Featured Baptism: Credo- vs Paedo-

The OT covenant applied to all of Abraham's bloodline, which includes infants. Christ covenant only includes those who are part of the church. No one is born into this covenant. They are spiritually born into it. So after the spiritual birth is when one is to be baptized. Calvin fails to distinguish who the covenants applies to.

 

Calvin faileth not......

"Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham (cf. Gen. 17:14), is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and, therefore, that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished or curtailed the grace of the Father - an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed (Ezra 9:2; Isaiah 6:13), and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters (I Cor. 7:14). Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham ordered it to be sealed, infants by an outward sacrament (Gen. 17:12), how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children?"

 

I'll post this link again, as it answers all the questions and points being put forth here:

http://founders.org/library/malone1/a-string-of-pearls-unstrung/

Consider this from the article:

"The Covenant Participants

Several questions, however, must be put to this conclusion. First, if Christians–Jewish or Gentile–are the “seed” of Abraham, should we both claim physical Canaan as our rightful territory and “everlasting” possession as well? Second, if circumcision is a “forever” sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, then why do the New Covenant “seed” of Abraham not continue circumcision as a religious act? And, third, should Christians baptize not only infants but also all males bought or born into their homes?
It has often been objected that it is not legitimate to identify both children and physical land in the same category concerning the covenant promises to Abraham. I quite agree. However, what about the 318 male servants of the household of Abraham who were circumcised by virtue of their being in Abraham’s household? How does this aspect of people in the covenant household, not land, apply in the New Covenant application of the Abrahamic Covenant?"

 

We were not brought into their covenant. A new one was made for the us all. Of the OT covenants apply, we have 600+ laws to start going by. Many ceremonial laws and bacon is gone......but we all know Paul said that the law is obsolete....so I can eat bacon.
He also made it clear that circumsision was not required of the gentiles. Not sure how Calvin justifies us being under the Abrahamic covenant.

 

....and if we apply the principles of circumsision to baptism....and maintain Abrahamic covenant. All who fail to be baptized or circumsised "will be cut off from my(God) kingdom." Paul taught circumsision was not needed. The thief also entered Heaven without baptism. So the Abrahamic covenant is no longer binding nor applied to circumsision.

 

Bacon!! I almost broke out in a cold sweat.

Calvin isn't arguing that we are under the Abrahamic covenant. He is saying the covenant extends from the old to the new.

It's kind of like eating an elephant. You have to go to the Institutes Book 4 Chapter 16 and take a bite. Chew on it for a while and take another bite. I've been gnawing on it for a decade or so and I'm not past the foot. Sometimes you get sick of eating elephant and just can't take another bite. Sometime you just have to chew for a while and spit it out.

Now you done did it. You used Calvin and wrong in the same sentence. We're going to have McCree79 come over and confiscate all your bacon.

 

I agree with Calvin on a lot, but this isn't one of the times. Baptism was not a seal, that if not performed, would cut you off from the Kingdom. Failure to follow circumcision caused on to be cut off from the Kingdom.

Calvin as failed to see what they symbolized. Circumcision = physical external means of entrance into the covenant community. It had to be done. This was a community made up of believers and non believers.

Baptism= symbolizes regeneration and rebirth. This is a spiritual community made up of only believers...... Not saying that unsaved people haven't been baptized.....But an unsaved person who has been baptized is not in the spiritual community/invisible church.

So only members of their applicable community would receive baptism or circumcision. Infants are not born into the invisible church/spiritual birth.....they must be born again. Infants were however born into the physical Abrahamic covenant.

 

Padre,

Also addressing Calvin's comparison. Abraham's covenant was given to all of Abraham's physical seed. The covenant of Christ is given on to the spiritual seed.

 

Padre,
I do have the Institutes. I haven't read it all. I use it for topical reference. Along with Wayne Grudem's systemmatic theology book....I find most of my answers.

Old rebel,

I will be glad to come get you bacon. I will bare the sinfulness of bacon for all.

 

Gentlmen,

There are several things being confused. The Old Covenant included UNREGENERATED people by external circumcision which was inclusive of infants.

The New Covenant includes only regenerated people by new birth - Jer. 31:34 - take note of the words "least to the greatest" under this covenant knows the Lord without human instruction.

Second, children as well as the lost spouse are "sanctified" by a believing spouse. No salvation is in view here. Simply the influence of a saved person in a family and the blessings of God upon that saved person that the children and lost spouse benefit from.

 

Absolutely agree with your first 2 paragraphs. I tried to convey that point 3 posts ago ...4 after this one.

Not sure where you are going on the 3 paragraph. People all over the world receive blessings for God. Rain lands on the believers crops as well as the unbelievers. You state sanctification is applied to non believers by the presence of a believer inside the family. To sanctify is to set apart to God. The process of being conformed to the image of Christ. If one is being sanctified by a parent and not the Holy Spirit, is the unbeliever being conformed to the parent and not Christ? There is no moral motivation by the Holy spirit in the unbeliever to conform. The motivation is from the parent. God writing his moral will is a key part to sanctification. The lost person does not have that and they will always lack the sanctification in Christ, since it flows from the Holy Spirit. Not the parent.

 

It is the Spirit of Christ within the believing spouse at work sanctifying or setting them apart. Since their life controls the life of the children, and directly influences the life of their lost spouse , they too are recipients of that sanctifying influence. God's blessing upon that believer's life will be shared by his lost spouse and children. Without that immediate and direct influence there is no sanctifying influence over their lives and over that home.

 

OK.... I think I miss understood you earlier. I was trying to figure out if you were saying the lost family member (s) was being sanctified as well as the believer. You are just saying that they benefit indirectly and receive outward influence(via parents behavior). No spiritual sanctification going on. I am on the same page as you now?