COVENANTALISM (Questions & Concerns)

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The "COVENANTALISM" framework is interpretative....IE a way of understanding the overall flow of the bible, using the theological concept as an organizing principle for Christian theology.

As a Baptist (Not a Dispensational believer either) I find this framework totally confusing & somewhat fanciful. Last Sunday, I sat for an hour while the Pastor of a Orthodox Presbyterian Church attempted to teach me how Infant Baptism (FYI, they view it as a spiritual circumcision) fits into this framework.

So how can they completely ignore the clear teaching of the Bible & come to these very delusional conclusions?

 

[utilyan]

Colossians 2

11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

The connection is obvious.

The circumcision made without hands, The circumcision of Christ. This is baptism.

Jesus Christ was circumcised on 8th day.


Luke 2

21And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.



For people who swear to God that only God can pickem and nothing on their part makes them Christian. Infant baptism is a better example.


Jesus Christ is entered into the faith right there with circumcision. There is no choice involved because Christianity is family not a contract.

No where in the bible does it say ONLY ADULTS may be baptized.


No where for CENTURIES was this even an issue till 1500s rolled around.


But seriously you have bigger fish to fry then infant baptism.

Under Faith Alone, Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation.

It does not say "Faith in Christ is necessary for salvation EXCEPT FOR INFANTS"

Under your terms all infants go to hell. Not that I believe you would think that......



This reminds me of a battle for dogs to go to heaven:

 

[Smyth]

So how can they completely ignore the clear teaching of the Bible & come to these very delusional conclusions?

What clear teaching? Disputes like Free Will vs. Predestination and Believers Baptism vs. Covenant Baptism (is that what it's called?) exist because the Bible doesn't provide a decisive case. People in good faith can go either way.

(There are many doctrinal disputes where one side is not acting in good faith.)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What clear teaching? Disputes like Free Will vs. Predestination and Believers Baptism vs. Covenant Baptism (is that what it's called?) exist because the Bible doesn't provide a decisive case. People in good faith can go either way.

(There are many doctrinal disputes where one side is not acting in good faith.)

Im sorry but Covenant theology gives rise to a hole lot of unbiblical dogmatic stances.....like Infant Baptism & the Covenant family (you know, where if your parents are indoctrinated into a covenant church, then you are automatically a member). From my prospective that kinda bad theology leads a christian into a false identity with his or her maker. But the lord, providing you have the HS, puts discernment in your head to give you eyes to see False from Truth.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Under your terms all infants go to hell. Not that I believe you would think that......

Funny how the subject of a child's death & where that soul now resides, has always stymied Christians. No, I do not believe that children who die prior to accepting faith in Christ go to hell. That's a matter for God alone to decide. I personally believe that Christs death on the cross washed away any original sin that a baby carries with them from the parents.......however It is still Gods call.

Regarding animals, well first off they are living breathing creatures & they are assigned were they are after death is anybodies guess ..... but I'd like to believe they go back to their maker (somewhere.....perhaps into His own heart)



This reminds me of a battle for dogs to go to heaven:

[/QUOTE]

 

[JonC]

The "COVENANTALISM" framework is interpretative....IE a way of understanding the overall flow of the bible, using the theological concept as an organizing principle for Christian theology.

As a Baptist (Not a Dispensational believer either) I find this framework totally confusing & somewhat fanciful. Last Sunday, I sat for an hour while the Pastor of a Orthodox Presbyterian Church attempted to teach me how Infant Baptism (FYI, they view it as a spiritual circumcision) fits into this framework.

So how can they completely ignore the clear teaching of the Bible & come to these very delusional conclusions?

That's what happens when we interpret Scripture to our theologies and traditions. If you hold to a idea strong enough, then you can easily validate it by reading it into Scripture.That is one reason debates on this forum often get out of hand.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That's what happens when we interpret Scripture to our theologies and traditions. If you hold to a idea strong enough, then you can easily validate it by reading it into Scripture.That is one reason debates on this forum often get out of hand.

Jon, what's "Our Theologies?" Are you saying that.....no, better yet, please embellish on your comment.

 

[JonC]

Jon, what's "Our Theologies?" Are you saying that.....no, better yet, please embellish on your comment.

There isn't enough of my thoughts to embellish .

Theology is the study of God. But when we study God we can also carry into our studies presuppositions and ideas that are not directly arrived at via Scripture. (Theologies are religious beliefs and theories when systematically developed). These sometimes come about by tradition, or by our own worldview, our ideologies, etc. If someone has a background that accepts paedobaptism within the context of God's covenant people, then that person can easily read into Scripture infant baptism. If someone approaches Scripture through the lens of Dispensationalism, then he can easily see these various dispensations as a framework through which God has worked in redemptive history. Same is true of Covenant theology. That is what I mean (not that your understanding of Scripture is wrong, or that my understanding of Scripture is wrong, but that we need to try to be aware of ideas that we may bring into our studies).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There isn't enough of my thoughts to embellish .

Theology is the study of God. But when we study God we can also carry into our studies presuppositions and ideas that are not directly arrived at via Scripture. (Theologies are religious beliefs and theories when systematically developed). These sometimes come about by tradition, or by our own worldview, our ideologies, etc. If someone has a background that accepts paedobaptism within the context of God's covenant people, then that person can easily read into Scripture infant baptism. If someone approaches Scripture through the lens of Dispensationalism, then he can easily see these various dispensations as a framework through which God has worked in redemptive history. Same is true of Covenant theology. That is what I mean (not that your understanding of Scripture is wrong, or that my understanding of Scripture is wrong, but that we need to try to be aware of ideas that we may bring into our studies).

Oh I am very aware of them! for 34 years, I lived as a Roman Catholic, content that my historic RC Framework was true. Mom used to tell me that the Roman Catholic Faith was the "Only True Religion" & everything else was erroneous & false. Later, when I was a young married guy my wife's Presbyterian Church pastor invited me to join....I did so to basically appease my wife......that went well till I was regenerated. The HS opened up my eyes. That happened in my mid life & that's when I put it on the power of the HS to discern False from Truth.... so while I study the word daily, I closely scrutinize the motives of most of the "Religious" to clarify whats behind the actions. You have never lived till you get into a contentious fight with 3 Presbyterian ministers telling you that from their Conventional framework your deceased child resides in hell........PLUS because you did not become members of their religious society then you are to blame. Jon, something is wrong there. As wrong as a RC priest telling you that because you didn't baptize your child in time (to wash away original sin) then the deceased child is in ........"LIMBO"

I tell you this so that you can gain some incite to my point of view in my commentary. To me, the act of wanting to be baptized to profess the Christians new found state of understanding that "Christ is Lord" is the correct flow to committing your life to Christ.

 

[JonC]

Oh I am very aware of them! for 34 years, I lived as a Roman Catholic, content that my historic RC Framework was true. Mom used to tell me that the Roman Catholic Faith was the "Only True Religion" & everything else was erroneous & false. Later, when I was a young married guy my wife's Presbyterian Church pastor invited me to join....I did so to basically appease my wife......that went well till I was regenerated. The HS opened up my eyes. That happened in my mid life & that's when I put it on the power of the HS to discern False from Truth.... so while I study the word daily, I closely scrutinize the motives of most of the "Religious" to clarify whats behind the actions. You have never lived till you get into a contentious fight with 3 Presbyterian ministers telling you that from their Conventional framework your deceased child resides in hell........PLUS because you did not become members of their religious society then you are to blame. Jon, something is wrong there. As wrong as a RC priest telling you that because you didn't baptize your child in time (to wash away original sin) then the deceased child is in ........"LIMBO"

I tell you this so that you can gain some incite to my point of view in my commentary. To me, the act of wanting to be baptized to profess the Christians new found state of understanding that "Christ is Lord" is the correct flow to committing your life to Christ.

I appreciate your insight, and I agree with your conclusions. I would think that, because of our varying experiences, you and I may look at some issues from a different perspective. Infant baptism has never been an issue I found important because it is a doctrine with which I have no personal experience. Other than online forums, it is an issue that I would never encounter (at least, that I have never encountered). That doesn't mean that it is not an important issue, but it may mean that there are aspects within a covenantal framework that I may overlook but that you may pick up on. It also means that there could be assumptions on your end that do not meet the conclusions of others who may hold to Covenant theology.

I think a good example of how presuppositions can color our understanding and discourse is in the fairly recent discussion here of the doctrine of eternal security. If you notice, the arguments against the doctrine of eternal security never actually address the belief of those who hold the position. The validity of that position is never truly discussed as those presuppositions are never breached. I think that if we are not careful we can sometimes bring this attitude into our Bible study.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I appreciate your insight, and I agree with your conclusions. I would think that, because of our varying experiences, you and I may look at some issues from a different perspective. Infant baptism has never been an issue I found important because it is a doctrine with which I have no personal experience. Other than online forums, it is an issue that I would never encounter (at least, that I have never encountered). That doesn't mean that it is not an important issue, but it may mean that there are aspects within a covenantal framework that I may overlook but that you may pick up on. It also means that there could be assumptions on your end that do not meet the conclusions of others who may hold to Covenant theology.

I think a good example of how presuppositions can color our understanding and discourse is in the fairly recent discussion here of the doctrine of eternal security. If you notice, the arguments against the doctrine of eternal security never actually address the belief of those who hold the position. The validity of that position is never truly discussed as those presuppositions are never breached. I think that if we are not careful we can sometimes bring this attitude into our Bible study.

Brother.......by now you should know that everything is on the table for discussion with me. That way, ya learn & grow! I'm not afraid of it.....rather, I encourage it.

 

[utilyan]

No, I do not believe that children who die prior to accepting faith in Christ go to hell. That's a matter for God alone to decide.

EWF,
That sounds nice and sweet. According to your theology God decided " FAITH ALONE"
That's what you wanted now you got to EAT IT.

Else SAY WHAT YOU MEAN, MEAN WHAT YOU SAY.

INFANTS --> HELL.

You got a silly theology because your folks never thought things through.

Infants pop up and now you got to make it up as you go along.

Limbo is speculative. Someone figured well you have to be baptized to go to heaven, well what about the guys who don't get baptized, well they wait for Jesus to judge them on , where do they wait? I dunno.....Limbo...... again limbo is just speculative.
Limbo is an idea, not a dogma.





". I personally believe that Christs death on the cross washed away any original sin that a baby carries with them from the parents.......however It is still Gods call. "

You are saying a infant goes through baptism.^ Why are you against infant baptism if you already have it taking place spiritually!?

God's church wants to baptize them, ergo its GOD's CALL.


Look there is 2 versions of God.

One is an EVIL bastard and one is COMPLETELY GOOD.

One is a perfect hero and one is a NAZI.

One is going to damn babies and one will not damn anyone.

One cares about you the other only cares about himself

Brother I can tell you are not stupid.

The good and perfectly kind and loving God you wished existed does exist.


Your "calls" are good. If you were to start your own Baptist church. Like black and white your church sounds better then 90% of other Baptist churches.

I could tell you believe God is good, You have a good heart.

You just need to take your hands out of your pockets. Its easier on the internet.


But you don't have your rules straightened out. I feel like you got this balance game between crowd pleasing and your own opinion.

You practically had all infants baptized automatically. You would not put a baby in a fire. Neither would God.

Earth,
Whatever dude. Love, Kindness and Compassion. Stick to those things they will always lead to God.

God isn't a evil one "called" a good guy. God is an actual good guy.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

EWF,
That sounds nice and sweet. According to your theology God decided " FAITH ALONE"
That's what you wanted now you got to EAT IT.

Else SAY WHAT YOU MEAN, MEAN WHAT YOU SAY.

INFANTS --> HELL.

You got a silly theology because your folks never thought things through.

Typical Catholic response...... Who thought through your doctrine? Same geniuses who burned & persecuted any who didn't conform to RC Popes & Red Hats & corrupt Bishops.

Infants pop up and now you got to make it up as you go along.

Who is "You"......with whom do you speak?

Limbo is speculative.

Not according to the Nuns & Priests that taught me!

But the Catlicks are known to reverse themselves from time to time....IE VAT 2.

Someone figured well you have to be baptized to go to heaven, well what about the guys who don't get baptized, well they wait for Jesus to judge them on , where do they wait? I dunno.....Limbo...... again limbo is just speculative.
Limbo is an idea, not a dogma.

.... Are you aware that Baptism doesn't get you into heaven? Well maybe not for you sacramental types it is the keys to the Kingdom. Personally I don't see it, so I have zero concerns with baptism as a sacrament.....to me it doesn't exist as a prerequisite to the Kingdom of God. So that would be the hangup to a Catholic, a Methodist, a Presbyterian......yada yada......but not a Baptist (OK maybe to some but not me). You know, Faith Alone......Not Faith Plus.




". I personally believe that Christs death on the cross washed away any original sin that a baby carries with them from the parents.......however It is still Gods call. "

You are saying a infant goes through baptism.^ Why are you against infant baptism if you already have it taking place spiritually!?

God's church wants to baptize them, ergo its GOD's CALL.


Look there is 2 versions of God.

One is an EVIL bastard and one is COMPLETELY GOOD.

One is a perfect hero and one is a NAZI.

One is going to damn babies and one will not damn anyone.

One cares about you the other only cares about himself

Friend, excuse me but now you are just blathering.......so I'm dropping out.
Be well!!

 

[Smyth]

From my prospective that kinda bad theology leads a christian into a false identity with his or her maker.

False identity with his maker? What does that mean? No good church that practices infant baptism equates baptism with an expression of the infant's faith.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

False identity with his maker? What does that mean? No good church that practices infant baptism equates baptism with an expression of the infant's faith.

Simply....no good church practices infant baptism! However, I want to be gracious and agree to disagree with those who hold that view. But if anyone teaches that the new birth is conveyed through water baptism, whether with infants or adults, here is where I will break rank because that is teaching serious heresy on that crucial point of doctrine. The Scripture is quite clear that the new birth comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone (John 3:1-16).

 

[utilyan]

Typical Catholic response...... Who thought through your doctrine? Same geniuses who burned & persecuted any who didn't conform to RC Popes & Red Hats & corrupt Bishops.


Who is "You"......with whom do you speak?

Not according to the Nuns & Priests that taught me!



.... Are you aware that Baptism doesn't get you into heaven? Well maybe not for you sacramental types it is the keys to the Kingdom. Personally I don't see it, so I have zero concerns with baptism as a sacrament.....to me it doesn't exist as a prerequisite to the Kingdom of God. So that would be the hangup to a Catholic, a Methodist, a Presbyterian......yada yada......but not a Baptist (OK maybe to some but not me). You know, Faith Alone......Not Faith Plus.




". I personally believe that Christs death on the cross washed away any original sin that a baby carries with them from the parents.......however It is still Gods call. "


Friend, excuse me but now you are just blathering.......so I'm dropping out.
Be well!!

You are dropping out for obvious reason.


". I personally believe that Christs death on the cross washed away any original sin that a baby carries with them from the parents.......however It is still Gods call. "

This is baptism^ If you only think Baptism is symbolic of this which already happened why deny it?


There is a difference between FAITH ALONE vs FAITH ALONE except in infants case.

 

[utilyan]

Let me explain my understanding and then you guys correct the loop-holes ect.


1. Salvation is by FAITH ALONE. Need this or you are not saved.

2.. BAPTISM is just SYMBOLIC, Doesn't do anything, its just a decoration happens AFTER you are saved.

3. If you are a infant YOU ARE SAVED, and don't go to hell.



Ok we have a infant in our arms. If he dies, he is saved because he is just a infant. Since he is saved he also must already contain FAITH ALONE in Jesus Christ.

But hold on......we can't baptize him even though he is saved already and has faith alone in Jesus Christ.



We see circumcision as a sign:
Romans 4
11and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

You got that as a infant 8 days old. Jesus Christ got this too.


Colossians 2
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,


The circumcision of Christ having been buried with him in baptism.

Notice all the forgiveness of transgressions and being raised with him through faith all prior to being buried with him in baptism.

We can say ok this is a spiritual actual baptism, the other done with water is just symbolic as circumcision.


So if the infants have already collected the holy spirit and salvation which they are already heirs to why deny them baptism?


Acts 10
47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”



You would already swear up and down that receiving faith and salvation from God was not your choice, but baptism is a choice? Even circumcision wasn't a choice. How can baptism be a choice?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You are dropping out for obvious reason.

What ever do you mean?

". I personally believe that Christs death on the cross washed away any original sin that a baby carries with them from the parents.......however It is still Gods call. "

This is baptism^ If you only think Baptism is symbolic of this which already happened why deny it?


There is a difference between FAITH ALONE vs FAITH ALONE except in infants case.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Let me explain my understanding and then you guys correct the loop-holes ect.


1. Salvation is by FAITH ALONE. Need this or you are not saved.

2.. BAPTISM is just SYMBOLIC, Doesn't do anything, its just a decoration happens AFTER you are saved.

3. If you are a infant YOU ARE SAVED, and don't go to hell.



Ok we have a infant in our arms. If he dies, he is saved because he is just a infant. Since he is saved he also must already contain FAITH ALONE in Jesus Christ.

But hold on......we can't baptize him even though he is saved already and has faith alone in Jesus Christ.



We see circumcision as a sign:
Romans 4
11and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

You got that as a infant 8 days old. Jesus Christ got this too.


Colossians 2
11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,


The circumcision of Christ having been buried with him in baptism.

Notice all the forgiveness of transgressions and being raised with him through faith all prior to being buried with him in baptism.

We can say ok this is a spiritual actual baptism, the other done with water is just symbolic as circumcision.


So if the infants have already collected the holy spirit and salvation which they are already heirs to why deny them baptism?


Acts 10
47“Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?”



You would already swear up and down that receiving faith and salvation from God was not your choice, but baptism is a choice? Even circumcision wasn't a choice. How can baptism be a choice?

Wait a minute.....you stated that you are a Catholic right? So what theological framework are you referencing?

 

[utilyan]

Wait a minute.....you stated that you are a Catholic right? So what theological framework are you referencing?

I'm trying to get yours to work that's why I am asking for correction. If I got it wrong fix it.