right ?

He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Saiph
He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

The above statement is key.

 

[piningforChrist]

Scott and/or Mark,

Please clarify.

 

[Saiph]

Jamieson Fausset & Brown (Baptists ?)

Rom 4:9-12 - Cometh this blessedness then, &c.--that is, "Say not, All this is spoken of the circumcised, and is therefore no evidence of God's general way of justifying men; for Abraham's justification took place long before he was circumcised, and so could have no dependence upon that rite: nay, 'the sign of circumcision' was given to Abraham as 'a seal' (or token) of the (justifying) righteousness which he had before he was circumcised; in order that he might stand forth to every age as the parent believer--the model man of justification by faith--after whose type, as the first public example of it, all were to be moulded, whether Jew or Gentile, who should thereafter believe to life everlasting."

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Saiph]

 

[Saiph]

The tenour of the covenants must first be settled before the seal can be annexed. Sealing supposes a previous bargain, which is confirmed and ratified by that ceremony. After Abraham's justification by faith had continued several years only a grant by parole, for the confirmation of Abraham's faith God was pleased to appoint a sealing ordinance, and Abraham received it; though it was a bloody ordinance, yet he submitted to it, and even received it as a special favour, the sign of circumcision.

Matthew Henry

Abraham Obeyed/Believed God in the covenant of grace.
God gave the sign as seal of covenant.
We now give the sign/seal to our children in Obedience/Faith.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Mocha
I have been reading the thread of "Presumptive Regeneration/Presumptive Election" and I'm wondering how "Presumptive" should be understood. Does it mean:

1) "Possibly"
- The baptized infant is possibly regenerate (or elect)

2) "Probably"
- The baptized infant is probably regenerate (or elect)

3) "Assumed to be"
- The baptized infant is assumed to be regenerate (or elect)

If your answer is "Probably" or "Assumed to be", what Scriptuiral evidence is there to support this?

Mike

Everyone, Baptists included, agrees with #1 of course. Presumptive election (or regeneration) is chiefly defined by #3, and implies a sense of #2 as well. Regarding Scriptural reason for that, one thing I would say is to look at the Scriptures I cited earlier in the thread that contain God's spiritual blessings for our children (Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14), and realize that surely such spiritual promises from God Himself are at least as reliable a ground on which to presume true election as is the external profession of fallible man - especially in light of our monergistic view of salvation and depravity.

 

[Mocha]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Mocha
I have been reading the thread of "Presumptive Regeneration/Presumptive Election" and I'm wondering how "Presumptive" should be understood. Does it mean:

1) "Possibly"
- The baptized infant is possibly regenerate (or elect)

2) "Probably"
- The baptized infant is probably regenerate (or elect)

3) "Assumed to be"
- The baptized infant is assumed to be regenerate (or elect)

If your answer is "Probably" or "Assumed to be", what Scriptural evidence is there to support this?

Mike

Everyone, Baptists included, agrees with #1 of course. Presumptive election (or regeneration) is chiefly defined by #3, and implies a sense of #2 as well. Regarding Scriptural reason for that, one thing I would say is to look at the Scriptures I cited earlier in the thread that contain God's spiritual blessings for our children (Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14), and realize that surely such spiritual promises from God Himself are at least as reliable a ground on which to presume true election as is the external profession of fallible man - especially in light of our monergistic view of salvation and depravity.

Chris, if the condition of baptism is required for an infant to be in the covenant, and if being in the covenant means that they are assumed to be elect, then doesn't that make baptism a condition of election in some sense? Are you of the belief that God elects from those within the external covenant?

I'll take a look at those verses and get back to you.

Mike

 

[piningforChrist]

I say we just :bigsmile:

Random question: Has anyone in this board gone from a paedobaptist position to a credobatist one?

 

[Mocha]

On the "Presumptive Regeneration/Presumptive Election" thread (pg. 3), in a disussion between Matthew McMahon and Paul Manata (see thread for context), Matthew McMahon, with regard to baptized infants said:

...he has the seeds of faith - something that, after he is able to put propositions together, he will exercise.

What are the 'seeds of faith'? Do the the children of Baptist parents have the 'seeds of faith'? If not, why not?

He is still a Christian based on regeneration and being born from above. It has nothing to do with faith thus far...His faith will one day grow into an active and cognative faith.

Is a baptized infant a Christian? If you assume that the infant is regenerate, then you have no choice but to believe that the infant will one day believe. It's absolutely guaranteed! Hey...just for curiousity sake, how can a regenerate become a covenant breaker? I just thought of that now. It would be impossible...right?

He is a new creation based on regeneration. (i.e. sovereign grace)

Does that mean every baptized infant is a new creation? Wow, I'm beginning to see how absolutely important the faith of the parent(s) is in the salvation of infants (from a paedobaptist perspective). Just for curiousity sake (again), if a unbaptized infant of Baptist parents was to die, would he or she go to hell?

I hope you don't mind all the questions. It's not easy figuring all this out. I'm finding it hard to think within the paedobaptist understanding. But I'll keep trying!

Mike

 

[Scott Bushey]

Mike,
Without understanding the covenant, you will not understand these principles. Your questions are abstract to say the least, based upon your misunderstanding of Gods promuise and His covenant people..

Can I suggest a book?

 

[piningforChrist]

Mike, you raise some MONUMENTAL quesitons. Your questions just won the argument for me. I'm sticking with the biblical practice of "believer's baptism," in other words, giving my children, when and if they are justified, the privelage and joy of expressing their belief through immersion, being buried with Christ in His death, and raised with Him in His resurrection.

I WILL NOT WITHOLD SUCH A BLESSING FROM MY CHILDREN AS MY PAEDOBAPTIST FRIENDS HERE WILL

 

[Saiph]

Originally posted by piningforChrist
Mike, you raise some MONUMENTAL quesitons. Your questions just won the argument for me. I'm sticking with the biblical practice of "believer's baptism," in other words, giving my children, when and if they are justified, the privelage and joy of expressing their belief through immersion, being buried with Christ in His death, and raised with Him in His resurrection.

I WILL NOT WITHOLD SUCH A BLESSING FROM MY CHILDREN AS MY PAEDOBAPTIST FRIENDS HERE WILL

Both sides are seeking the proper obedience to God, and the excercise of their faith in Him towards their children. My question for you is what determines "when and if they are justified" in your ideology ?

The blessing that belongs to the child baptized in infancy is growing up with the implicit knowledge and comfort of knowing they have always been His children.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Saiph]

 

[piningforChrist]

My question for you is what determines "when and if they are justified" in your ideology ?

God's sovereign good pleasure aquired personally through the preaching of the Word received by faith upon the instantaneous regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]