Paedo-Baptism Answers Genesis 6&7 and 1 Peter 3:20-22

Charles Johnson said:
It's a dangerous felon named Prison Mike. The second most dangerous criminal Scranton has seen after the Scranton Strangler (who was caught years ago).
Click to expand...
Gwallard said:
I, for one, am very scared of this shady individual. I hear he knows parkour and his rap sheet is a mile long!
Click to expand...
It's all true... plus I stole an' I robbed an' I kidnapped the president's son!

If it's really distracting, I will change the picture.
 
De Jager said:
Your worry is understandable, but the exact same thing could be said of an Israelite and his child who has been circumcised. Could he say for certain whether his child really was "circumcised in heart" as the sign pointed to? No. But God told them to apply the sign anyway. What the parent could do is say "son, this sign has been applied to your flesh. This is the sign of God's covenant. Cleave to this God. Believe his promises. He is faithful". The actual status of the child's heart (i.e. whether they are regenerate or not) does not change the objective sign.
Click to expand...
You've framed this in a helpful way, thank you, Izaak. Much of my concern comes from a "baptism = public declaration of faith for believers"-reading of the New Testament in my background.
 
Romans678 said:
Here's a playlist from R. Scott Clark regarding God's promises to believers and their children:

heidelblog.net

Heidelcast Series: I Will Be A God To You And To Your Children - The Heidelblog

The question of baptism, who should be baptized and why, is not just a question about the sacraments. It is a question that is integrally connected to the way we read the Scriptures (hermeneutics), the way we understand redemptive history, the way we understand the biblical covenants, the...
heidelblog.net heidelblog.net
Click to expand...
Thanks, Anthony. I have gone through some of these blogs and podcasts, but it was my understanding that R. Scott Clark holds to republication. Will most of this series from him complicate my developing understanding of the two covenants and everything that follows, or will republication now be a problem going through this series?
 
iddevalois said:
Suddenly the visible/invisible distinction makes so much more sense. I'm familiar with the concept of "already, not yet," but for some reason I never applied it to Jeremiah 31.
Click to expand...
Oh brother, this is a crucial point. Eschatology informs ecclesiology. Ephesians 4 speaks about the glory of the church but yet with a tension (growing.... needing teachers...). Paedo posits that the same OT tension of the covenant community carries over to the NT (See Heb 4,6; 1 Cor 10)
 
iddevalois said:
Thanks, Anthony. I have gone through some of these blogs and podcasts, but it was my understanding that R. Scott Clark holds to republication. Will most of this series from him complicate my developing understanding of the two covenants and everything that follows, or will republication now be a problem going through this series?
Click to expand...
RSC believes and teaches that the Sinai covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace, full stop. It is also true that he recognizes a significant recapitulation or "republication" of the original works-covenant terms is present there by design under the form of the national constitution. Historically, recognition of such reminder has confirmed the understanding that Gen.2 (despite its lack of explicit covenant terminology) expresses the reality that Adam was installed in the garden under an arrangement properly called the Covenant of Works. The notion of "republication" rather forcefully asserts the CoW is no imaginary figment.

There was an oath-taking by the people at Sinai, swearing that they would DO as commanded, accepting the blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience, including disinheritance of the land. There is more at Sinai than mere faith in what God does to save (grace). There is complexity to the arrangement, which calls for reflection and discernment. The NT picks up on this, and is able to contrast aspects of Moses with the fullness of Christ, and the works of the law (which if a man does he shall live by them) and justification by faith--present already in God's covenant with Abraham, and still present in the New Covenant, not excluding all the time in between including the time of the church state.

"Republication," like most theological concepts, can be pushed beyond bounds and make an erroneous claim. So, for example if Sinai is regarded as in essence a covenant of works, a substantive view of republication, this idea cannot be squared with post Fall conditions or our confessional admissions. We should not take the perspective that the Covenant of Grace simply stood in parallel with Sinai (a kind of fail-safe) or floated above it. Israel's institutions actually administered the Covenant of Grace during the time of the national covenant. All these things RSC believes and teaches, if I may dare to speak for him.

This is a long-winded way of encouraging you to take advantage of RSC's gifts as a teacher of covenant theology, if you are so minded, without stress over whether you will pick up strange vibes because of "republication" anxiety.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
This is a long-winded way of encouraging you to take advantage of RSC's gifts as a teacher of covenant theology, if you are so minded, without stress over whether you will pick up strange vibes because of "republication" anxiety.
Click to expand...
I will heed your advice, thank you very much! In what I posted above, I only meant to emphasize my lack of understanding and discernment in the study of covenant theology, not to repudiate a wise teacher. Thank you for your help in discernment, Reverend Bruce.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
RSC believes and teaches that the Sinai covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace, full stop. It is also true that he recognizes a significant recapitulation or "republication" of the original works-covenant terms is present there by design under the form of the national constitution. Historically, recognition of such reminder has confirmed the understanding that Gen.2 (despite its lack of explicit covenant terminology) expresses the reality that Adam was installed in the garden under an arrangement properly called the Covenant of Works. The notion of "republication" rather forcefully asserts the CoW is no imaginary figment.

There was an oath-taking by the people at Sinai, swearing that they would DO as commanded, accepting the blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience, including disinheritance of the land. There is more at Sinai than mere faith in what God does to save (grace). There is complexity to the arrangement, which calls for reflection and discernment. The NT picks up on this, and is able to contrast aspects of Moses with the fullness of Christ, and the works of the law (which if a man does he shall live by them) and justification by faith--present already in God's covenant with Abraham, and still present in the New Covenant, not excluding all the time in between including the time of the church state.

"Republication," like most theological concepts, can be pushed beyond bounds and make an erroneous claim. So, for example if Sinai is regarded as in essence a covenant of works, a substantive view of republication, this idea cannot be squared with post Fall conditions or our confessional admissions. We should not take the perspective that the Covenant of Grace simply stood in parallel with Sinai (a kind of fail-safe) or floated above it. Israel's institutions actually administered the Covenant of Grace during the time of the national covenant. All these things RSC believes and teaches, if I may dare to speak for him.

This is a long-winded way of encouraging you to take advantage of RSC's gifts as a teacher of covenant theology, if you are so minded, without stress over whether you will pick up strange vibes because of "republication" anxiety.
Click to expand...
This is one of the better summaries I've read on how to properly understand "republication."
 
Romans678 said:
Here's a playlist from R. Scott Clark regarding God's promises to believers and their children:

heidelblog.net

Heidelcast Series: I Will Be A God To You And To Your Children - The Heidelblog

The question of baptism, who should be baptized and why, is not just a question about the sacraments. It is a question that is integrally connected to the way we read the Scriptures (hermeneutics), the way we understand redemptive history, the way we understand the biblical covenants, the...
heidelblog.net heidelblog.net
Click to expand...
Bookmarked this!!! :up:
 
Contra_Mundum said:
Peter offers an interesting case in the theology of baptism, in that he chiastically (from the Gk. letter X or chi, implying something crossed) correlates one OT "thing signified" with an analogous NT "sign."
Click to expand...

This entire response is the single best explanation of these verses in 1 Peter 3 I've ever come across, in all my years.
Really so very helpful. Thank you!
 
Gwallard said:
I, for one, am very scared of this shady individual. I hear he knows parkour and his rap sheet is a mile long!
Click to expand...
You said this prior to the avatar change, now you're sounding like you're scared of his true picture of himself. As for me, I'll keep my comments to myself. :wink: :duh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top