Randy's profilePuritan CovenanterPhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
Puritan Covenanter |
|||||||
|
November 23 Circumcision and Baptism by Stephen Owenhttp://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/circumcision-and-baptism/ Circumcision and Baptism Before moving on to consider the Mosaic (or Sinaitic) covenant, it seems that now might be a sensible time to consider what relationship there might be between the act of circumcision and that of water baptism. It would be hard to imagine two operations more different than circumcision and baptism. They don’t sound alike, they don’t look alike and they certainly don’t feel alike. If someone were to be blindfolded and then had one or other ordinance performed on him, I guarantee that he would be able to tell which one it was! One was applied only to males in the Bible (Gen 17:10), whereas the other is given to both sexes (cf. Acts 8:12). One leaves a permanent mark upon the recipient; the other does not. There are other important differences that need to be spelled out here with reference to infants:- There is no command in the Bible for infants to receive water baptism. There is no instance in the Bible of infants being baptized. There is no reference in the Bible to infants being baptized (1). Water baptism in the Bible is constantly tied in with repentance, faith and discipleship (eg Matt 3:6, 11; 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 4:1; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 13, 36-37; 16:14-15, 31-34; 1Cor 1:16: compare with 16:15f; Eph 4:5); circumcision is referenced to no one’s faith but Abraham’s- and that to the faith he had while still uncircumcised (Rom 4:8-11). “Me and my seed” of the Old Testament is replaced by Christ and His seed of the New (Isaiah 53:10; Heb 2:13. cf. 1Cor 4:15). This point was not lost on the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith:- Larger Catechism of the W.C.F. Q.31. With whom was the covenant of grace made? Ans. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed. In view of all these facts, paedobaptists tend to make their chief case by claiming that baptism succedes circumcision and that both signify entry into ‘the Covenant.’ For example, Ralph E. Bass (What about baptism? Living Hope Press), writes, ‘ The purpose of both [circumcision and baptism] is to identify sharers in the Covenant, and to receive new members into the community of faith.’ Clearly, if it can be shown that baptism is the direct successor to circumcision and that they both signify the same thing, then that would be a powerful argument for the paedobaptist position. Now if baptism is indeed the successor to circumcision, we would expect to see this spelled out in Scripture for us, but we do not. Indeed, there is only one place in the whole Bible where the two ordinances appear together, namely Colossians 2:11-12. We shall look at these verses presently. But why does it not come up elsewhere? Why were the Jews in Acts 2:41 baptized? If they already had the ‘sign of the covenant,’ why did they need another? If they were already ‘sharers in the covenant’ and members in the ‘community of faith’ as Bass suggests, why did they need to be brought in again? Moreover, it seems to me remarkable that in all the difficulties that the early Church had with the Judaisers, this simple argument was never used. Why did no one present it at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15? Why did no one explain that the Gentile Christians had received the ‘covenantal sign’ when they were baptized and that therefore they didn’t need another? Likewise in his letter to the Galatians, Paul could have explained the matter very simply: “These men telling you to be circumcised are simply doubling up the covenant signs; you already have the new circumcision in your baptism.” There is a simple reason for Paul’s silence; circumcision and baptism signify very different things. We have said earlier that circumcision is never associated with anybody’s faith except Abraham’s. The reader can trawl all the way through the Old Testament, but he will not find a single example. The nearest approach is Exodus 12:43-49. Here we are told that a foreigner wishing to partake of the Passover had to be circumcised along with all his male servants and household before he could do so. Wishing to partake in a ritual meal is a very long way from expressing saving faith in Jehovah. Moreover, Naaman the Syrian, who does appear to have been a genuine believer (2Kings 5:15), never sought circumcision, nor was it required of him. King Nebuchadnezzar made what seems rather like a profession of faith (Dan 3:28f; 4:37), but there is no record of him having been circumcised. Why not? Because these two men did not live in Israel, and never desired to share in the Passover meal. So we can see that physical circumcision never had anything directly to do with faith. It was given to the physical descendants of Abraham and those who associated themselves with them, whether by becoming servants or taking the Passover. To be sure, circumcision spoke of the faith of Abraham and of the Seed that should come from him. As an indelible sign, it would carry on speaking to the one circumcised all his life. This, of course, is in contradistinction to baptism, which leaves no mark and so, unless faith is present, can be swiftly forgotten, or in the case of a child, not ever brought to mind. But nothing is more clear than that the large majority of the Israelites were devoid of grace and faith. We are told (Josh 5:5) that the Israelites who left Israel were all circumcised, yet all save two perished in the wilderness. We are told that, ‘They could not enter in [to Canaan] because of unbelief’ (Heb 3:19). It was their children, who were left uncircumcised by their parents, who reached the Promised Land. ‘For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love’ (Gal 5:6). Ralph Bass, whom I quoted above, gives a number of ‘proof texts’ for his view. He puts together the following two texts:- “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male child among you shall be circumcised…. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” Genesis 17:10, 14 “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.” Acts 2:41 The reader will quickly spot the flaw in Mr Bass’ argument. What is missing in the Gen 17 text is any reference to faith. Also that text is talking about children (and only male children at that), the other about adults. Moreover, we have seen (3) that circumcision was applied to those who were not in the covenant, therefore it cannot ‘identify sharers in the Covenant,’ or ‘receive new members into the community of faith’. Let us now consider Jeremiah 31:31ff:- ‘”Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah- not according to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a Husband to them, “ says the LORD. “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” says the LORD: “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least off them to the greatest of them,” says the LORD. “For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”’ These verses are of course quoted by the writer to the Hebrews in Heb 8:7-12 and 10:16-17. The first thing to note is that the new covenant is ‘not according to’ the former one. It is no use for paedobaptists to declare that the covenants are all one; this text clearly declares that there are at least two and that there are differences between them. We can list the differences. 1. The old covenant was broken. The clear implication of the text is that the new one will not be. In accordance with this, we read several times in the O.T. of the covenant being broken and Israelites being referred to as covenant-breakers. No one in the N.T. is ever accused of this (2). To be sure there are those who appear to be Christians, but then fall away, but they are not called covenant-breakers; rather they were never in the covenant at all, but instead are those whom have ‘crept into [the churches] unnoticed’ (Jude 4) but are never truly part of them (cf. Matt 7:21-23; Acts 8:20-23; 1John 2:19). Christ tells such people, “I never knew you!” He doesn’t say, “I knew you once and had you in my covenant and then forgot about you.” 2. In the new covenant, the law is written on the hearts and minds of those who are in it. Clearly there were those under the old covenant of whom this was true (eg. Ezra 7:10), but it is evident that for most of Israel’s history, the large majority of her people were devoid of grace (cf. eg. Isaiah 1; Jer 5). 3. No one in the new covenant needs to taught to know the Lord, for they all know him. That does not mean that they may not need to know Him better or more clearly, but there is no one in the new covenant who does not know Him to some extent. This is borne out by such texts as 1Cor 2-9. Paul is writing to those who are ‘Sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.’ If there is anyone in the Corinthian church of whom that is not true, Paul isn’t writing to him. Again, in 1John 2:20, Christians are told, ‘But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.’ Whom is John addressing? Christians; everyone to whom he is writing. 4. Those who are in the New Covenant have their sins forgiven. It is clear that neither those whom paedobaptists describe as being ‘under’ the Abrahamic Covenant, nor those in the Sinaitic Covenant had such forgiveness (cf. Gen 38:7; 2Chron 7:19f). The response from paedobaptists is to say that the promises of Jer 31:31 are not to be realised until the return of Christ. This is, for example, the position of Richard Pratt Jnr (4). It is true to say that the promises given in Jeremiah 31 point to what was then a future date, and there is nothing there to say when the fulfilment will be. However, when we come to the quotations of the verses in Hebrews 8 and 10, it is clear that the fulfilment was actually present at the time of writing. For example, Heb 8:6 tells us that the new covenant has already been established: ‘…….Inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.’ The word which the NKJV translates as ‘was established’ is nenomothetetai. The tense is perfect passive, indicating a completed action; ‘has been established’ might be the best rendering. What in Jeremiah’s time were promises had, in the First Century, been enacted once for all. Also in Heb 10:11-18, the fulfilment of the new covenant is present throughout. For example, consider vs17-18. ‘….Then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” For where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.’ He does not say, ‘when there will be remission’ for the offering for sin was given once and for all by our Saviour on the cross. Forgiveness of sins is a present reality for those in the new covenant. If therefore the old covenant is indeed, ‘not according to’ the new in so many ways, then it seems fair to say that circumcision, the sign of the old covenant is ‘not according to’ baptism, the ordinance of the new covenant. We should now look at what the Westminster Confesssion has to say on this matter. In Chapter XXX (‘Of Baptism’) we read that baptism is, ‘unto [Christians] a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.’ The proof text given is Romans 4:11 which, of course, does not speak of baptism, but of circumcision. What is meant here by ‘seal’? A seal is a guarantee of genuineness. One may buy jars of pickles or condiments on which is written, ‘None genuine without this seal.’ The seal is an assurance to the buyer that the contents on the jar were produced by the company whose name is on it, and that they have not been tampered with. In Britain, before a law can come into force it must receive the ‘Royal Assent’ which is given when the royal seal is placed upon the law. This is the sign that it really is the law of the land (cf. Esther 3:12). Nowhere in the Bible is it said that baptism is the seal of anything, and nowhere is it said that circumcision is the seal of anything to anyone save Abraham. What Rom 4:11 says is that Abraham’s circumcision was the seal, not of his faith, but of the righteousness of his faith; that is, that his faith (which he had before he was circumcised) was indeed counted for righteousness (Gen 15:6). It was not that to anyone else but Abraham. How could circumcision be that seal to an eight day-old baby? Nor is baptism a seal, either to an infant or an adult. The Holy Spirit is the seal of the righteousness of our faith (Eph 1:13; 2Cor 1:22). ‘The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God’ (Rom 8:16). Now at last we can come to consider Col 2:11-12. ‘In [Christ] you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ; buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.’ Does this text say that baptism is the successor to circumcision? Not at all! We can do no better here than to quote A. W. Pink (5). It is a mistake to suppose that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. As that which supplanted the Old Testament sacrifices was the one offering of the Saviour, as that which superseded the Aaronic priesthood was the high priesthood of Christ, so that which has succeeded circumcision is the spiritual circumcision which believers have in and by Christ: “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.” (Col 2:11)- how simple! How satisfying! “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him” (v12) is something additional: it is only wresting Scripture to say these two verses mean “Being buried with him in baptism, ye are circumcised.” No, no: verse 11 declares the Christian circumcision is “made without hands,” and baptism is administered by hands! The circumcision “made without hands in putting off [judicially, before God] the body of the sins of the flesh” has taken the place of the circumcision made with hands. The circumcision of Christ has come in the place of the circumcision of the law. Never once in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as the seal of the new covenant; rather is the Holy Spirit the seal: see Ephesians 1:13; 4:30.’ Exactly so. The main argument of Colossians is that believers are complete in Christ (2:10). The O.T. contains several exhortations to the Israelites to circumcise their hearts (eg. Deut 10:16; Lev 26:41-2; Jer 4:4. cf. 9:25-6; Rom 2:28-9), but Christians are never urged to baptize themselves in the Spirit. This is because circumcision was applied to infants who were ‘brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin’ (Psalm 51:5) and was therefore of no effect unless a changed heart came later. Baptism, by contrast was given to those whose heart had already been changed, enabling them to repent and trust in Christ (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12; 16:14), so that they needed nothing more. What then is the purpose of circumcision? Why did God institute it? Briefly, it is the sign for the physical descendants of Abraham. It is the mark that God selected to distinguish them from all other peoples as the nation from which the Messiah should come. It was, or should have been, a reminder to the Israelites that from their midst the Saviour should come. Baptism by contrast is the sign for the ‘children of promise’ (Gal 4:28), the spiritual descendants of Abraham. It speaks to the one baptized of his engrafting into Christ and his enrolment among the people of God. It symbolizes his dying to sin with Christ and rising to new life. So one was brought into the old covenant by one’s first birth, and received the sign shortly thereafter. One is brought into the new covenant by the second birth, regeneration. The sign should follow as soon as that birth becomes apparent. Of course, mistakes are made and unregenerate people are baptized. This is regrettable, but also inevitable; we are not infallible judges in this matter. It happened in the time of the Apostles, and the words of Peter to Simon Magus apply. “You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God” (Acts 8:8:21). Simon was not a covenant breaker, he was never in the covenant and the same applies to unregenerate people who are baptized today. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, but not the seal which is the Holy Spirit. ‘None genuine without this seal.’ Does this invalidate Believers’ Baptism? Not in the slightest. ‘But when they believed……… both men and women were baptized’ (Acts 8:12). That is the Biblical example and that is what should be followed. We conclude therefore, that circumcision and baptism are two separate ordinances symbolizing different things and that they should not be confused or conflated. Notes. (1) Paedobaptists sometimes point to 1Corinthians 10:1-2 and claim that it proves that infants were baptized. Well, that’s a bit of a stretch, but even if we allow it, it has no reference to Christian baptism since it is ‘into Moses.’ (2) We might think of Heb 10:28. ‘Of how much worse punishment do you suppose will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace.’ Now the question here is, for whom did Christ die? Did our Lord shed His blood for those who would count that very blood a common thing? Of course not! He laid down His life for the sheep, not the goats (John 10:11). The ‘He’ in Heb 10:23 refers to Christ Himself. ‘And for their sakes I sanctify myself’ (John 17:19). (5) In a prevous posting. http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009...amic-covenant/ (4) Richard L. Pratt Jnr., “Infant Baptism in the New Covenant,” The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (P & R Publishing, 2003). (5) A. W. Pink, The Divine Covenants (Pietan Publications). The Covenants The Abrahamic Covenant by Stephen Owenshttp://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/the-covenants-iv-the-abrahamic-covenant/ The Covenants. The Abrahamic Covenant Read Gen 12:1-3; 17:1-14; Gal 3:1-18; 4:21-31 It is hard to know how to approach this article; there is a bewildering amount of information on Abraham to be found in both Old and New Testaments. Also, the Abrahamic Covenant is the most controversial of all the covenants, having been very much tied in with the question of baptism. In his booklet, What Christian Parents should Know about Infant Baptism, John P. Sartelle commenced by writing, ‘We begin our study with the Old Testament character, Abraham.’ Now it goes without saying that Abraham was not himself baptized, nor did he ever baptize anyone, but nonetheless, paedobaptists argue that since male infants were circumcised in ancient Israel, the infant children of Christians ought to be baptized. In my opinion it is a fundamental error to start looking at a New Testament ordinance in the Old Testament; we should start with Christ, the Author and Perfector of our faith (Heb 12:2). However, I hope to consider the question of the relation of circumcision to baptism in a separate article. Here we shall consider the Abrahamic Covenant as a whole. The covenant with Abraham is revealed to us in four stages:- 1. Gen 12:1-3. The covenant Announced. The word ‘covenant’ is not mentioned here but Peter in Acts 3:23 makes it clear that God’s initial promises to Abram were part of the covenant. The three part of the covenant, Land, Nation, Seed are made clear. 2. Gen 15. The Covenant Transacted. The word ‘covenant’ is used in connection with Abraham for the first time, and a sacrifice is made. It is important to note that circumcision is not part of the covenant at this stage. The blessings promised to Abram are on the basis of his faith alone. 3. Gen 17. The Covenant Instituted. He receives a new name, and the sign of the covenant, circumcision, 4. Gen 23. The Covenant Confirmed. Abraham’s faith is proved by his actions (cf. Heb 11:17) and the promises repeated. The Abrahamic Covenant, like the covenants with Adam (Gen 3:15) and Noah, is a ‘covenant of promise’ (Eph 2:12). The word promise is used quite frequently in the New Testament with reference to Abraham (Acts 7:5; Rom 4:12; 9:4-9; Gal 3:5-29; 4:28; Heb 6:13-20; 11:9, 13, 17). The promises are ‘in Christ’ (Gal 3:17 NKJV. cf. 2Cor 1:20) as well as ‘of Christ’ (Gal 3:16); that is, they refer to Christ and are for those who are His by faith. The ‘Seed of the woman,’ spoken of in Gen 3:15, is shown to be also the Seed of Abraham, but the blessing is to the whole world. The promises are entirely gracious. There was nothing in Abraham to make him worthy of being the recipient of these promises. He was not brought up in a household that worshipped Yahveh; ‘Your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the river in old times: and they served other gods’ (Josh 24:2-3). It was not the piety of Abraham which commended him to God, but grace alone through God’s sovereign election. Nor could Abraham do anything to bring the promises about; he and Sarah might have been married for about fifty years before ever God spoke to him (cf. Gen 12:4), and they were doubtless already resigned to childlessness, but God was pleased to show him unmerited favour. With whom was the Abrahamic Covenant made? Only with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. These last two received the Abrahamic promises not through their relationship to Abraham, but directly from God (Gen 26:2-5; 28:12-15). The covenant is made with no one else. If I believe that God is going to make a great nation out of me, or make me a blessing to all nations, or give my descendants the Land of Canaan as a possession, I am more than likely to be deceiving myself. Nor could an Israelite appropriate the promises to himself; any of Abraham’s descendants other than Isaac and Jacob might be childless. But when we place our faith in the promised Seed, we may appropriate the promised blessing as we become a child of Abraham by faith (Gal 3:7) and inherit the heavenly country that Abraham sought and found (Heb 11:15-16). The covenant ‘with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ is repeatedly mentioned in Scripture (Exod 2:24; 32:13; Lev 26:42; Num 32:11; 2Kings 13:23; 1Chron 16:16ff; Psalm 105:9 etc.) but no one else is ever spoken of as being in the covenant with them. We have said that the covenant promises to Abraham were of land, nation and seed. Each of these has both an earthly and a heavenly fulfilment. There is an earthly land of Canaan which the Israelites eventually came to inherit, but we are told in Romans 4:13 that the promise was for the whole world (cf. Matt 5:5; Rev 5:10), and in Heb 11:16 that Abraham looked forward to a heavenly city. These are fundamentally the same promise and refer to the new heavens and new earth and also to the heavenly Jerusalem of Rev 21;1-3 which Abraham will inherit along with all believers at the end of time. Likewise, there was an earthly nation descended from Abraham who came to live in Canaan, but we learn from Gal 3:7 that believers of all nations are his true descendants and it is they who will inherit the heavenly promises. This brings us nicely on to the two seeds of Abraham; for there are two seeds with two different promises. Firstly, there is a physical seed to whom are given physical promises- a great nation and a physical land for it to dwell in. These promises were received by Israel in full (Josh 21:43-45). This seed ‘after the flesh’ (Gal 4:29) is represented by Ishmael. It is most important to understand that Ishmael is not in the Covenant. ‘And Abraham said to God, “Oh, that Ishmael might live before you!” Then God said, “No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him”’ (Gen 17:18-19). Nothing could be clearer than this; Ishmael is not in the covenant, although he receives the covenant sign (v26). Ishmael, though not an Israelite, is a type of Israel after the flesh. He receives the earthly promises (Gen 17:20) and the outward sign, but not the spiritual blessings (Gal 4:30; Acts 7:51-53). He persecutes the True Seed (Gen 21:9; John 8:37ff; Gal 4:29). His circumcision is of no avail to him since he lacks what circumcision symbolized; a humble, circumcised heart (Jer 9:25-26). There is also a spiritual seed of Abraham; those who are in Christ, the True Seed, by faith. These are they who are looking for a heavenly country just as Abraham was. Just as Abraham did not receive an earthly inheritance (Acts 7:5 etc), so the true Israelite knew that Canaan was not his true home (Psalm 39:12; 119:19. cf. 1Peter 2:11). He put no confidence in his circumcision, but rather his circumcision spoke to him of the promised Seed of Abraham who should come (cf. Luke 2:25-32; Phil 3:3). It may be asked then, are there two Abrahamic covenants, one to the physical descendants of Abraham and one to his spiritual seed? No, for as we have seen, Ishmael receives certain promises, and is given the sign of circumcision, but he is not in the covenant. But what then of Gen 17:10ff, which says, “This is My covenant which you shall keep between me and you and your descendants (lit. ‘Seed’) after you. Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you………and the uncircumcised male child who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant”? How could someone break the covenant if he’s not in it? As so often in the Scriptures, we can use the New Testament to shed light upon the Old. First, we can look at circumcision: ‘And [Abraham] 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 those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also’ Rom 4:11). First we should note that circumcision was not a seal of anything to anybody but Abraham, and even to him it was simply a confirmation of the blessings that had been already promised to him. It was a divine pledge to him that from him should come that Seed through Whom all nations should be blessed. It was not a seal of his faith, but of the righteousness that should, in due time, be wrought by Christ in Whom he had believed (cf. John 8:56). What then did circumcision signify to Abraham’s physical male progeny and to his male servants? Well, firstly it had nothing to do with faith. It was a requirement for service in Abraham’s household. If you wanted to work for Mr Abraham, you had the snip. Indeed, nowhere in the entire Bible will you find physical circumcision connected with anybody’s faith but Abraham’s. In itself it signified precisely nothing. From the descendants of Abraham, the Messiah would be born, but it did not follow that any particular descendant should be an ancestor of Christ. Circumcision was a sign, not to Abraham’s physical seed, but to those ‘Israelites indeed’ (John 1:47) who were looking forward to Christ by faith, that the promises of God should eventually be fulfilled. Next we can look at the ‘promises:’ ‘Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ……..and if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise’ (Gal 3:16, 29). In the light of this divinely-inspired commentary on Gen 17, it is perverse of the NKJV and other modern translations to speak of ‘descendants’ in Gen 17:10 and elsewhere, instead of ‘seed.’ The Authorised Version is more reliable at this point. The spiritual promises of the Abrahamic Covenant never applied to those who were physical descendants of Abraham, but to those of all nations (including Israel, of course) who are in Christ by faith. Very solemn are the words of our Lord on this matter: “And I say to you that many will come from east and west and will sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt 8:11-12). So we see that the Abrahamic Covenant is tied up with the coming of the promised son- the miracle child (Gen 15:2-6). Isaac is not Christ, but he is a type or foreshadowing of Christ: long promised, born miraculously, persecuted by his own kin (Ishmael), offered up by his father, who received him (figuratively- Heb 11:19) back from the dead. The children of God come from him (Rom 9:7; Heb 3:5b). It is worth reading Isaiah 54 prayerfully in the light of these points. So are Christians in some way ‘under’ the Abrahamic Covenant? The reader may search the whole Bible through but he will find no indication that they are. Believers are the true children of Abraham, and we read in Gal 3:14 that, ‘…….. the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.’ There is no promise here for the children of believers, any more than there was for Abraham’s children by Hagar or Keturah (Rom 9:7 again!). ‘Know therefore that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham’ (Gal 3:7). In the words of A.W.Pink: “The grand design of God’s covenant with Abraham was to make known that through him should come the One who would bring blessing to all the families of the earth.” But in order for this design to come to pass, it was necessary for a nation to arise for Christ to be born into, so that His earthly genealogy might be preserved. Pink continues, “Abraham is called a ‘father’ neither in a federal nor in a spiritual sense, but because he is the head of the faith clan, the prototype to which all believers are conformed. Christians are not under the Abrahamic covenant, though they are ‘blessed with him’ by having their faith counted unto righteousness. Though New Testament believers are not under the Abrahamic covenant, they are, because of their union with Christ, heirs of its spiritual inheritance.” The Covenants part II. The Covenant of Grace by Stephen Owenshttp://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/the-covenants-part-ii-the-covenant-of-grace/ The Covenants: Part Two Read: Eph 1:3-14. In the last article, we saw the desperate state of mankind after the Fall of Adam. He was our Representative or Covenant Head, and when he fell into sin we fell with him, both positionally and actually. On the one hand, since we were federally joined to him, his sin is imputed to us; we are constituted sinners in Adam (Rom 5:19 ). On the other hand, we have actually inherited Adam’s fallen nature and we are sinners, as it were, in our own right. ‘And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth’ (Gen 5:3 ). The image of God in which Adam was created is ruined and defaced in fallen man. Instead we carry the image and the nature of the one who fell. There is no way back to Eden for man by his own power. There was no arrangement to deal with sin under the Covenant of Works. Its precept was “Do this and live.” In Adam, we failed, and we die. Man has lost the original righteousness that Adam possessed. We owe a debt for Adam’s sin that we can by no means pay, and we are under God’s wrath for our own sin. Yet long before Adam was created, God had foreseen his fall and had prepared against it, so that Paul can speak of the, ‘Hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began but has in due time manifested’ (Titus 1:2 ). The coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and His death upon the cross were not therefore mere afterthoughts or God’s reaction to an unexpected crisis, but in fact His plan from eternity past. Before we start, it needs to be acknowledged that the term, Covenant of Grace does not appear in the Bible. Therefore one sees various other terms being used by theologians to describe that arrangement which was made between Father, Son and Spirit to save mankind. Many Reformed Theologians refer to it as the Council of Redemption and only speak of the Covenant of Grace as the announcement made to Adam and Eve in Gen 3:15. A. W. Pink speaks of the Eternal Covenant, which has the merit of being biblical (Heb 13:20 etc). Others call it the Covenant of Peace (Isaiah 54:10 ). I have tried to follow the Westminster Confession and the Baptist 1689 Confession which use Covenant of Grace throughout. The name we give is not important, so long as we understand that there was such an arrangement made between the Persons of the Trinity in eternity past and that the whole history of redemption as we read it in the Bible is nothing else than an outworking of that great covenant. It may be helpful here to quote from the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Confession. Q.30. Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery? Ans. God doth not leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the……. covenant of works; but of His mere love and mercy delivereth His elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace. Q.31. With whom was the Covenant of Grace made? Ans. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed. Let us turn to Eph 1. In verses 3-14, we see the parts played by each Person of the Trinity in the salvation of mankind. The text is divided into three parts by the phrase, ‘To the praise of His glory.’ There is glory here for Father, Son and Spirit. First, the Father’s part in salvation is displayed. Verses 3-7. ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved [Son].’ In the Covenant of Grace, the Father and the Son have covenanted together. The Father’s part is to choose or elect a people that He has willed to save out of the wreck of Adam’s fall. He has predestined them to be adopted as sons and to receive every spiritual and heavenly blessing. This He has done not for any virtue that He has seen in Man, but solely according to His good pleasure has He lavished grace, or unmerited favour, upon us. But notice that all these blessings do not come to us by themselves; everything comes through and ‘in’ Christ. God chose a people ‘in Christ.’ That is, He gave the Lord Jesus a chosen people out of Adam’s fallen posterity, that He should be to them a Covenant or Representative Head, just as Adam was. ‘The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven’ (1Cor 15:47 ). The part of the Lord Jesus Christ is to succeed where Adam failed, on behalf of those whom the Father has placed in His care. Like Adam, the Lord Jesus was made a ‘Public Person.’ When He was on earth, He acted, not only for Himself, but also for those whom God had given Him. Therefore, just as Adam’s sin was imputed to his physical posterity, so our Lord’s perfect righteousness is imputed to His spiritual children whom the Father has given Him (cf. Heb 2:13). ‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous’ (Rom 5:19). So it was that no sooner had He been commissioned for His public ministry than He must face Satan in single combat (Mark 1:9-13 ), and all the advantages appeared to be with the devil. Adam and Eve faced Satan in a beautiful garden filled with delightful things to eat (Gen 2:16 ); Christ faced him weakened by hunger in a howling wilderness. Yet our Lord was faithful to His part in the covenant. ‘For I have come down from heaven not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me’ (John 6:38). And He did it, perfectly and completely, not just in life but also in death (Phil 2:8). For as the ‘Last Adam,’ Christ needed not only to live the life that we cannot live, but also to die the death that we deserve to die; in short, to pay the penalty that Adam’s sin and our own sins deserve. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’ (2Cor 5:21). This is what Luther termed ‘The Great Exchange.’ He receives our punishment and takes away our guilt; we receive His righteousness and partake of His inheritance. ‘For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil’ (1John 3:8). The devil’s work was the corruption of Adam and Eve and the condemnation of them and their posterity. Christ has destroyed his work by redeeming a vast crowd of that posterity. ‘There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 8:1). ‘In Him [Christ] we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth–in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. (Eph 1:7-12). The Holy Spirit also played a vital part in that great covenant, bringing the elect to faith and sealing them- being as it were, the certificate of authenticity that believers do indeed belong to Christ: In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory’ (Eph 1:13-14). It is worth noting briefly here that baptism is not the seal of the covenant as the Westminster Confession claims (WCF. XXX. I); the Holy Spirit is, and always has been (cf. also Eph 4:30 & 2Cor 1:22 ). All this was determined, before ever there was a world, in the Covenant of Grace. That is why Paul can say of the Thessalonians, ‘But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth’ (2Thes 2:13 ). The whole of the Bible may be seen as the outworking of this great covenant and the accomplishment of God’s gracious plan for our salvation. References to the Covenant of Grace can be found in various parts of the Bible if one is prepared to look for them as the following examples will show:- Luke 22:22. “And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined……” Determined where and by whom if not in the Covenant of Grace? John 6:38-39. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” Christ has been given a people and the task by the Father which He is determined to fulfil. What can this refer to if not the Covenant of Grace? John 10:16. “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” Not, “I will bring,” but, “I must bring.” Our Lord had been given a commission to fulfil. John 10:17-18. “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” Where did Christ receive this command, the doing of which merited so well the Father’s love? In the Covenant of Grace, of course. Phil 2:6-8 (author’s translation). ‘Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be held onto, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.’ In the Covenant of Grace, our Lord gave up temporarily that equality with the Father that had existed from all eternity, and became the willing servant of Exodus 21:5-6 and Psalm 40:6-8 in order to rescue those who had been given to Him (John 17:2, 6 ). Heb 2:13. ‘Here am I and the children whom God has given to Me.’ Given by the Father to the Son in the Covenant of Grace to be redeemed from sin and brought to heaven. In Isaiah 42:6, Christ is described as the Covenant itself. He is, in His own Person and work, the very substance of it. In Mal 3:1, He is, ‘The Messenger of the Covenant’ because He came to proclaim it and make it known. In Heb 7:22, He is, ‘The Surety of a better covenant.’ Christ came as the representative of fallen Man, being engaged to fulfil the obligations incurred under the Covenant of Works. In Heb 9:15, He is, ‘The Mediator of the New Covenant’ since He has brought about legal satisfaction between God and man so that covenantal blessings are now imparted to those who had previously forfeited them, and He now stands between the two parties, advocating the cause of man to God (1John 2:1 ) and speaking a word of the comfort of God to the weary man (Isaiah 50:4 ). I am indebted to A. W. Pink for much of the forgoing; let us now hear from him direct. ‘But how could Christ sustain such offices a these unless the covenant had been made with him (Gal 3:17 ) and the execution of it had been undertaken by Him (Heb 10:5-7 )? [Heb 13:20] is quite sufficient to establish the fact that an organic connection existed between the Covenant of Grace and the sacrifice of Christ. In response to Christ’s execution of its terms, the Father now says to Him, “By the blood of Thy covenant I have set forth Thy prisoners [those given to Him before the foundation of the world, but in Adam fallen under condemnation] out of the pit wherein is no water” (Zech 9:11 ).’ In the light of all this, various other covenants may now be seen as subsidiary to the Covenant of Grace. These are the Covenants of Promise (Eph 2:12; Rom 9:4 ). Let us hear from Pink again:- ‘God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, David; but were they, as fallen creatures able to enter into covenant with their august and holy Maker? Were they able to stand for themselves, or to be sureties for others? The very question answers itself. What, for instance, could Noah possibly do which would ensure that the earth should never be destroyed again by a flood? These subordinate covenants were nothing more or less than the Lord’s making manifest, in an especial and public manner, the grand covenant: making known something of its glorious contents, confirming their own personal interest in it, and assuring them that Christ, the great covenant Head, should be of themselves and spring from their seed. ‘This is what accounts for that singular expression which occurs so frequently in Scripture: “Behold, I establish My covenant with you and your seed after you” (Gen 9:9 ). Yet there follows no mention of any conditions, or work to be done by them: only a promise of unconditional blessings. And why? Because the “conditions” were to be fulfilled and the “work” was to be done by Christ, and nothing remained but to bestow the blessings upon His people. So when David says, “He hath made with me an everlasting covenant” (2Sam 23:5 ) he simply means, God had admitted him into an interest in the everlasting covenant and made him partaker of its privileges. Hence it is that when the apostle Paul refers to the various covenants which God had made with men in Old Testament times, he styles them not “covenants of stipulations” but “covenants of promise”‘ As we consider these things, we may see that the very first ‘Covenant of Promise’ was made, not with Noah, but with Adam, immediately after his disastrous fall from grace. The words are spoken to the serpent, Satan, but the application is to us through the merits of Christ. ‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.’ There was nothing that Adam could do to bring this about. It is the work of Christ (1John 3:8 ), the true Seed of the woman (Gal 4:4 ) that comes to us through our union with Him (Rom 16:20 ). As a sign of this covenant, God graciously provide a covering for the guilty couple (Gen 3:21 ) and for this an innocent creature had to die, foreshadowing the one great sacrifice of the Lamb of God who provides for us the true covering or atonement for sin (cf. Isaiah 61:10; Rev 7:14 ). So it was that Abel, having learned from his parents of their great sin and fall, seeing himself lost and mired in sin, took that promise to his parents and made it his own by faith. He looked down the millennia by that same faith and saw the Seed that should come taking his sin upon His sinless shoulders on the cross, and, filled with love for the God that loved him so much, he took the finest lamb of his flock and sacrificed it to Him who would not withhold His beloved Son to save him. It was not the sacrifice that wrought salvation for Abel; it was his faith that united him to Christ in His death and resurrection. And so it is for us, that if we will look to Christ in repentance and faith, we too will be clothed in His righteousness and know the forgiveness of our sins. Abel and the Old Testament saints knew only the promise of Christ as they looked forward to His coming; we know the historical fact as we look backwards to the cross; yet the outcome is the same. “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” The one Covenant of Grace, expressed in the will of the Father and the obedience of the Son, has brought about salvation for all of God’s elect, from Adam and Eve themselves, to the very last sinner to be saved before Christ comes again. ‘In Him the tribes of Adam boast, More blessings than their father lost.’ The Covenants Part 1. The Covenant of Works By Stephen Owenhttp://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/the-covenants-part-1-the-covenant-of-works/ An aquaintence of mine in the UK has posted a few things I am going to post on my blog for the benefit of others. The Covenants: Part 1 The Covenant of Works Read: Gen 2:4-9; 15-17, 25; Gen 3:6-24. Rom 5:6-12; 18-21; 1Cor 15:21-22. Covenant Theology seems to be regarded today as something akin to Rubik’s Cube or brain surgery- immensely difficult, complicated or abstruse. I don’t believe that this is so, although it is often made out to be. Covenant Theology is a way of showing forth the unity of the Bible, of seeing God’s almighty power and Divine will moving purposefully through the millennia. It is also a counter to the dispensationalism that pervades so many of the evangelical churches today, that divides the will of God into seven dispensations, each ending in failure, and that divides the people of God into Israel and the Church, forgetting that the wall of separation is broken down in Christ (Eph 2:14 ). Covenant Theology (hereafter C.T.) is often thought of as a paedobaptist, Presbyterian theology and it is true that many of the great Covenant theologians were paedobaptists, like Herman Witsius, who wrote a monumental book on the subject, The Economy of the Covenants of God. However, the first Particular Baptists were all covenantalists, and the very first of their books, A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme by John Spilsbury was covenantal. The covenants are mentioned in the Baptist Confession of 1689, so if we want to get back to our Particular Baptist roots, we ought to get to grips with C.T. If we want to understand the Bible as a whole, we need C.T. If we want to give our churches a bulwark against charismaticism and liberalism, we need C.T. Baptist C.T. differs somewhat from its Presbyterian counterpart. When we get to the covenant with Abraham and the issue of circumcision, we shall need to study these differences. Three books which Baptistic students of C.T. will find helpful without being overly long are:- The Divine Covenants by A.W.Pink Covenant theology from Adam to Christ by Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen A Reformed Baptist Manifesto by Samuel Waldron & Richard Barcellos What is a covenant? The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament is Bara, which comes from a root word meaning ‘bonds’ or ‘yokes.’ The idea is of two parties binding themselves to perform some mutually agreed action. The Greek word is diatheke, which means a ‘disposition’ or ‘arrangement.’ The puritan John Owen defined a covenant as, ‘A voluntary convention, pact, agreement between distinct persons about the ordering and dispensing of things in their power, to their mutual concern or advantage.’ A simpler definition might be, ‘A mutual agreement, a benefit being assured on the fulfilment of certain conditions.’ There is an example of a covenant in 1Sam 20:11-17. Jonathan promises to help David escape from Saul, and David promises to show kindness to Jonathan’s descendants (cf. 2Sam 9:1 ). There is an oath and the name of the Lord is invoked (vs 12, 16-17 ). This is an example of a covenant between equals. Sometimes we see covenants between parties where one side is clearly superior to the other. These are called by theologians Suzerainty Covenants.. In such cases, the terms of the covenant are dictated by the stronger side (eg. 1Kings 20:34 ), and the benefits are therefore likely to accrue to the stronger at the expense of the weaker. It goes without saying that God is always the Superior and He dictates the terms of the covenants into which He enters. However, God’s unmerited love towards sinners means that His covenantal plans bring blessings to those who are without power or strength (Rom 5:8 ). I propose to discuss the covenants under the following structure:- Two covenants transacted between God and a Covenant or Representative head. These are the so-called Covenant of Works made with Adam, and the Covenant of Grace made with Christ. Four covenants of Promise (cf. Eph 2:12 ). These are the covenants with Adam (Gen 3:15-21 ), with Noah, with Abraham and with David. These are covenants with individuals, purely gracious, and having reference to a coming ‘Seed.’ Two covenants made between God and a people: the Old (or ‘First’ or ‘Mosaic’) Covenant and the New Covenant. One is made with reference to the law, the other with reference to faith. The New Covenant is discovered to be nothing else but the Covenant of Grace revealed and realized and the consummation of all the covenants (Col 1:26; Heb 13:20. cf. Exod 2:24; Psalm 111:5; Ezek 16:60-61; Luke 1:72 ). The first covenant to be discussed is the Covenant of Works. This is the covenant made between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden before Adam sinned. Now straightaway, we must face the fact that such a covenant is not directly named in the Bible. The nearest we get to it is in Hosea 6:7. “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt treacherously with Me” (NKJV margin). The problem here is that ‘Adam’ is a transliteration for the Hebrew word meaning ‘Man.’ Either rendering might be correct. However, if we look at God’s words to Adam in Gen 2:16-17, I believe that we shall see all the attributes of a covenant as laid out above. As Reformed Baptists, we require a greater level of Biblical evidence than our Presbyterian brethren. Our doctrines must be either stated explicitly or ‘necessarily contained’ (1689 Baptist Confession ) in the Bible. This I take to mean that all doctrine must be found within the pages of the Bible; if not in the form of a straightforward command, at least contained within the Bible as an example or precept. ‘Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die “’(Gen 2:15-17 ). The covenant comes in the form of a provision, a command and a warning, but a gracious promise is implied- eternal life; ‘if you don’t the forbidden fruit, you shall live.’ Adam was put into the position of a tenant moving into a house. The landlord might tell him, “You can live here rent-free in return for doing the garden; you can eat all the stuff that grows in the garden, but don’t touch the vintage claret in the cellar or you’re out!” This arrangement has all the attributes of a covenant. The greater party (God) gives to the lesser party (Adam) a perfect environment, ample provisions and eternal life. The lesser party agrees to oversee and to care for the environment, and to obey the rules laid down for him. A breach of these rules is a breach of the covenant and must lead to the forfeiture of its benefits. The covenant might be better termed the ‘Covenant of Obedience’ since it was obedience rather than works which were required, but it has been called the Covenant of Works to distinguish it from the Covenant of Grace which we shall look at in a future article. It might be supposed that Adam had no other law to obey save the single one of not eating from the forbidden tree, but that would be a simplistic view. Adam was under the Moral Law of God, the Ten Commandments, as a moment’s thought will confirm. Suppose Adam built an idol in the garden to worship, or suppose he strangled Eve! Would God have said, “Of that’s alright, Adam, just as long as you don’t eat the fruit!” The very thought is absurd. It is true that Adam could not have coveted his neighbour’s ox or his ass since he had no neighbours, but he certainly coveted that which God had denied to him and stole it to his own inestimable loss and that of his posterity. ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12 ). There is no doubt but that the Covenant of Works was a gracious covenant. God was under no obligation to do anything for Adam, yet He gave him a wife, placed him in a beautiful garden with only light tasks to perform (there were no weeds before the Fall- Gen 3:17-18 ) and gave him dominion over all the rest of creation. However, there is no mention of mercy in the covenant. Adam is warned, “In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.” To put it another way, “Do this and live.” Adam’s privileges were dependant on his obedience. Yet he was well able to perform this obedience. God had made him entirely righteous; otherwise He could not have pronounced the whole of creation ‘very good’ (Gen 1:31 ). Yet Adam was not in the most gracious state possible. Though he had been created sinless, he was still able to sin; he stood or fell by his own actions. This has led many theologians to postulate that Adam was on probation; had he not sinned, they say, God would have promoted him to a still more gracious position in which he would have been unable to sin. We read in Gen 2:9b of the ‘Tree of Life.’ It is suggested that at the end of their probation, Adam and Eve would have been permitted to eat from this tree and their eternal lives would have been assured. Certainly, after their fall, the way to the tree of life was lost to mankind (Gen 3:24 ) and is not heard of again until Rev 2:7 and 22:2 where it is seen as the reward for those who persevere, the very thing that Adam and Eve failed to do. This idea is quite attractive and may be correct, but we cannot insist upon it because it is a conjecture and is not clearly found in the word of God. If we want to remain true to the Baptist Confession, we must take all our doctrine from the Bible and eschew all conjecture. We read in Gen 2:25 that, ‘They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.’ To put this in another way, they had no covering. There was no covering or atonement for sin, but that didn’t matter at the time, because there was no sin to cover. But as soon as they fell into sin, it became of crucial importance. ‘Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings’ (Gen 3:7 ). Sinful man cannot stand before a righteous God unless that sin be covered. But a man-made covering is no covering at all as far as God is concerned. As Isaiah says (64:6 ); ‘But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags.’ Even as Adam and Eve put on their home-made garments, they knew in their hearts that the fig leaves were worthless to hide their sin from God, so they hid from His presence (Gen 3:8 ). The true covering for sin must come from God Himself, and it must involve the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22 ) as we shall see. Adam was a public person or a Covenant head. In the Covenant of Works, he transacted not only for himself and Eve, but also for his seed and his doom was also theirs. ‘For as in Adam, all die…..’ (1Cor 15:22 ). His sin is imputed to his progeny. ‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners…….’ (Rom 5:19 ). The idea of a Covenant or representative head is not as strange as one might think. The head of a business makes deals and transactions on behalf of the whole corporation. A politician signs treaties that are binding upon the whole population of the country. If the Prime Minister of Great Britain were to declare war upon France, all Britons would be at war whether we approved of it or not, and if we were to meet a Frenchman with a gun, he might well feel justified in shooting us! So it is that mankind can be described as having a bad record and a bad reputation. Not only are we constituted sinners by our covenant association with Adam, but we are sinners in our own selves. We have inherited Adam’s fallen nature. ‘And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth’ (Gen 5:3 ). Whereas Adam had been created in the image of the perfect and holy God, each of us is born with the sinful nature of fallen Adam. ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh’ (John 3:6 ). ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12 ). The state of fallen man is desperate, and entirely our own fault. Adam sinned deliberately and so do we. We cannot plead that God’s judgements are unfair and that we should not be blamed for his iniquity. Adam sinned once and fell; fallen man sins many times a day (Rom 3:10-18 ). Mankind has therefore utterly forfeited and lost all covenant interest in God. He can no longer claim a right in or hope of the promise of eternal life held out in the covenant. At once, he fell under guilt, which was the sentence of his own conscience, seeing himself under the just wrath of God and therefore dreading His approach (Gen 3:8-10 ). We are by nature like cockroaches that scuttle into a dark corner when the light is switched on (John 3:19 ). Unredeemed mankind has entirely lost its relationship with God. He is incapable of true happiness because he is at enmity with God and alienated from Him. As we have observed, the image of God in him is now wholly defaced. Where first there was the beauty of original righteousness, now there is only filthiness and deformity (Titus 3:3; Psalm 14:1-3 ). The curse of the covenant is now in effect; man is subject to fear of death and fear of judgement and hell. He has become a debtor instead of a free man. He owes a debt of obedience that he is by no means able to settle- he has sinned infinitely against the infinite love of God and therefore owes infinitely more than he can pay. The curse is also extended to creation. The world has fallen with fallen man; it is God’s righteous judgement that sinful humans shall not live in a perfect world. “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life” (Gen 3:17. cf. Rom 8:20 ). Man is helpless and without strength in a harsh environment, unable to bring himself before God on a covenant of works and equally unable to bring himself on any other terms. There was no arrangement in the covenant for a second chance. Man is unable to move even one step towards reconciliation with God. The door of repentance was not opened by the Covenant of Works, and even if it had been, there would have been neither the power nor the inclination to enter it. And yet………. ‘For when we were still without strength, Christ died for the ungodly’ (Rom 5:6 ). O loving wisdom of our God! When all was sin and shame, A second Adam to the fight And to the rescue came. The Decalogue: Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace? I lifted this from A Puritan's Mind. It was the parent site to the Puritanboard. http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/WitsiusDecalogueCovenant.htm The Decalogue: Covenant of Works or Covenant of Grace by Dr. Herman Witsius Taken From �Economy of the Covenants�, Pages 182ff Now concerning this covenant, made upon the ten commandments, it is queried, Whether it was a covenant of works, or a covenant of grace? We judge proper to premise some things, previous to the determination of this question. And first, we observe, that, in the Ministry of Moses, there was a repetition of the doctrine concerning the law of the covenant of works. For both the very same precepts are inculcated, on which the covenant of works was founded, and which constituted the condition of that covenant; and that sentence is repeated, "which if a man do he shall live in them," Lev. xviii. 5. Ezek. xx. 11, 13. by which formula, the righteousness, which is of the law, is described, Rom. x. 5. And the terror of the covenant of works is increased by repeated comminations; and that voice heard, "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them," Deut. xxvii. 26. Now the apostle declares, that this is the curse of the law, as the law is opposed to faith, or the covenant of grace, Gal. iii. 10, 12. Nay, as the requirement of obedience was rigid under the ministry of Moses, the promises of spiritual and saving grace were more rare and obscure, the measure of the Spirit granted to the Israelites, scanty and short, Deut. xxix. 4. and on the contrary, the denunciation of the curse frequent and express; hence the ministry of Moses is called, "the ministration of death and condemnation," 2 Cor. iii. 7, 9. doubtless because it mentioned the condemnation of the sinner, and obliged the Israelites to subscribe to it. Secondly, we more especially remark that, when the law was given from mount Sinai or Horeb, there was a repetition of the covenant of works. For, those tremendous signs of thunders and lightnings, of an earthquake, a thick smoke and black darkness, were adapted to strike Israel with great terror. And the setting bounds and limits round about the mount, whereby the Israelites were kept at a distance from the presence of God, upbraided them with that separation, which sin had made between God and them. In a word, "Whatever we read," Exod. xix. (says Calvin, on Heb. xii. 10.) "is intended to inform the people, that God then ascended his tribunal, and manifested himself as an impartial judge. If an innocent animal happened to approach, lie commanded it to be thrust through with a dart; how much sorer punishment were sinners liable to, who were conscious of their sins, nay, and knew themselves indited by the law, as guilty of eternal death." See the same author on Exod. xix. 1, 16. And the apostle in this matter, Heb. xii. 18-22. sets mount Sinai in opposition to mount Zion, the terrors of the law to the sweetness of the gospel. Thirdly, We are not, however, to imagine, that the doctrine of the covenant of works was repeated, in order to set up again such a covenant with the Israelites, in which they were to seek for righteousness and salvation. For, we have already proved (B. 1. chap. ix. section 20) that this could not possibly be renewed in that manner with a sinner, en account of the justice and truth of God, and the nature of the covenant of works, which admits of no pardon of sin. See also Hornbeck.Theol. Pract. tom. 2. p. 10. Besides, if the Israelites were taught to seek salvation by the works of the law, then the law bad been contrary to the promise, made to the fathers many ages before. But now says the apostle, Gal. iii. 17. "the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." The Israelites were, therefore, thus put in mind of the covenant of works, in order to convince them of their sin and misery, to drive them out of themselves, to show them the necessity of a satisfaction, and to compel them to Christ. And so their being thus brought to a remembrance of the covenant of works tended to promote the covenant of grace. Fourthly, There likewise accompanied this giving of the law the repetition of some things belonging to the covenant of grace. For, that God should propose a covenant of friendship to sinful man, call himself his God (at least in the sense it was said to the elect in Israel), take to himself any people, separated from others, for his peculiar treasure, assign to them the land of Canaan as a pledge of heaven, promise his grace to those that love him and keep his commandments, and circumscribe the vengeance denounced against despisers within certain bounds, and the like; these things manifestly discover a covenant of grace: and without supposing the suretiship of the Messiah, it could not, consistently with the divine justice and truth, be proposed to man a sinner. Judiciously says Calvin on Exod. xix. 17. "by these words we are taught, that these prodigies or signs were not given, to drive the people from the presence of God; nor were they struck with any terror, to ex. asperate their minds with a hatred of instruction: but that the covenant of God was no less lovely than awful. For, they are commanded to go and meet God, to present themselves with a ready affection of soul to obey him. Which could not be unless they had heard something in the law besides precepts and threatenings." See also Tilenus Syntagm. p. 1. Disp. 33. Section 18, 19, 20, 28, 29. Having premised these observations, I answer to the question. The covenant made With Israel at mount Sinai was not formally the covenant of works, 1st. Because that cannot be renewed with the sinner, in such a sense as to say, if, for the future, thou shalt perfectly perform every instance of obedience, thou shalt be justified by that, according to the covenant of works. For, by this, the pardon of former sins would be presupposed, which the covenant of works excludes. 2dly. Because God did not require perfect obedience from Israel, as a condition of this covenant, as a cause of claiming the reward; but sincere obedience, as an evidence of reverence and gratitude. 3dly. Because it did not conclude Israel under the-curse, in the sense peculiar to the covenant of works, where all hope of pardon was cut off, if they. sinned but in the least instance. However the carnal Israelites, not adverting to God's purpose or intention, as they ought, mistook the true meaning of that covenant, embraced it as a covenant of works, and by it sought for righteousness. Paul declares this, Rom. ix. 31, 32. "but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness; wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law,; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone." To the same purpose it is, that, Gal. iv. 24, 25. he compares to the Ishmaelites Israelites,while they tarried in the deserts of Arabia, which was the country of the former, who are born to bondage of their mother Hagar, or the covenant of mount Sinai, and being destitute of true righteousness, shall, with Ishmael, be at length turned out of the house of their heavenly Father. For, in that place, Paul does not consider the covenant of mount Sinai as in itself, and in the intention of God, offered to the elect, but as abused by carnal and hypocritical men. Let Calvin again speak: "The apostle declares, that, by the children of Sinai, he meant hypocrites, persons who are at length cast out of the church of God, and disinherited. What therefore is that generation unto bondage, which he there speaks of? It is doubtless those, who basely abuse the law, and conceive nothing concerning it but what is servile. The pious fathers who lived under the Old Testament did not so. For, the servile generation of the law did riot binder them from having the spiritual Jerusalem for their mother. But they, who stick to the bare law, and acknowledge not its pedagogy; by which they are brought to Christ, but rather make it an obstacle to their coming to him, these are Ishmaelites (for thus, and I think rightly, Morlorat reads) born unto bondage." The design of the apostle therefore, in that Place, is not to teach us, that the covenant of mount Sinai was nothing but a covenant of works, altogether opposite to the gospel-covenant; but only that the gross Israelites misunderstood the mind of God, and basely abused his covenant; as all such do, who seek for righteousness by the law. See again Calvin on Rom. x. 4. Nor was it formally a covenant of grace: because that requires not only obedience, but also promises, and bestows strength to obey. For, thus the covenant of grace is made known, Jer. xxxii. 39. 41 and I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever." But such a promise appears not in the covenant made at mount Sinai. Nay; God, on this very account, distinguishes the new covenant of grace from the Sinaitic, Jer. xxxi. 31-33. And Moses loudly proclaims, Deut. xxix. 4. "yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to 'hear, unto this day." Certainly, the chosen from among Israel had obtained this. Yet not in virtue of this covenant, which stipulated obedience, but gave no power for it: but in virtue of the covenant of grace, which also belonged to them. What was it then? It was a national covenant between God and Israel, whereby Israel promised to God a sincere obedience to all his precepts, especially to the ten words; God, on the other hand, promised to Israel, that such an observance would be acceptable to him, nor want its reward, both in this life, and in that which is to come, both as to soul and body. This reciprocal promise supposed a covenant of grace. For, without the assistance of the covenant Of grace, man cannot sincerely promise that observance; and yet that an imperfect observance should be acceptable to God is wholly owing to the covenant of grace, It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works, the terror or which being increased by those tremendous signs that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace that covenant of God. This agreement therefore is a consequent both of the covenant of grace and of works; but was formally neither the one nor the other. A like agreement and renewal of the covenant between God and the pious is frequent; both national and individual. Of the former see Josh. xxiv. 22. 2 Chron. xv. 12. 2 Kings xxiii. 3. Neh. x. 29. Of the latter, Psal. cxix. 106. It is certain, that in the passages we have named, mention is made of some covenant between God and his people. If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere piety, which supposes both. Hence the question, which is very much agitated at this day, may be decided: namely, Whether the ten words are nothing but the form of the covenant of grace? This, I apprehend, is by no means an accurate way of speaking., For, since a covenant strictly so called, consists in a mutual agreement, what is properly the form of the covenant should contain the said mutual agreement. But the ten words contain only a prescription of duty fenced on the one band by threatenings, taken from the covenant of works; on the other, by promises, which belong to the covenant of grace. Hence the scripture, when it speaks properly, says that a covenant was made upon these ten words, or after the tenor of those words, Exod. xxxiv. 27. distinguishing the covenant itself, which consists in a mutual agreement from the ten words, which contain the conditions of it. The form of the covenant is exhibited by those words, which we have already quoted from Exod. xix. 5, 6, 8. I deny not, that the ten commandments are frequently in scripture called the covenant of God. But at the same time, no person can be ignorant, that the term covenant has various significations in the Hebrew, and often signifies nothing but a precept, as Jer. xxxiv. 18, 14. Thus Moses explains himself on this head, Deut. iv. 13. "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments." They are therefore called a covenant by a synecdoche, because they contain those precepts, which God, when he set his covenant before them, required the Israelites to observe, and to which the said Israelites bound themselves by covenant. The ten words, or commandments, therefore, are not the form of a covenant properly so called, but the rule of duty: much less are they the form of the covenant of grace: because that covenant, in its strict signification, consists of mere promises and, as it relates to elect persons, has the nature of a testament, or last will, rather than of a covenant strictly speaking, and depends on no condition; as we have at large explained and proved, B. III. chap. I. sect. 8. etc. And. Jeremiah has shown us, that the form of the covenant of grace consists in absolute promises, chap. xxxi. 33. and xxxii. 38-40. In like manner, Isa. liv. 10. Least of all can it be said, that the ten words are nothing but the form of the covenant of grace, since we may look upon them as having a relation to any covenant whatever. They may be considered in a twofold manner. 1st. Precisely, as a law. 2dly. As an instrument of the covenant. As a law, they are the rule of our nature and actions, which HE has prescribed, who has a right to command. This the were from the beginning, this they still are, and this they will continue to be, under whatever covenant, or in whatever state man shall be. As an instrument of the covenant they point out the way to eternal salvation; or contain the condition of enjoying that salvation: and that both Under the covenant of grace and of works. But with this difference; that under the covenant of works, this condition is required to be performed by man himself; under the covenant of grace it is proposed, as already performed, or to be performed by a mediator. Things, which those very persons, with whom we are now disputing, will not venture to deny. John Piper / Wayne Grudem and Baptism. Wayne Grudem and John Piper some time back discussed baptism and ecclesiology. Piper longed to have a church membership that consisted of paedo-baptist and credo-baptists. I use to hold to Pipers view. I had great admiration for he Free Presbyterian Church Worldwide. They hold this view. But as of the last few years my convictions have sharpened a bit. I hold a view that a local congregation is not the whole body of Christ. Unity in both places is very important but our Unity and Union are two different issues in my opinion. Union seems to have more of a connection to something more than unity. When a union is entered into an attachment is achieved whereby others are put together as one. . Unity has to do with two walking side by side. We all have Union with Christ as a body but as a body has parts we are to walk in unity as members. In our separate confessional standards we have a Union with each other in our individual Churches. 1689ers and WCFers so to speak have unions in their confessions. It is conviciton and confession that binds them. At this point there are a few issues that one goup must call the other out. One is congregationalism and the other is baptism. I do know of Presbyterians and Baptists who accuse the other of sin if one does not line up with the convictions of the other. The Baptist is accused of the sin of anabaptism by some Presby's along with the sin of not applying the seal of the covenant upon their children. These are not light issues as Piper does not address them. Some Baptist's accuse Presby's of poor hermeneutics in their understanding of Covenant Theology and sinning by not following Christ's command that disciples must be baptized as repentant converts of Christ. Disciples can not be infants or church members because one must first exhibit cognizant confessional capabilities. Therefore the Presby is knowingly admitting an unregenerate unforgiven Church membership that is not acknowledged in Jeremiah 31 or the New Covenant. There are major differences that do not promote a Union but would in fact be a place where division would be caused by doctrinal differences. At the same time I do believe we can walk in Unity. For we have much more in Common with the beliefs we hold in common. For instance the Person and Work of Christ, the Five Sola's, most of our views on Covenant Theology. These are things we can walk in Unity concerning our faith and Practice. And our Union is truly with the Son of God. I have been a PCA member. I joined with a promise not to cause any fuss over the issue of Baptism. And I didn't. I could never hold a position of authority in that Church because of my beliefs and my non adherance to the WCF. So another question for me to Piper would be.... Why in tarnations would you limit someone like R. C. Sproul, Pipa, Ryken, or any other good Presby in a Baptist Church membership or would you limit them? Would they be able to live out their convictons in good conscience in a 1689 confessional Church, or in your Reformed Baptist Church? If you are truly a Covenantal Baptist you couldn't. But if they dwelt amongst themselves they would not be limited in such a way. I would not let them perform their gifts of Elder in a Baptist Church or we would be in a compromised position to hold to our doctrine in my opinion. But at the same time I do hold them as Elders in the Church of Christ in their distinct Presbyterian Union. And I dearly respect them as Elders. And I would expect to hear the Word of God proclaimed by them in a goodly way. The differences are to great in my estimation for such a mixed union. Just a few more words concerning the Federal Vision Just a few words. I find it amazing that one of the central issues concerning Covenant Theology is rarely addressed in this discussion. Maybe it is something that I hold too dear to. But I absolutely love the doctrine of the Covenant of Works and the Bi-Covenantal system of understanding our Bible. I include the Covenant of Redemption in the Covenant of Grace. Sorry if that bothers some of you. Well, not really. The Federal Vision advocates hate this system of theology. Now they will acknowledge some form of the CofW but all of them that I have known of hold to a monocovenantalism which teaches only one Covenantal structure of grace for understanding the workings of God in historical redemption. This simply amazes me. This is so far from being Confessional that it ought to make the Confessional Church rise up and cry against it. It totally changes the Work of Christ and what He did. John Coloquoun made a great observation concerning this issue. John Coloquoun says, Although eternal life was, in the covenant of works, promised to Adam and his posterity on condition of his perfect obedience, and that only, yet a man is to be counted a legalist or self-righteous if, while he does not pretend that his obedience is perfect, he yet relies on it for a title to life. Self-righteous men have, in all ages, set aside as impossible to be fulfilled by them that condition of the covenant of works which God had imposed on Adam, and have framed for themselves various models of that covenant which, though they are far from being institutions of God, and stand upon terms lower than perfect obedience, yet are of the nature of the covenant of works. The unbelieving Jews who sought righteousness by the works of the law were not so very ignorant or presumptuous as to pretend to perfect obedience. Neither did those professed Christians in Galatia who desired to be under the law, and to be justified by the law, of whom the apostle therefore testified that they had "fallen from grace' (Galatians 5:4), presume to plead that they could yield perfect obedience. On the contrary, their public profession of Christianity showed that they had some sense of their need of Christ's righteousness. But their great error was that they did not believe that the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone was sufficient to entitle them to the justification of life; and therefore they depended for justification partly on their own obedience to the moral and ceremonial law. It was this, and not their pretensions to perfect obedience, that the apostle had in view when he blamed them for cleaving to the law of works, and for expecting justification partly on their own works of obedience to the moral and ceremonial laws, they and the apostle informed them, were fallen from grace; Christ had become of no effect to them. And they were "debtors to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:3-4). By depending for justification partly on their imperfect obedience to the law, they framed the law into a covenant of works, and such a covenant of works as would allow for imperfect instead of perfect works; and by relying partly on the righteousness of Christ, they mingled the law with the gospel and works with faith in the affair of justification. Thus they perverted both the law and the gospel, and formed them for themselves into a motley covenant of works. A Treatise on the Law and Gospel pp. 18,19 John Coloquhoun Published by Soli Deo Gloria Here is what Federal Vision advocate Douglas Wilson says about the Covenant of Works. Furthermore, because the first covenant with Adam was a gracious covenant, coming from a gracious God, with the condition of the first covenant being the covenantal faithfulness of Adam, not merit, FV proponents suggest that believers should recognize the essential unity of the covenants from Adam through Christ. They are all basically the same with the same condition, covenant faithfulness. In addition, FV writers unanimously reject the concept of merit under the covenant of works: “God did not have an arrangement with Adam in the garden based on Adam’s possible merit. Everything good from God is grace. If Adam had passed the test, he would have done so by grace through faith". Douglas Wilson, “Beyond the Five Solas,” Credenda/Agenda 16/2:15 I also discussed this with Dr. R. Scott Clark whom some of you might or might not like. He responded to a similar question concerning Wilkin's that I had asked him so I just used it as a response to the Doug Wilson quote. Here is Dr. Clark's response. The classic Reformed folk tended to use the expressions "covenant of works" and "covenant of life" and "covenat of nature" (and the like) interchangeably. Works refers to the terms. Life refers to the goal. Nature refers to the setting. It's not that complicated. Wilkins clearly denies the substance of the covenant of works. According to W. the prelapsarian covenant is legal-gracious and the post-laps. cov. is gracious-legal. To admit a purely legal prelapsarian covenant does profound damage to the covenant moralist scheme because it entails the sort of law/gospel dichtomy which they abhor and which the Protestant faith embraces. Wilkins is advocating a "trust and obey" scheme before and after the fall. The Westminster Confession doesn't. Neither do the rest of the Reformed confessions. They have it that Adam was righteous, holy, good and able to obey. He chose not to obey. He sinned. He fell and we with him. (The truth is, Adam) He didn't fall from grace. He broke the law. The Wilkins account confuses law and grace. Of course, the Apostle Paul has no such problem. This off base doctrine of monocovenantalism and teaching that the Covenant of Works is a gracious covenant is unconfessional and should be dealt with. Christ fulfilled the law on our behalf. He fulfilled what the first Adam failed to fulfill. If he didn't then the justice of God was not met in Christ's sacrificial atonement. There is no propitiation. The person and work of Christ is demerited by these men who teach this unconfessional and very unbiblical doctrine. Sanctification and New Covenant Membership Pt. 2 by Alan Conner Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner Chapter 13 Sanctification and New Covenant Membership (II) It may be appropriate at this point to comment on a passage that is often used by paedobaptists. It concerns the parable of the tares in Matthew 13. Tares are Not Covenant Members 24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, ‘First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.’” (Matthew 13:24-30) Many paedobaptists refer to the tares, which were sown among the wheat in the field (13:25), as being members of the kingdom. Their main support for this view is found in the interpretation in verse 41, where Christ says, “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness” (emphasis added). They infer from the phrase “out of His kingdom” that the tares must have previously been “in the kingdom.” With this interpretation, the tares become an example of one who was in the kingdom as an unbeliever, or as a covenant-breaker. Thus, they claim that it supports their view that you can have covenant members, or members of the kingdom, who end up being lost. This seems to suggest there is a compartment of the kingdom, or New Covenant, which can be legitimately occupied by “tares,” for at least a period of time. This whole viewpoint, however, needs to be reevaluated in light of a closer reading of the explanation of the parable given by Christ in Matthew 13:36-43. In these verses, our Lord gives us the following interpretation: • The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man (verse 37). • The field is the world (verse 38). • The good seed are the sons of the kingdom (verse 38). • The tares are the sons of the evil one, the devil, who sowed them (verses 38-39). • The harvest is the end of the age and the reapers are angels (verse 39). • The tares, who are described as “all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness” (verse 41), will be gathered up and burned with fire at the end of the age (verse 40). Several key observations here are needed. First, the field is the world, not the kingdom of God (verse 38). So, when the tares are sown among the wheat (verse 25), they are sown among them, and live side by side with them, in the field of the world; not the field of the kingdom. Second, only the good seed are called “the sons of the kingdom” (verse 38). The tares are not called “sons of the kingdom” because they were not members of the kingdom of heaven. On the contrary, they are called “the sons of the evil one” (verse 38) because they are in Satan’s kingdom. This is crucial. Our Lord clearly indicates that the tares were not “sons of the kingdom” but were actually in league with the devil. We should also observe that these tares did not start out as the good seed and then gradually over time become tares. No, they were sown in the field as tares from the beginning (verse 25). They began as “sons of the evil one” (verse 38) and never changed their character. They were never “sons of the kingdom.” They were sown as tares and were harvested as tares and their doom was certain. Thus, the Lord’s assessment of the tares is the same as the false professors, “I never knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (Matthew 7:23). Christ’s Spiritual or Universal Kingdom? Now comes the crucial verses (verses 41-42): “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom, all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire” (emphasis added). The key issue is to identify the nature of this kingdom. The simplest solution is to see this kingdom as Christ’s universal kingdom, not his spiritual (i.e., redemptive) kingdom as in verse 38. In other words, when the Son of Man gathers the wicked for judgment, he takes them out of his universal kingdom in which he has dominion; the universe and all that is in it. For biblical references to this universal kingdom of Christ, see Psalm 2:8-9; Matthew 28:18; Ephesians 1:20-22 and Philippians 2:9-11. Thus, this meaning of “kingdom” in verse 41 differs from its meaning in verse 38, “the sons of the kingdom.” In the latter case, the “sons of the kingdom” refer to the good seed who are the elect of God saved by the blood of Christ. This kingdom is clearly the spiritual kingdom of Christ which is redemptive and connected to the church of Christ. But, in verse 41, when the wicked are cast into the lake of fire, Christ is not coming to his church to execute this judgment, for there is no condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1). The judgment of believers is one of commendation, not condemnation (2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 14:10; 1 Corinthians 3:8-15). But in Matthew 13:41 the judgment is unto condemnation for they shall be cast into the “furnace of fire, in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (13:42). For this judgment Christ goes to his universal kingdom over the world. It is from his universal kingdom where Christ will gather “all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire;” not from his spiritual kingdom of the redeemed. Further support for this difference in kingdoms is found in Matthew 13:43, where we see yet another reference to the kingdom. This verse concludes Christ’s teaching on the parable of the tares. There he says that after the lawless are removed from his (universal) kingdom, “Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.” This kingdom is called, “the kingdom of their Father” which refers to the kingdom of God in its spiritual and heavenly character, where the redeemed of Christ will dwell in eternity. This kingdom is actually the spiritual kingdom of Christ which he will hand over to the Father after he has conquered all his enemies (see 1 Corinthians 15:23-28). Thus, the Lord has referred to three different aspects of his kingdom reign in this one parable! The point to be made is that when Christ comes to judge the wicked in Matthew 13:41, he does not gather them from his spiritual kingdom, but from his universal kingdom of the world where the tares were sown (verse 38). Problems with Tares in the Spiritual Kingdom Those who argue that the kingdom in verse 41 is the spiritual kingdom of Christ, as in verse 38, run into many problems. Are we to understand that the tares, represented by the stumbling blocks and doers of lawlessness who will be gathered “out of His kingdom,” were really at some point members of Christ’s spiritual kingdom? In order to draw this conclusion, one must reinterpret the parable along different lines than our Lord did. For example, to say that the tares were really legitimate members of the kingdom requires interpreting the “field” (verse 24) as the “spiritual kingdom” rather than as the “world” as Christ explains it (verse 38). Also, you must basically neuter the meaning of the good seed as the “sons of the [spiritual] kingdom,” and the tares as the “sons of the evil one.” Clearly, the distinction is important and the tares, as Satan’s children, are not in any way to be numbered among the “sons of the kingdom.” In other words, the tares belong to the kingdom of Satan, not the kingdom of God. As such, even though they may be found at times in the visible church, and appear outwardly to be true kingdom members, in reality they are spiritually outside of the New Covenant and not members of Christ’s church or kingdom at all. When the tares do make their way into the church, then the words of the apostle John are again applicable, “They went out from us, but they were really not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). To say that such people “were really not of us” clearly indicates that they never belonged to Christ or to his spiritual kingdom. Another Option There is yet another way to think about the kingdom in Matthew 13:41. Instead of viewing it as the universal kingdom of Christ, Christ may be just speaking figuratively of the tares being in the kingdom in terms of their physical presence only. Christ has already explained that the tares are not members of his spiritual kingdom, but followers of Satan. They do not partake of any of the blessings of the New Covenant. They do not have the new heart, the indwelling Holy Spirit, or the forgiveness of their sins. They also are not in Christ’s kingdom for they do not live under the rule and reign of Jesus Christ. But they can, nevertheless, be found among the true “sons of the kingdom.” Like illegal aliens living in our own country, the tares live among the wheat. Though they may participate in some of our blessings, and even access some of our social aid programs, legally they are not citizens of our nation. If they are caught and removed from our country, we could similarly say that they are gathered “out of America,” but this in no way infers that they were legitimate members and citizens of our country. They lived and worked here physically among true citizens of our country and enjoyed many of our freedoms, but they were not citizens themselves. Thus, in Matthew 13:41 the tares whom Christ “will gather out of His kingdom” could be understood in the same way. They are found among God’s wheat physically but they are spiritually illegal aliens. They may show up in our churches, sit next to us in our pews and look as if they belong, but in reality they have no rights or status in the kingdom of God. They are tares awaiting the Day of Judgment when they will be “gathered out of His kingdom.” They never belonged to the Lord of the harvest. Holy Children For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. (1Corinthians 7:14) This verse has raised many questions about the nature of New Covenant sanctification. The situation appears to be that some in the Corinthian church have come to faith in Jesus Christ, but their spouses have not. Paul tells them that both their unbelieving spouses and their children are holy. Based on this, many assume that since the children of at least one believer are holy, then they are members of the New Covenant and worthy of receiving baptism. However, to make this assumption requires a leap in thought far beyond the boundaries of this passage. It is true that the children of a believing parent are holy. But what does this mean? Since the unbelieving spouse is also “sanctified” (same word as “holy” used for the children only in its verbal form), it seems only logical that they will be holy in the same way that the children are holy. No one in their right mind would assert that the unbelieving spouse is a member of the New Covenant. Neither should anybody think that the unbelieving spouse is worthy of being baptized. To baptize an unbeliever would make a mockery of the gospel which requires faith for salvation. But if both the unbelieving spouse and the children are sanctified and made holy by the believing spouse and parent, why do some argue that the children are members of the covenant and should be baptized, but not the unbelieving spouse? And why do some insist on calling the children “saints” (holy ones), but not the unbelieving parent? Since both are made holy by the believer, to make one a holy covenant member and not the other, and to baptize one and not the other is an inconsistency which renders this viewpoint completely unacceptable. Whatever this sanctification means, it cannot be used to argue for the paedobaptist view of “covenant children” which sanctions the baptism of infants or else, one must also argue for “covenant unbelieving spouses” and the baptism of unbelievers. How then are we to explain the sanctification in this verse? We could take it in a similar way to Hebrews 10:29 and understand that both the unbelieving spouse and the children of believers are made holy or sanctified outwardly in some sense by the godly influences of the believer. But this verse states the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse and children as a fact, and yet this may not always be the case if it only refers to some kind of a moral influence brought to bear upon them by the believer. A better solution is to see this sanctification as referring to their being conformed to God’s moral law so that the marriage and family unit are morally sound and holy in the sight of God. In other words, the marriage and family are legitimate and lawful, even though one spouse is still an unbeliever. Their unbelief does not make the marriage void or invalid. One cannot help but think of a similar situation in Ezra chapters 9 and 10 in which the Israelites had married the daughters of the Canaanites. Such mixed marriages were looked upon as an abomination and the Israelites had to put away all of their foreign wives and their children (Ezra 10:3). If the Corinthian believers were aware of this, as the Jewish believers no doubt were, we could understand their concern about their own mixed marriages to unbelievers. “Is my marriage to an unbeliever an abomination? Should I put them away like God commanded the Israelites in the days of Ezra? What about my children, are they an abomination too?” These thoughts could easily be in the background of these verses to the Corinthian church. What, then, is Paul’s answer? In essence it is this – both your marriage and your children are legitimate before the Lord. They are holy and not to be discarded even though your spouse is an unbeliever and your children are descended from him as well as from you. The situation with Ezra was a different time and a different set of circumstances. Your children are not illegitimate because your marriage to the unbeliever is a lawful marriage and conforms to God’s will. Thus, the sanctification found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 cannot be made to argue that the children of believers are covenantally holy and therefore should be baptized as infants. To do so would open the same doors to unbelievers and, as a result, greatly muddy the waters of what it means to be a member of the New Covenant. New Covenant Sanctification is Permanent and for All New Covenant Members There is no convincing support for any kind of New Covenant sanctification which is imparted to infants of believers, or which makes a person a true member of the New Covenant, but can be lost in the end. When the New Testament authors do speak of sanctification in this way, it is not New Covenant sanctification that they have in mind. The sanctification provided by Christ in the New Covenant is not one that can be forfeited and lost resulting in damnation (Hebrews 10:29); once a saint, always a saint. Once made holy by the New Covenant, holy you remain. No church struggled spiritually more than the Corinthian church and yet Paul described them as “those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling” (1 Corinthians 1:2) and he then added a few verses later that Christ “will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (verse 8). There was no doubt in Paul’s mind that all of those who were sanctified by the New Covenant, even those who struggled, would be confirmed to the end by the faithfulness of God (verse 9). This would not apply to either the infants of believers or to counterfeit Christians who fall away from the faith. New Covenant Sanctification PT. 1 by Alan Conner This is chapter 12 in Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner. Not sure how much I agree or disagree with it. I do appreciate his references in Hebrews though. Sanctification and New Covenant Membership An issue that needs to be addressed involves what may be called covenantal sanctification. There are passages in the New Testament which some believe set forth a kind of sanctification which a person can have that may not end in salvation. Individuals that partake of this sanctification are supposedly members of the covenant for a season. They enjoy many of its outward and external blessings, even though they eventually fall away from the faith and are lost. The impact of this line of thought on the issue of covenant membership and infant baptism is important. Many of our paedobaptist brethren believe that the New Testament teaches this kind of covenant sanctification. This belief becomes a reason for why they baptize their infants. In effect, this view is embraced in order to justify the practice of baptizing their infants even though some of them will grow up, depart from the faith and become “covenant-breakers.” They argue that since their children are holy, or sanctified (1 Corinthians 7:14), they belong to the covenant. Therefore, even as infants, they should receive the covenant sign of baptism. But, since they also admit that not all of their baptized infants grow up to embrace the faith, they have to hold to a form of covenant sanctification that can be lost. Thus, some paedobaptists want to import into the New Covenant a type of sanctification found in the Old Covenant. They adopt a viewpoint where one can be, at least outwardly speaking, sanctified in some way that brings them into New Covenant membership, but falls short of actual salvation. Worse still, some go so far as to believe that their infant children are holy in the sense of being saved, being in Christ and having received the Spirit, but still in the end can fall away from grace and be lost. For some of them, their infant children actually receive these blessings when they are baptized. Thus, they embrace something very near, if not identical, to what the Roman Catholics teach about baptismal regeneration. But there are numerous problems with these assertions about covenant sanctification. In this chapter, we will examine some of the Scriptures used to argue for these assertions. We will examine this view of a sanctification which does not save in the end, yet, nevertheless, makes a person, especially infants, members of the covenant for a limited period of time and, therefore, worthy of baptism. Let us begin, however, by reviewing one of the elements of the New Covenant that we established previously in chapters seven and eight. The New Covenant Gives Persevering Grace to its Members The New Covenant gives to all of its members persevering grace. This is the Achilles’ heel of any view that says one can be a member in the New Covenant temporarily and then somehow become a covenant-breaker and fall out of it and be lost. What was true for the Old Covenant is impossible in the New Covenant. Remember Jeremiah 31:31-32, which says: 31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. The New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant in this specific way: it cannot be broken as the Old Covenant could. The reason for this is that the New Covenant is a covenant of salvation which regenerates the hearts of its members, forgives them of all of their sins, writes God’s laws on their hearts, and gives them the Holy Spirit by which they are enabled to walk in God’s ways. The Old Covenant did not provide these blessings to all of its members. But, in the New Covenant, “’they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,’ declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 31:34). The New Covenant cannot be broken because it provides saving grace to all of its members. Remember also Jeremiah 32:39-40, which says: 39 and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good and for the good of their children after them. 40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me (emphases added). The New Covenant does not have a kind of sanctification that can fall short of salvation or which can be lost by unbelief or disobedience. Why? Because it gives all of its members a new heart which creates a godly fear in them “so that they will not turn away from Me.” Ezekiel 36:27 says the same: “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.” No one can be a member of the New Covenant and then fall away from the faith or apostatize because the Holy Spirit dwells in them and causes them to walk according to God’s Word. God’s New Covenant grace will guarantee their perseverance in the faith. All true members of the New Covenant will remain covenant-keepers; none can fall away. Thus, the New Covenant actually changes the heart and makes one a permanent child of God who cannot practice sin as a way of life (1 John 3:9). This is a crucial observation. There are no second-class citizens of the New Covenant who get sanctified with only some outward blessings and privileges but who are denied the spiritual grace of salvation. Also, there are no members of the New Covenant who get the spiritual grace of salvation but who lose it in the end. Such reasoning denies the well established doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (Philippians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24; 1 John 3:9; Romans 8:35-39; John 10:26-30). Those who advocate the view that one can have and then lose their salvation have basically fallen into the error of Arminianism. Those who promote the former view are guilty of pouring new wine into old wineskins. They have failed to see the newness of the New Covenant. The blessings of the New Covenant are not temporary, nor do they provide only outward benefits. They secure in saving grace those who enter into its hallowed halls. Those who become members of the New Covenant are sanctified by the Spirit and kept safe unto the day of glory (1 Peter 1:3-5). Can an Apostate be previously Sanctified? How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:29) Some suggest that Hebrews 10:29 teaches a view of sanctification in the New Covenant that is similar to that found in the Old Covenant in which a person can be sanctified as a covenant member but eventually turn away and become an apostate. This view asserts that the person referred to in this verse appears as having been sanctified by the blood of the covenant. He subsequently tramples under foot the Son of God, having regarded as unclean the blood by which he was sanctified. This brings down upon himself severe punishment from God. Even though he once was in the covenant, he has now become a covenant-breaker and comes under the severe judgment of God (10:30-31). This same theory of sanctification is often applied to the infants of believers. They are understood to be legitimate and sanctified members of the New Covenant, even though some may fall out of the covenant later in life. But does Hebrews 10:29 teach this? There are several reasons for rejecting this point of view. One reason is that this entire interpretation may be misguided in its understanding of the crucial clause, “and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified” (verse 29). Instead of it meaning that the apostate was previously sanctified by the blood of the covenant, there is another possible interpretation. The great Puritan theologian, John Owen, was convinced that the person who was sanctified did not refer to the apostate, but to Jesus Christ himself. The meaning would be that the apostate in this verse was not sanctified himself but regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which Christ was sanctified. I will refer the reader to Owen’s insightful exposition of this text in his seven volume commentary on Hebrews. For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that the one who was sanctified in this verse does refer to the apostate who trampled under foot the Son of God and regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant. What can we infer from this kind of sanctification? Is there evidence that this apostate was truly a member of the New Covenant and then lost his position in the covenant due to his sin of apostasy? In order to find biblical answers, we shall first consider the context and what it teaches about sanctification in the New Covenant. Then, we will take a closer look at Hebrews 10:29. First, New Covenant sanctification results in perfection. The context clearly identifies the nature of New Covenant sanctification and it does not allow for anything that results in less than perfection. Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (emphasis added). Those who are sanctified by the New Covenant have been perfected by Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross (see Hebrews 10:15-20 for what is clearly sanctification in a New Covenant context). The word “perfect” is used in the book of Hebrews of the tabernacle in heaven (9:11), of Christ (2:10; 5:9; 7:28; 12:2) and the resulting perfection of the saints in heaven (12:23). When applied to believers, this perfection is basically synonymous with salvation and the forgiveness of all sins. On the other hand, this kind of perfection could not be achieved by the law and its various forms of sanctification and cleansing (7:11, 19; 9:9; 10:1). In other words, the sanctification brought about by the New Covenant is not like the defective kind found in the Old Covenant. Unless there was saving faith involved, the Old Testament sanctification that came from its sacrifices and cleansing rituals could only remove the ceremonial uncleanness of sin whereas, the sacrifice of Christ removes the guilt and penalty of sin. New Covenant sanctification brings about a perfection and final salvation unlike anything the Old Covenant law could produce. Those sanctified in the New Covenant are made perfect by Christ. They are perfectly forgiven. They do not receive just outward blessings and privileges which may fall short of salvation. All who are sanctified in the New Covenant are made perfect by the blood of Christ. He has obtained eternal redemption for them all (9:12). Second, New Covenant sanctification is eternal in duration. It is not temporary, neither can it be lost. As Hebrews 10:14 teaches, those who are sanctified by Christ’s sacrifice have been perfected for all time, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (emphasis added). In other words, our perfection is not temporary in nature but eternal. And if our perfection through Christ’s offering is eternal, then so is our sanctification for how can one remain perfect in God’s sight if they lose their sanctification? Thus, those in the New Covenant have been perfected and sanctified for all time by the blood of Christ. To say that one can be a member of the New Covenant and receive its sanctification and subsequently lose it, is to make the sacrifice of Christ no more effectual or powerful than the sacrifice of goats and bulls. Sanctification in the New Covenant is superior to that of the Old Covenant. Third, New Covenant sanctification cannot result in damnation. The author of Hebrews does not think that true New Covenant members can fall away or shrink back from the faith. In confidence he says about his readers, “But we are not those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith in the preserving of the soul” (Hebrews 10:39). Also, consider 6:9: “But, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.” True members of the New Covenant are “perfected for all time” (10:14). None are lost or shrink away to destruction. All have faith and are preserved to the end. Thus, the context of our debated verse in Hebrews 10:29 is full of guidelines to protect us from making a false deduction. What we can say is that New Covenant sanctification does not fit into the model suggested by those who believe that one can have it and be a member of the New Covenant and then later be lost. Clearly, New Covenant sanctification results in perfection; and that forever. So what are we to think about this apostate in Hebrews 10:29? Let’s take a closer look and see what we can learn about him and his sanctification. The Sanctified Apostate We learn several things about the person described in Hebrews 10:29. First, he has trampled under foot the Son of God. This was done, at least in part, by his vicious verbal attacks against Christ and his saving sacrifice on the cross. Second, he has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified. His view of the blood of Christ has been dramatically reversed from his former profession. Third, he has insulted the Spirit of grace. Fourth, he deserves a severer punishment than those who set aside the law of Moses (verses 28-29). In addition to this information found in verse 29, we also learn in verse 26 that he goes on “sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth” and consequently there no longer remains “a sacrifice for sins” for him. This type of person, indeed, received the “knowledge [epignosis] of the truth.” Yet, even though his knowledge of the truth may have included a full understanding of the basic facts of the gospel, he fell short of regeneration for he kept on sinning willfully. A regenerate person simply does not do this. He is no longer under the dominion of sin (1 John 3:9; Romans 6:14), and though he will still wrestle with sin until the day he dies, he does not continue to sin willfully as this person does. It is impossible (1 John 2:29; 5:4, 18; Matthew 7:18). But was the unregenerate apostate in Hebrews 10:29 previously a member of the New Covenant? In what sense was he sanctified? Are we to assume that the New Covenant has two kinds of sanctification, one that saves and one that does not? No doubt he partook of some kind of sanctification for it says that he “regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” But is this the same kind of sanctification that perfects for all time (10:14)? Obviously not, since he fell away into willful sin and came under the judgment of God (10:26-31). Rather than assume that the New Covenant has two kinds of sanctification, it is more biblical to think in terms of there being only one. All members of the New Covenant partake of this sanctification and are eternally saved. However, there is also another kind of sanctification, or spiritual influence, which comes upon those who are outwardly identified with the church but spiritually outside the covenant and which does not make them a member of the covenant. Therefore, the sanctification that this apostate received was not genuine New Covenant sanctification at all because it did not perfect him for all time (10:14). Rather, it was more of a superficial form of sanctification that comes by way of contact with the gospel and Christ’s true church. Those who have this kind of sanctification never have the real thing. They may have knowledge of the truth (10:26) in their head, but no grace in their heart. They really never stopped their sinning (verse 26) because their nature was never really changed. Whatever moral affect the blood of the covenant had upon them was defective and temporary. Like the scribe who came close to the kingdom of God, but apparently never entered in (Mark 12:34), this apostate came close to the New Covenant but never entered in. This apostate was sanctified in the same way as those described in Hebrews 6:4-6, which says: 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. These people were temporarily influenced by the grace of the New Covenant gospel and the love of the New Covenant people. They also received a similar kind of sanctification as the man in Hebrews 10:29, a sanctification that temporarily cleansed the outer man, but did not change the inner man (cf. Hebrews 9:13-14). But, those addressed in Hebrews 6:4-6 were never really true members of the New Covenant themselves. They had been enlightened, were partakers of the Holy Spirit which no doubt sanctified them in some spiritual way, and tasted both the word and power of the kingdom. Nevertheless, they never had the new heart (Ezekiel 36:26), nor was the law written on their heart, nor were their sins forgiven (Jeremiah 31:31-34), nor did they receive the indwelling Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:27), nor did they “fear God always” (Jeremiah 32:39), nor did they persevere in faith. Rather, they “turned away” (Jeremiah 32:40) because they did not really “know God” (Jeremiah 31:34). They were like Judas who partook of many godly influences, but was a devil (John 6:70). As John says, “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). These apostates were not “of” the New Covenant. They may have drawn near and been temporarily affected by the godly influences and powers of the New Covenant, but they “were not really of us.” They were like those who “profess to know God” but their lives deny him and they become worthless for any good work (Titus 1:16). They claim a name that they are alive, but they are spiritually dead (Revelation 3:1), and their end is destruction. Thus, the sanctification they received from the covenant was not the kind received by members of the New Covenant which is “for all time” and which makes one “perfect.” They have a very different kind of sanctification. It reforms a person temporarily and makes them outwardly look like a Christian. They may even talk like a Christian, but eventually the affect wears off and they walk away dry as a bone on the inside. They are like a man who sits on a rock next to the ocean. When the waves come crashing down on the rocks he will be misted and sprinkled with its spray, even though he never enters into the ocean itself. He gets a little wet, but he never enters the water. Such wetness will quickly dry from him because he was only near the ocean, but never actually in it. So, there is no doubt that the apostate in Hebrews 10:29 received some kind of sanctification from the covenant, but the context makes it clear that is was not the same kind of sanctification received by members of the New Covenant. The apostate can be outwardly and temporarily sanctified by virtue of his proximity to the New Covenant. He can be affected superficially by its power and grace. Like the man above, they can be misted by the spray, but they never enter into the real thing. They never become true members of the New Covenant. Though they may join a church, be baptized and engage in some of the church activities and worship, they nevertheless remain spiritually on the outside. This is the only interpretation that seems to do justice both to the saving nature of the New Covenant, which gives the new heart and persevering grace to all of its members, and to the fact that there are some who are in the visible church that do fall away. Whether they are like the “every branch in Me that does not bear fruit” which are removed from the vine (John 15:2), or the unbelieving branches on the olive tree that are cut off (Romans 11:17-24), or those who have “once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit” (Hebrews 6:4ff.), they all refer to the same group of people. None of them were ever saved covenant members. None of them have ever partaken of the sanctification of the New Covenant which “has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14). Thus, those who fall away were never in the New Covenant. They never belonged to Christ. They are like those in Matthew 7:22-23 who say to Christ, “‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness” (emphasis added). Christ never knew them! How could they have been at some previous point a true member of his covenant when he uses this language, “I never knew you?” How could they have formerly been a true “branch in Me,” or a true “branch on the olive tree,” or really and spiritually “once tasted of the heavenly gift” when Christ says that he never knew them? Such language shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are some who are baptized members in the church, but who are not, and have never been, true members of the covenant of Christ. Such apostates are “false brethren” (2 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 2:4) who never had the faith of the covenant. They are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (Matthew 7:15), tares among the wheat (Matthew 13:25) and pigs who, after washing, return to wallowing in the mire (2 Peter 2:22). And, as Jude describes them, “These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever (Jude 12-13). These were not once covenant members who fell out, but “sons of the evil one” who were sown by the devil among the sons of the kingdom (Matthew 13:38-39). They may have been outwardly influenced by the morality of the church for a season. They may have outwardly appeared to belong to Christ. But, in reality, they were strangers to the covenant of grace. They never possessed the sanctification or the saving grace which the New Covenant gives to all of its members. Like Judas, they never belonged to Christ’s covenant, but are devils masquerading among the saints (John 6:70). In light of this, there is no support in Hebrews 10:29 for any kind of sanctification that makes one a member of the New Covenant but which can be eventually lost. Also, since there are no infants mentioned in the context, it is hardly appropriate to make any application to them. Hebrews 10:29 certainly does not teach, nor imply, that the infants of believers are “sanctified” as covenant members in such a way that they may fall out of the covenant later in life. This verse deals only with an adult who made a profession of faith, was received into the church and was superficially sanctified by his contact with the true members of the covenant. But having no true saving grace in his heart, he fell away and proved that he never was a true member of the New Covenant, nor did he ever participate in the sanctification that perfects for all time (10:14). Therefore, to apply the sanctification of this verse to the infants of believers is unwarranted. Christ our Superior High Priest Another issue that needs to be raised is how does all of this reflect on the high priestly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ? The fact that Christ is our high priest is clearly taught in the book of Hebrews (2:17; 3:1; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11). Yet, how can his high priestly ministry be superior to the Old Covenant high priests if he loses some of his covenant people through apostasy? In other words, if Christ, as our high priest, mediates the blessings of the New Covenant to his covenant people, and yet some of them can lose these blessings, how can the New Covenant be better than the Old Covenant? How can Christ be a superior high priest? Let’s apply this to the paedobaptist view of the infants of believers. Their infants are considered to be “covenant children” based on the Abrahamic Covenant principle of physical descent. Thus, they are viewed as members of the New Covenant. As members of the New Covenant, Christ is their high priest. As such, he mediates the covenant blessings to all covenant members. But, most, if not all, paedobaptists would agree that some of their children grow up and become covenant-breakers and fall away and are lost in the end. So how does this reflect on Christ as their high priest? Does Christ fail to mediate the covenant blessings to all of his covenant people? In what way is Christ a superior high priest if he fails to save some of his people? These are serious questions for those who believe that some (such as the infants of believers) can be covenant members and yet eventually apostatize and lose out on the covenant blessings. Does it not make a mockery of the superiority of Christ’s high priestly ministry? Does this not make him a failure like the Old Covenant high priests? Which of Christ’s high priestly ministries can be lost or rendered ineffectual? For example, can some of Christ’s covenant people miss out on his atoning sacrifice? Can he fail in his high priestly ministry to atone for some of his covenant people? Hebrews 2:17 tells us, “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (emphasis added). Now, is this true for all of his covenant people, or only some of them? The context identifies the people as the “children” (verses 13-14) and “brethren” (verses 12 and 17). The clear implication is that he made propitiation (i.e., removed God’s wrath due to their sins) for all of his covenant people. However, those who believe that covenant members can be lost in the end must rewrite the above text to make it say that he made propitiation for only some of his people. But if, as the text says, Christ made propitiation for his covenant people, which implies all of them, then which ones are left out? Are some “covenant babies” eventually left out due to later apostasy? If so, then has Christ failed as their covenant high priest? The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ “obtained eternal redemption” for his people (Hebrews 9:12) and “put away [their] sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (9:26). This is why he is a superior high priest to those in the Old Covenant who could not take away sins. Yet, if some of his covenant people end up being lost, then Christ’s high priestly ministry is no better than those in the Old Covenant. Consider, also, our Lord’s high priestly ministry of intercession. Christ “always lives to make intercession for them [His covenant people]” (Hebrews 7:25). Christ’s prayers are one of the reasons why “He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him” (verse 25). But if some of his covenant people eventually fall away, does Christ fail in his high priestly petitions for them? We may assume that our Lord is now praying for his covenant people similarly as he prayed for Peter: “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Luke 22:32). As our Lord’s prayer was effectual then, so it is also now. And if this is the case, then how can any of those for whom he prays fall away and apostatize? Does he not pray for all of his people? Or does he pray for only some of them? And if some for whom he intercedes eventually fall away, is his high priestly ministry in the New Covenant really superior to that of the Old Covenant? Those who believe that New Covenant members can fall away just like they did in the Old Covenant must severely limit the superiority of both the New Covenant and of Christ’s high priestly ministry. If the high priest of the New Covenant can not effectually save all his covenant people, then in what way is he a superior high priest? Yet, the New Testament teaches that Christ died to remove God’s wrath (propitiation) for all of the sins of all of his people. He accomplished eternal redemption for them and he prays effectually for them that their faith may not fail. By giving his covenant people a new heart and writing his laws into their hearts and minds (Hebrews 8:10; 10:16), he effectually transforms them so that they remain covenant keepers who cannot fall away. Though the church may have its share of counterfeit Christians, who are devoid of saving grace and end up falling away, Christ will never lose any of his covenant people (John 6:39). As their merciful and faithful high priest, he lives forever and saves forever all for whom he died and for whom he now intercedes. He is, indeed, a superior high priest! A Superficial Sanctification In conclusion, Hebrews 10:29 does not teach that the apostate was a true member of the New Covenant. He was sanctified in some way by the covenant, but not in a way that indicated regeneration or membership in the New Covenant. Since those who are sanctified by the blood of Christ are perfected forever (Hebrews 10:14), the apostate in Hebrews 10:29 could not have partaken of this kind of sanctification. His sanctification was defective, superficial in nature, and did not make him a true member of Christ’s covenant or his high priestly ministry. Covenant Head and Covenant Children This is a major part of Chapter 2 of Alan Conner’s book Covenant
Children Today. I received permission from Rich Barcellos the publisher
of the book to post this in my blog for the benefit of others. Link to order book.http://www.shop.rbap.net/product.sc?productId=1 Link to Listen to Narrow Mind interview with Alan Conner and host Gene Bridges. http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/11/covenant-children-today-and-interview.html Be Encouraged, Christ and the New Covenant Family There is a lot of talk today about the “covenant family.” But, many who are teaching on this topic assume that the “covenant family” today is based on the same principles as found in the Old Covenant. That is to say, the children of believers are automatically considered as members of the New Covenant. But, does the Bible support this assumption? An important principle in determining the nature of covenant children is to realize the role that the covenant heads play in this process. In God’s covenant with Abraham, he established that Abraham would have both a physical and a spiritual seed. The promise of a physical seed (Genesis 12:2) would begin with the miraculous birth of Isaac by the power of God (Romans 4:18-21). Isaac’s birth initiated the principle of a physical seed which would govern the covenant’s progress and fulfillment down through the centuries, consummating in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16). But Abraham also had a spiritual seed. Since Abraham was a believer (Galatians 3:6, 9; Genesis 15:6), his spiritual seed constitutes both the believing remnant of Israel and believing Gentiles (Romans 9-10; Galatians 3:8, 14). Thus, God ordained that the nature of covenant children in Abraham’s covenant would be established by Abraham himself as the covenant head, both by his faith and his physical children. But, what about the New Covenant? Should the nature of covenant children established with Abraham continue on in the New Covenant as well? The New Testament is clear that the New Covenant administration of the Abrahamic Covenant does not require the principle of a physical seed descended from Abraham for “be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham” (Galatians 3:7). This indicates that in the New Covenant we are dealing with Abraham’s spiritual seed. The unbelieving Jews have been broken off of the olive tree of the people of God (Romans 11:17-20). This shift to an emphasis on the spiritual seed is also clearly demonstrated in the covenant head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ. As God established in Abraham the nature of his covenant seed, so also he established in Christ the nature of his covenant seed. The same pattern holds for both covenants: the covenant head determines the nature of the covenant seed. Thus, as the head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ would personally initiate the principle of his covenant seed just as Abraham did for his covenant. But, what kind of children (seed) did Christ have? As the head of the New Covenant, what is the nature of his seed? As we consider what the Bible teaches about the covenant seed connected to Jesus Christ, we need to consider the Fatherhood of Jesus Christ in relation to his covenant children. Then, we will examine the way in which Christ defines his covenant family. When we do this, we will see that the New Covenant family is not based on physical relationships at all, but on spiritual qualities alone. Christ’s covenant seed and family is not based on the flesh as it was in the Old Covenant, but is a “household of faith” (Galatians 6:10 - KJV); a “family of believers” (Galatians 6:10 - NIV). The Fatherhood of Jesus Christ The Bible teaches that Christ’s relationship with his redeemed people is one that is rich and many-colored. The glory of Jesus Christ cannot be contained in one simple description. The Bible sets forth his redemptive character with many different analogies and pictures. To the Father, he is the eternal Son of God, but to Christians he is many things. Christ is the sacrificial Lamb of God who died in our place; the Vine and we are the branches; the Head and we are his body; the good Shepherd and we are his sheep; the Husband and we are his bride. In addition to all of this, Christ Jesus is also a Father and we are his children. This last truth has important implications for how we are to view membership and the concept of covenant children in the New Covenant. What we will discover is that the Fatherhood of Jesus Christ argues strongly for the concept of spiritual children in the New Covenant, rather than children of physical descent. Christ as our Eternal Father For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6) As Isaiah looked ahead to the coming of Christ who would inaugurate the New Covenant, he describes him as a Father to his followers. This relationship is verified in the way that our Lord loves his disciples as a father, cares for them as a father, provides for them as a father, and instructs and disciplines them as a father. What a precious thought. Our Savior is also our spiritual Father so that, in a sense, within the holy Trinity we have no less than two Fathers: God the Father, and God the incarnate Son, both of whom watch over us as spiritual Fathers in their own unique way. Second, the obvious result of the fact that Christ is an Eternal Father is that he must also have children – since a father is such only if he has children. But who are his children? The children of Christ cannot be based on the genealogical principle found in the Old Covenant. But, if they cannot be his physical children, then who are they? The obvious suggestion is that they are his spiritual children. The Gospels also indicate the idea that Christ has spiritual children; namely, his disciples. We see this in the following passages where Christ refers to his disciples as children: And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! (Mark 10:24) Little children, I am with you a little while longer. (John 13:33) Jesus therefore said to them, Children, you do not have any fish, do you? (John 21:5) Now what is the significance of Jesus calling his disciples children? Is he saying that they are immature and prone to error like children? This is possible, but the example from John 13 which took place during the Passover feast suggests that Jesus was assuming the paschal role of the head of the family who would preside at the meal and explain its meaning to his children. So, at least in John 13:33, the use of “children” would fit with the concept that Jesus is looking upon his disciples as his spiritual children. The other examples above can also be understood in the same way. This concept of a spiritual father with spiritual children was also used by the apostles in the way they sometimes addressed those who came to faith under their ministry (see Galatians 4:19; 1 Corinthians 4:14; 1 John 2:1). And, most notably, it is used of all believers in their relationship with God since he is our heavenly Father and we are his children through the new birth and adoption into his family (John 1:12; Romans 8:14-17). All believers are “children of God.” Christ’s Covenant Children Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me. (Isaiah 8:18 in Hebrews 2:13) Not only does the prophet Isaiah teach us about Christ’s role as a spiritual Father, he also has something to say about Christ’s spiritual children as well. These children are mentioned in Isaiah 8:18, which is also quoted in Hebrews 2:13 as the very words of Christ, “Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.” Here again it is quite clear from the context that these “children” who are given to the Messiah by God are not physical children but his spiritual followers united to him by faith. In the context of Hebrews chapter two, they are called “many sons” who are brought to glory (verse 10), his “brethren” (verses 11-12) for whom Christ made “propitiation…” (verse 17) and they are those who, along with Christ himself, put their trust in God (verse 13). No other kind of children is in view here. It is impossible that these covenant children of Christ are based on any principle of physical descent. They can only be spiritual children of faith. The principle of the Old Covenant family no longer applies to Christ and his New Covenant family. Also of interest in this passage is the observation that these spiritual children that are given to Christ by God the Father are the reason for his incarnation: Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. (Hebrews 2:14) Christ came down from heaven to assume our human nature that he might set his children free from the power of death held by the devil (verses 14-15) and deliver them from their sins (verse 17). Christ does not bring this help to the angels, but rather to “the descendant (seed) of Abraham” (verse 16). This is an important designation. To call the covenant children of Christ (verses 13-14) the seed of Abraham (verse 16) makes another important statement about the nature of Christ’s covenant family. Clearly, they are not defined in terms of physical descent as they were in the Old Covenant. Christ’s spiritual children are now the New Covenant equivalent to the seed of Abraham. They are his spiritual followers, his brethren for whom he died, and those who trust in God. Here we have a clear redefining of the “seed of Abraham” in the New Covenant. The genealogical principle of inclusion in the covenant by physical lineage is replaced by the spiritual principle of faith. Christ’s Covenant Offspring He will see His offspring. (Isaiah 53:10) This same truth about the identity of Christ’s covenant children is also seen in Isaiah 53:10, when Isaiah speaks prophetically of Christ’s reward for his self-sacrifice for our sins. The prophet announces, “He will see His offspring.” Now what is the prophet speaking about? In what sense did our Lord have offspring? Again, it cannot be physical children in view. So, it must refer exclusively to his spiritual offspring who are connected to him through faith. Thus, both testaments teach that the children of Christ are not physical children at all. Clearly, the genealogical principle of the Old Covenant cannot apply to him. And, as the head of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ establishes in himself the new governing principle of membership in his Church. As clearly as Abraham established his seed according to the principle of physical birth, so Christ establishes his seed according to the principle of spiritual birth. The old genealogical principle of being a member of the covenant by physical descent has come to an end. A new principle is established with Jesus Christ. Being numbered among Christ’s covenant children is now based on the principle of faith alone. As John 1:12 states, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.” The New Covenant has a new standard for membership. Abraham’s physical principle of membership is replaced by Christ’s spiritual principle of membership. Thus, the belief that the covenant family today follows the pattern of the Old Covenant is nothing but an assumption. It is based on so-called covenant logic that does not reflect accurately the teachings of the prophets as they foretold the coming of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant. Christ, as the head of the New Covenant, clearly establishes in himself the new standard for what it means to be a covenant child. It is a standard based on faith, not physical descent. Christ Defines His Covenant Family Not only is Jesus Christ our “Eternal Father,” and as such establishes a new principle for what it means to be his covenant child, but he also gave specific instruction on the nature of his covenant family. We find this in such passages as Luke 8:19-21: 19 And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was reported to Him, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You.” 21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” In the parallel account, Matthew gives these words, “whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50). What is clear is that Christ is redefining the nature of his family. He uses this request from his physical family to teach about his covenant family. As his words indicate, the principle of the physical family is no longer the determining factor in establishing his covenant family. Hearing the word and doing it now comprise the spiritual qualifications for being one of Christ’s covenant family members. This shows a deliberate intent on the part of Christ to distance himself and his covenant family from the physical principles of the covenant family established with Abraham. If Christ defined his “mother and brothers,” and also his “children” (see above) exclusively in terms of spiritual qualities, then where is there continuity with the Old Covenant? Where do children automatically become covenant members based on their physical descent from covenant parents? Christ’s words clearly exclude from his covenant family those who are connected only by physical ties. “My mother and My brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” He does not say that they are “those who hear the word of God and do it and their physical seed.” His New Covenant family is comprised only of those who hear the word of God and obey it. Infants cannot hear and obey the word of God. On several occasions, the Lord emphasized this New Covenant principle which stresses the importance of the spiritual family. In Luke 11:27, Christ was teaching truths that were so profound that one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But the Lord responded, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (verse 28). The exact same principle is revealed here as above. Christ is saying in the most emphatic way that blessedness is not based on the ties of the physical family. Notice his words, “On the contrary.” The Lord is downplaying the blessedness of his biological mother in order to draw attention to the greater blessedness of those who are connected to him spiritually. Those who hear the word of God and obey it are esteemed as more blessed than his physical mother. Mary’s blessedness would be rooted far more in her faith than in her merely being the physical mother of our Lord (cf. Luke 1:46-55). I’m sure these were shocking words indeed to this woman. Mingled Covenants of Gospel and Law are neither. Here is something I read by John Coloquoun that I found to be spot on. Although eternal life was, in the covenant of works, promised to Adam and his posterity on condition of his perfect obedience, and that only, yet a man is to be counted a legalist or self-righteous if, while he does not pretend that his obedience is perfect, he yet relies on it for a title to life. Self-righteous men have, in all ages, set aside as impossible to be fulfilled by them that condition of the covenant of works which God had imposed on Adam, and have framed for themselves various models of that covenant which, though they are far from being institutions of God, and stand upon terms lower than perfect obedience, yet are of the nature of the covenant of works. The unbelieving Jews who sought righteousness by the works of the law were not so very ignorant or presumptuous as to pretend to perfect obedience. Neither did those professed Christians in Galatia who desired to be under the law, and to be justified by the law, of whom the apostle therefore testified that they had "fallen from grace' (Galatians 5:4), presume to plead that they could yield perfect obedience. On the contrary, their public profession of Christianity showed that they had some sense of their need of Christ's righteousness. But their great error was that they did not believe that the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone was sufficient to entitle them to the justification of life; and therefore they depended for justification partly on their own obedience to the moral and ceremonial law. It was this, and not their pretensions to perfect obedience, that the apostle had in view when he blamed them for cleaving to the law of works, and for expecting justification partly on their own works of obedience to the moral and ceremonial laws, they and the apostle informed them, were fallen from grace; Christ had become of no effect to them. And they were "debtors to do the whole law" (Galatians 5:3-4). By depending for justification partly on their imperfect obedience to the law, they framed the law into a covenant of works, and such a covenant of works as would allow for imperfect instead of perfect works; and by relying partly on the righteousness of Christ, they mingled the law with the gospel and works with faith in the affair of justification. Thus they perverted both the law and the gospel, and formed them for themselves into a motley covenant of works. A Treatise on the Law and Gospel pp. 18,19 John Coloquhoun Published by Soli Deo Gloria Sanctification in 1 Corinthians 7:14 Here is a spot of Alan Conner discussing holy in 1 Corinthians 7:14. http://www.shop.rbap.net/product.sc?...=1&productId=1 It is true that the children of a believing parents are holy. But what does this mean? Since the unbelieving spouse is also "sanctified" (same word as "holy" used for the children only its verbal form), it seems only logical that they will be holy in the same way that the children are holy. No one in their right mind would assert that the unbelieving spouse is a member of the New Covenant. Neither should anybody think that the unbelieving spouse is worthy of being baptised. To baptise an unbeliever would make a mockery of the gospel which requires faith for salvation. But if both the unbelieving spouse and children are sanctified and made holy the the believing spouse and parent, why do some argue that the children are members of the covenant and should be baptised, but not he unbelieving spouse? And why do some insist on calling the children "saints" (holy ones), but not the unbelieving parent? Since both are made holy by the believer, to make one a holy covenant member and not he other, and to baptise one and not he other is an inconsistency which renders this view point completely unacceptable. Whatever this sanctification means, it cannot be used to argue for the paedobaptist view of "covenant children" which sanctions the baptism of infants or else, one must also argue for "covenant unbelieveing spouses" and the baptism of unbelievers. How then are we to explain the sanctification in this verse? We could take it in a similar way to Hebrews 10:29 and understand that both the unbelieving spouse and he the children of believers are made holy or sanctified outwardly in some sense by the godly influences of the believer. But this verse states the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse and children as a fact, and yet this may not always be the case if it only refers to some kind of moral influence brought to bear upon them by the believer. A better solution is to see this sanctification as referring to their being conformed to God's moral law so that the marriage and family unit are morally sound and holy in the sight of God. In other words, the marriage and family are legitimate and lawful, even though one spouse is still an unbeliever. Their unbelief does not make the marriage void or invalid. One cannot help but think of a similar situation in Ezra chapters 9 and 10 in which the Israelites had married the daughters of the Canaanites. Such mixed marriages were looked upon as an abomination and the Israelites had to put away all of their foreign wives and their children (Ezra 10:3). If the Corinthian believers were aware of this, as the Jewish believers no doubt were, we could understand their concern about their own mixed marriages to unbelievers. "Is my marriage to an unbeliever and abomination? Should I put them away like God commanded the Israelites in the days of Ezra? What about my children, are they an abomination too?" These thoughts could easily be in the background of these verses to the Corinthian church. What, then, is Paul's answer? In essence it is this - both your marriage and your children are legitimate before the Lord. They are holy and not to be discarded even though your spouse is an unbeliever and your children are descended from him (or her) as well as from you. The situation with Ezra was a different time and a different set of circumstances. Your children are not illegitimate because your marriage to the unbeliever is a lawful marriage and conforms to Gods' will. Thus, the sanctification found in 1 Corinthians 7:14 cannot be made to argue that he children of believers are covenantally holy and therefore should be baptised as infants..... Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner pp. 98-99 Is the New Covenant really New?Just a quote from Fred A. Malone quoting John Owen.
When we speak of the "new Covenant" we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though that were not before in this place. For it was always the same, as to the substance of it, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and efficacy, unalterable, "everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure." All who contend about these things, the Socianians only excepted, do grant that the covenant of grace, considered absolutely,- that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, - was the only way and means of salvation unto the church, from the first entrance of sin. But for two reasons it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect unto any other things, nor was it so under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it unto Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but was with respect unto other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely under the Old testament it consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scriptures, Acts 2:39; Jer 6:14-16. The apostle indeed says, that the covenant was confirmed of God in Christ, before the giving of the law, Gal 3:17. And so it was, not absolutely in itself, but in the promise and benefits of it. The nomothesia, or full legal establishment of it, whence it became formally a covenant unto the whole church, was future only, and a promise under the old testament... but now, under the new testament, this covenant, with its own seals and appointments, is the only rule and measure of all acceptable worship. Wherefore the new covenant promised in the Scripture, and here opposed unto the old, is not the promise of grace, mercy, life and salvation by Christ, absolutely considered but as it had the formal nature of a covenant given unto it, in its establishment of the death of Christ, the procuring cause of all its benefits, and the declaring of it to be the only rule of worship and obedience unto the Church. So that although by the covenant of grace," we oftentimes understand not more but the way of life, grace, mercy, and salvation by Christ yet by "the new covenant" we intend its actual establisment in the death of Christ with that blessed way of worship whcih by it is settle in the church. John Owen quoted Hebrews 6: 74-75 ...The promise of the New Covenant, the purer administration of the Covenant of Grace, was part of the Abrahamic Covenant. However the Abrahamic Covenant also contained other elements regarding Abraham's seed that were unique to its administration until the final "Seed" comes (Galatians 3:16,19). ... Each covenant's content must be determined by specific revelation concerning that covenant. quotes taken from The Baptism of Disciples Alone Fred Malone pp 61,62 July 08 Are Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed TheologyAre Covenantal Baptists Reformed in the Historical Understanding of Reformed Theology Here is a link to Matthew MacMahon’s article What Does It Mean To Be Reformed. http://apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McM...BeReformed.htm This is response to all of those who are at conflict over Dr. R. Scott Clark’s comments here. A Gentle Rebuke to Brother John (Updated) Heidelblog Dr. Clark said, "Calling a Baptist “Reformed” is like calling Presbyterians “Baptist” because they believe in believer’s baptism. The Reformed churches do practice the baptism of unbaptized believers but they also baptize the infants of believers. No self-respecting, confessional Baptist should accept me as “Baptist” and Reformed folk should resist labeling anyone who rejects most of Reformed theology as “Reformed.” This comment got a lot of attention on his blog. Especially since he has a readership that includes many Reformed Baptists. I am one of them. I would agree with this comment by Rev. Matthew Winzer on the Puritanboard.com, "I think the last time this was discussed the consensus was that "reformed" before "baptist" is one thing, and "reformed" on its own is another. Reformed Baptists are just that -- Baptists who have become reformed. But they are still distinct from reformed churches." Just to clarify some things here, I believe everyone is getting up in arms over terms they have endeared themselves to. Let me give you all an example. A Pastor friend of mine wrote a blog defining what a Reformed Baptist was. 5 Points of RBC Providence Reformed Baptist Church of Toledo, Oh This of course made some Baptists upset because they wanted to be included as Reformed Baptists but they were dispensational (denying Covenant Theology) or had problems with one of the other points that Pastor David Charles included in his definition of what a Reformed Baptist is. These guys generally are New Covenant Theologians or Calvinistic Dispensationalists as John MacArthur. Just as some of the Calvinistic Baptists were offended by Pastor Charles, many Credo Baptists are finding themselves offended at Dr. Clark's insinuation that Baptists are not Reformed Theologians. The term Reformed Baptist is a rather new one in church history. It was developed around the time that Ernest Reisinger was starting to work with Banner of Truth Trust by bringing good Puritan and Reformed writings back to the American Churches. He was the first ordained Preaching Layman in a Presbyterian Church. He was undecided about his position concerning baptism when he was ordained to preach. But he became a Credo Covenantal Baptist as time went on. It has been thought by some that Ernie's close association with Banner of Truth Trust (A Reformed Publishing Company) and his adherence to the Credo-Baptist position that somehow made the two terms come together. Historic Baptist theology was being rediscovered during this time. Dispensationalism had taken over much of the church in the mid 1900's. And it is not the Historic Theology of the Reformers. It denies Covenant Theology and formed a new basis of hermeneutics and how others looked at portions of scripture. This dispensational hermeneutic interpreted the Bible in portions claiming that some sections were only meant for the Jews and certain periods of time and other sections were for everyone and others just for the gentiles. Example…Matthew chapter 5 is just for the Jews in the Millennium. This was foreign to Covenant Theology and very unbiblical. Ernie helped in a major way to get the Church back on track by being a representative for Banner of Truth Trust and promoting Covenantal thinking back into the American Church. To the dismay of some, even some Presby's took up with dispensational teaching. Historically the Puritan Credo Pastors in the 1600's were not known Reformed but as Particular Baptists. They did hold to a Covenant Theology much like the Reformers but more closely to a Covenant Theology that was taught by John Owen and Samuel Petto. The New is not the Old renewed. It is New. They held to a unity of the Covenant of Grace through out the scriptures but more discontinuity between the particular covenants that God had instituted through Abraham, Moses, etc. These Baptists also adhered to the same soteriology of the Reformers. But they held to a different understanding of who was a Covenant Member in the Covenant of Grace. They believed that only the Elect were Covenant Members in the Covenant of Grace. The Confessional Reformers held that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants were administrations of the Covenant of Grace and that it included both the elect and non-elect per their physical covenantal lineage. There are Baptists today who call themselves Reformed Baptists because they hold to the 5 points of Calvinism but they are not Covenant Theologians. Some have developed a new theology called New Covenant Theology. It denies the Covenant of Works and may tend to be antinomian in some ways. The term Reformed (as it has been used in Church history) has been prostituted from the Confessional understanding of what it meant to be Reformed. It has lost some of its defined power because of those who wish to be called reformed when in fact they are not according to Confessional Christians. I am a Reformed Baptist as it is known in Pastor David Charles blog. But more accurately I am a Particular Baptist that holds to the 1689 LBCF. When Matthew McMahan challenged me on what Reformed meant when I joined the Puritanboard.com, I was slightly offended because he said I wasn't reformed. I just said he wasn't reformed enough. I was ignorant about what he meant in its historical theological understanding. I was thinking of Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, Calvin, Bunyan, Owen, and all those during the time of the reformation and thinking that I was following their teachings. But some would say that Luther and Melancthon are not Reformed. I guess it depends on what you are referring to when you say Reformed. I think when a person is defining what Reformed is it matters what a person is referring to in relation to the time period or a system of doctrinal understanding. According to the Presbyterian's and Reformed Confessional Churches those who are reformed are those who are confessional paedo's and have an ecclesiology that lines up with their understanding of how a church organism should be and work. Ok, I can live with that. Especially since it is based upon a historical and theological understanding. But boy, if you are a Baptistic New Covenant or Dispensational Theologian and you want to be called a Reformed Baptist, you are going to far. We all have our pet names and we want to protect them. Be Encouraged, R. Martin Snyder Circumcision and Baptism Colosians 2:11-12 A.W. PinkCircumcision and Baptism Colosians 2:11-12 A.W. Pink"It is a mistake to suppose that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. As that which supplanted the Old Testament sacrifices was the one offering of the Saviour; as that which superseded the Aaronic priesthood was the high priesthood of Christ; so that which has succeeded circumcision is the spiritual circumcision which believers have in and by Christ.‘In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ’ (Col 2:11)- how simple! How satisfying! ‘Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him’ (v12 ) is something additional: it is only wresting the Scriptures to say these two verses mean, ‘Being buried with Him in baptism ye are circumcised.’ No, no; verse 11 declares the Christian circumcision is ‘ made without hands’ and baptism is administered with hands! The circumcision ‘made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh’ has come in the place of the circumcision made with hands. The circumcision of Christ has come in place of the circumcision of the law. Never once in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as the seal of the New Covenant; rather is the Holy Spirit the seal (Eph 1:13; 4:30 )." Divine Covenants by A. W. Pink June 14 The Second Commandment and Pictures of Christ(Exo 20:4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
(Exo 20:5) Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
(Exo 20:6) Are pictures of Christ sinful in light of the Second Commandment?
Here is the London Baptist Confession of Faith Chapter 22.1
Chapter 22 22.1 The light of nature shows that there is a God who has lordship and sovereignty over all. He is just and good and does good to all. Therefore he is to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served with all the heart and soul and strength.1
But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God has been instituted by himself and delimited by his own revealed will. He may not be worshipped according to human imagination or methods, nor according to the suggestions of Satan, nor by way of any visible representation, nor by any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.2
(1) Jer_10:7; Mar_12:33 I use to question this often. But recently a friend named Andrew Meyers posted this comment. It seemed to illuminate an answer to my confusion. Here was his insight. Historically, Muslims have interpreted the Second Commandment to forbid all images of any kind whatsoever, but Jews and Christians have not. It is clear from the context that the Second Commandment has to do specifically with worship. It prohibits any representation of the Godhead or any worship of graven images. God himself expounded the Second Commandment thusly: "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven." Deut. 4.15-19 That is what historic Reformed Confessions and Catechisms teach in their exposition of this Commandment. God himself required the making of certain images in the temple/tabernacle, such as cherubim. The Lord Jesus himself had occasion to observe the image of Caesar on a coin and did not condemn the use of money thereby. Pictures and photographs are lawful as long as they don't violate the Second or the Seventh Commandments. The whole focus of the Second Commandment is worship and any representation of God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit must inherently violate that commandment because if it does not engender worship it is vain and if it does engender worship it is vain. "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." Acts 17.29
Thanks Andrew....
Along with this I would recommend J. I. Packers book Knowing God chapter 4 which deals with this issue.
Andrew also posted this illuminating Catachism which might be helpful.
Fisher's Catechism on the Second Commandment asks and answers many relevant questions. Chapter 21: 21:1 May we see Christ as he sees fit. May we see him as he truly is. Be Encouraged,
Pastor Andrew Webb has posted on this also. http://www.providencepca.com/essays/seccomroundup.html April 03 John Tombes's Exegetical Argument of Genesis 17:7I have been discussing Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic Covenant on the Puritanboard.com. In light of this Dr. Mike Renihan recommended to me a portion of his book ‘Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes’. I just thought I would take the time to type out the section on Genesis 17 and the introduction to the Exegetical Arguments (With Dr. Renihan’s permission) and post it in a blog so I could reference it more quickly and make it accessible to others. I leave you with only a portion of his exegetical arguments. I think he does bring to light some good points concerning the biblical covenants, continuity, and discontinuity.Be Encouraged,RMS
Exegetical Arguments
The eleven exegetical arguments are primarily negative polemics against infant baptism. Tombes usually presented a paedobaptist position in syllogistic form, then proceeded to show how the argument was flawed. At the outset, a word must be said as regards such a methodology. First, Tombes is setting out arguments for infant baptism as an Antipaedobaptist in order to refute them. This approach seems therefore tainted with question-begging. However, it was the typical scholastic methodology of the day – to set out an argument in a plain and straightforward manner proceeding immediately to deal with objections. Tombes was laying these objections before his peers for their consideration. It was a consistent method that Tombes had used since his early days in considering the matter. The arguments presented to the committee of the Assembly of Divines as the Exercitation were honest attempts to know the truth of this issue. This inquiry to the Assembly came out of an earlier meeting, as Tombes recalled: Whereupon when in a meeting of Ministers in the City of London, the question was propounded what Scripture there was for infant-baptisme, I told my brethren plainly, that I doubted there was none. This occasioned the Dispute Doctor Homes speakes of which happened about January 1643…. Not long after that Conference, my most loving and reverend Father in law Master Henry Scudder fearing the event of this matter, after some writing betweene us, advised me to draw up the reasons of my doubts, and he undertook to present them to the Committee chosen (as I conceived it) to give satisfaction about the point, which I conceived might well be the leave of the Parliament, as the appointing the Assembly to give satisfaction about some doubts in taking the Covenant.(7)
It was not Tombes’s purpose to make controversy for its own sake, but to discover the truth in an important matter as regarded the reformation of his Church. Tombes was guilty, however, of naïveté. He expected that an honest attempt to discover truth would be met with the same. He sought either refutation or affirmation on a point of doctrine and nothing else. By publishing his views, he had everything to lose and the Church’s reformation to gain. His submission was a quest for open and honest debate upon a theological point. Secondly, the form of the argument was very rigid. Tombes, at times, oversimplified the position he was refuting. However, he always continued to give mounds of evidence for his case, positively and negatively presented. The syllogism was an accepted part of the seventeenth century academic debate. At Oxford, it was a remnant of late medieval Scholasticism that survived the Renaissance. This methodology used philosophical categories and logic to serve theological reflection. The main thrust of the argument presented is not always readily apparent. In Tombes’s analysis of the issues he refers continually to these syllogistic building blocks borrowed from the scholastical methodology. Tombes, with very little introduction, started: The present Tenet, according to which Infant-Baptisme is preached, is, that the Infants born of a Believer, are universally to be baptized. This Doctrine and Practise conformable, is made doubtfull to me, by these arguments.”(8)
Tombes’s Starting Point and the Argument from Genesis 17:7
The first argument is one that examines the case for infant baptism from the interest of believer’s children in the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 17:7. It also serves as the all-important starting point for Tombes’s theological reflection: Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it; Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful. (9)
Tombes’s first exegetical argument is a comprehensive, yet properly basic argument designed to examine any and all of the biblical evidence for infant baptism. The remaining arguments are applications of the first to specific Scriptures, theological constructions or historical precedents. He then used his conclusions to support the doctrine or practice of paedobaptism: The Minor is proved by examining the places that are brought for it, which are these: Genesis 17.7. etc. Acts 2.38,39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Mark 10.14, 16. Acts 16.15,32. 1 Cor. 1.16. The Argument from Genesis 17.7, etc. is almost the first and the last in this business; and therefore is the more accurately to be examined….(10)
Tombes often added colour to the debate with maxims and Latin phrases. The fist argument did not escape his cutting wit. Speaking of the argument for infant baptism from Genesis 17:7, etc., he added: …[B]ut it hath so many shapes, that I may here take up that Speech, With what knot shall I hold shape-shifting Proteus?”(11) But in the issue, it falls into one or other of these forms…(12).
Tombes went on to build his foundation against the interest of believer’s children in the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. He did not give multiple forms of the opposing argument; rather, one form from which he drew four sub-arguments. He thus supported his refutation of the one argument from Genesis 17:7. This was an application of his overriding principle expressed in Argument One - that there is no Scripture to warrant the baptizing of infants. He continued with another syllogism as if arguing for paedobaptism: Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also. Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees. Conclusion: [A]nd consequently Baptisme. (13)
Tombes added, “The Minor is proved from Genesis 17:7. where God promiseth to Abraham, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee”. (14)
Tombes proceeded to four sub-arguments that he believed exposed the basic assumptions of the greater argument presented. By way of introduction to his main point, they were: (1) The Covenant with Abraham is not identical to the Gospel (New) Covenant; (2) Abraham’s seed has more than one meaning; (3) the promise of the Gospel has always been the same irrespective of the age; and (4) Some were circumcised who had no part in the promise made to Abraham. These four parts were intended to undermine the credibility of infant baptism by way of analogy from the Abrahamic Covenant to the New, or in Tombes’s phraseology, the “Euangelicall” or “Gospel Covenant”.(15) These also form the foundation of all of Tombes’s arguments. They were points that were nonnegotiable for him. It is important to see the detail in these sub-arguments in order to understand his inferences within other constructions. Tombes kept coming back to two foundational points, (1) the lack of positive instruction in special revelation for the practice of infant baptism, and (2) to an alternative ( and creative) explanation of the biblical texts which became the foundation of his emerging covenantal and credobaptistic theology. On the first of the sub-arguments, Tombes declared; 1. The Covenant made with Abraham, is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixt, which I prove; The Covenant takes its denomination from the promises but the promises are mixt, some Euangelicall, belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth, some are Domestique, or Civill promises, specially respecting the House of Abraham, and of Israel; Ergo. (16)
Explaining his distinction between the evangelical (Evangelicall) and domestic (Domestique) or civil (Civill) promises in the Abrahamic Covenant, Tombes implied there were some spiritual promises and some physical or material promises that had to be distinguished. Tombes explained what he means by “Euangelicall promises”: That was Euangelicall which we read, Genesis 17.5. I have made thee a father of many nations; and that which we find, Gen 15.5 so shall they seed be; in which it is promised, that there shall be of all Nations innumerable that shall be Abrahams children by believing, Rom. 4.17,18. It was Euangelicall, which we find in Gen 12.3 & Gen. 18.18. and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; for in these is promised blessing to Believers, of whom Abraham is father, Gal. 3.16. Acts 3.25 (17)
Tombes immediately proceeded to the “Domestique” or “Civill” promises: Domestique and Civill promises were many; of the multiplying the seed of Abraham, the birth of Isaac; of the coming of Christ our of Isaac; the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and deliverance thence; of possessing the Land of Canaan, Gen 15.13,18. Gen. 17.7, 8.15,16. Act. 7.4,5,6,7,8. and many other places. (18)
The distinction is between the spiritual blessings which accrue to believers as believers which are called evangelical, and physical (or natural) consequences pertaining to Abraham’s descendants as domestic (or civl); between a spiritual seed brought about by heavenly activity and a natural seed brought about by the earthly procreative act. Tombes continued to legitimize this distinction as he involved a rigorous trinitarianism in his defence to clarify and balance the issues of continuity and discontinuity within the two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant and the same issues as regards other covenants. Yea, it is to be noted, that those promises which were Euangelicall, according to the more inward sense of the Holy ghost, do point at the priviledges of Abrahams House, in the outward face [sense} of the words; whence it may be well doubted, whether this Covenant made with Abraham, may be called simply Euangelicall, and so pertain to Believers, as Believers. There were annexed to the Covenant on Mount Siani, sacrifices pointing at the sacrifice of Christ, and yet we call not that Covenant simply Euangelicall, but in some respect.(19)
Therefore, because of the distinction asserted and shown, that the Abrahamic Covenant is not one and the same with the new or Gospel Covenant, Tombes went on to answer the remaining three of this original four questions that paralleled the concerns already stated, “(2) Who is the seed? (3) What is the promise? (4) What of those who were circumcised who had no part in Abraham’s covenant”? Tombes moved to his second sub-point: Secondly, The seed of Abraham is many wayes so called: First, Christ is called the seed of Abraham, by excellency, Gal 3.16. Secondly, all the Elect, Rom. 9.7 all believers, Rom. 4.11,12. 16.17,18, are called the seed of Abraham, that is spiritual seed. Thirdly, there was a natural seed of Abraham, to whom the inheritance did accrue; this was Isaac. Gen. 21.12. Fourthly, a natural seed, whether lawfull, as the sons of Keturah, or base, as Ishmael, to who the inheritance belonged not, Gen. 15.5. But no where do I find, that the Infants of Believers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams seed, of the three former kinds of Abrahams seed, the promise recited, is meant, but in a different manner thus; that God promiseth, he will be a God to Christ, imparting in him blessing to all nations of the earth, to the spiritual seed of Abraham in Euangelicall benefits, to the natural seed inheriting, in domestick and politicall benefits.(20)
Tombes extended the blessings of the New Covenant back upon the Abrahamic covenant in both aspects of the covenant - spiritual and civil. He saw this as part of the fulfillment of the New Covenant expressed in the time before Christ. He attempted to explain himself as he answered the question as regards the nature of the promise in his third sub-point; 3. That the promise of the Gospel, or Gospel-covenant, was the same in all ages, in respect of the thing promised, and condition of the covenant, which we may call the substantiall and essentiall part of that covenant, to wit, Christ, Faith, Sanctification, Remission of sins, Eternall life; yet this Euangelicall covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified, and various sanctions, by which it was confirmed: To Adam, the promise was made under the name of the seed of the Woman, bruising the head of the Serpent; to Enoch, Noah, in other forms; otherwise to Abraham, under the name of his seed, in whom all nations should be blessed; otherwise to Moses, under the obscure shadows of the Law; otherwise to David, under the name of a successor in the kingdome; otherwise in the New Testament, in plain words, 2 Cor. 3.6. Heb. 8.10. It had likewise divers sanctions. The Promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of circumcision, and by the birth of Isaac; to Moses by the Paschall Lamb, and the sprinkling of Blood on the [door], the rain of Mannah, and other signs; to David by an oath; in the New Testament, by Christ’s blood, 1 Cor. 11.25. Therefore circumcision signified and confirmed the promise of the Gospel, according to the form and sanction of the covenant with Abraham, Baptisme signifies and confirms the same promise according to the form, sanction and accomplishments of the new Tesmament…. (21)
Tombes admitted that each of these covenants has a sign to confirm the promise made. However, he maintains a distinction between the specific sign of circumcision given in the Genesis 17 covenant given to Abraham as part of that specific covenant and the specific sign of baptism given in the New Covenant. He went on to contrast other aspects of these covenants to demonstrate there was not a quid pro quo relationship between them. There was some continuity; there was also discontinuity. If they were identical in all things, they would be the same in essence, character and name. Since there was at least one difference, the sign, it was, for Tombes’s theological opponents, fallacious to impose a view of radical continuity between the covenant made with Abraham and the covenant brought about by Christ, the New Covenant. Tombes continued by looking at the elements involved: …[N]ow these forms and sanctions differ many wayes, as much as concerns our present purpose in these: First, circumcision confirmed not Evangelicall promises, but also Politicall; and if we may believe Mr. Cameron, in his Thesis, of the threefold Covenant of God. Thesi. 78. Circumcision did primarily separate the seed of Abraham from other nations, sealed unto them the earthly promise; Secondarily, it did signifie sanctification. But Baptisme signifies only Evangelicall benefits. Secondly, circumcision did confirm the promise concerning Christ to Come out of Isaac’ Baptisme assures Christ to be already come, to have been dead, and to have risen again. Thirdly, circumcision belonged to the Church, constituted in the House of Abraham, Baptisme to the Church gathered out of all nations; whence I gather, that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptisme, in signing the Euangelicall covenant; nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of the other.(22)
For Tombes, circumcision sealed an earthly promise and identified Abraham’s seed as set apart to God for God’s purpose. A great part of that purpose was in the Incarnation of Christ from the line of Isaac. Tombes was not denying Isreal’s prized position as God’s special ancient people, he was affirming it. However, for Tomes, it was important to understand the pre-incarnational Covenants in the brighter light of the fulfillment in the New Covenant. Salvific aspects of the New Covenant were found in types and shadows within the older covenants (especially the Abrahamic), but their primary purpose was to anticipate the day when God would bring redemption. The New Covenant, however, looked back to the reality of redemption accomplished and applied. I was through these New Covenant glasses that Tombes saw the salvific aspects of all antecedent covenants. In Tombes’s theological scheme, circumcision was the sign of the former, pointing to among other things, the spiritual realities that will be certain possession of Abraham’s spiritual seed. Baptism looks back at what has been done by the mediator of the New Covenant for his people and is the sign of the latter. Tombes demonstrated even more discontinuity between the Abrahamic and new Covenants while anticipating the question as regards the subjects of circumcision: 4. That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ismael, God had said, that his covnenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac; and yet he was circumcised, Gen. 17.29, 21.25 Rom. 9.7,8,9. Gal. 4.29,30. the same may be said of Esau; All that were in Abrahams house, whether strangers, or born in his house, were circumcised, Gen. 17.12,13. of whom nevertheless, it may be doubted, whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham, did belong to them; there were other persons, to whom all, or most of the promises of the covenant pertained, that were not circumcised; this may be affirmed of the females coming from Abraham, the Infants dying before the eighth day, of just men, living out of Abrahams house, as Melchisedech, Lot, Job. If any say that the females were circumcised in the circumcision of the Males, he saith it without proof; and by like, perhaps greater, reason it may said, that the children of Believers are baptized in the persons of their own parents, and therefore are not to be baptized in their own persons. But it is manifest that the Jewes comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circumcised, were nevertheless not admitted to Baptisme by John Baptist, and Christs Disciples, till they professed repentance, and faith in Christ. Hence I gather, first, that the right to Euangelicall promises, was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those, but Gods’ precept, as is expressed, Gen. 17.25. Gen. 21.4. Secondly, that those terms are not convertible, [federate and to be signed].(23)
Tombes’s conclusions were drawn from the positive, declarative use of circumcision and baptism in Scripture. His rigid adherence to the meaning of texts as God’s words for his people, and his governing principles for all matters of faith and practice, compelled him to demand positive evidence for paedobaptism beyond mere theological constructions. Tombes demanded some evidence from “God’s precept[s]” for the practice. He also saw more discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the New Covenant through the assertion “those terms were not convertible”. By “convertible”, Tombes meant, synonymous. There may be some similarities; yet great differences remained. In review, Tombes’s original, foundational argument was stated thus: Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it; Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful. (9)
Applying this argument to Baptism, he suggested a second:
Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also. Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees. Conclusion: [A]nd consequently Baptisme. (25)
After giving the four reasons above why this is not exegetically or theologically accurate, he concluded his first and most fundamental argument. Whereupon I answer to the Argument: First, either by denying the Major, if it be universally taken, otherwise it concludes nothing: or by granting it with this limitation; it is true of that sign of the covenant which agrees universally in respect of form and sanction, to them that receive the Gospel, but it is not true of that sign of the covenant, which is of a particular form or sanction, of which sort is circumcision. Secondly, I answer by denying the Minor, universally taken, the reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith, which are not known to us, but by profession, or speciall Revelation.(26)
Here, Tombes, in a summary, has given his refutation of the argument from Genesis 17:7. He denied the Major premise to be universal. Circumcision was a particular part of a particular covenant made with Abraham. Circumcision fits within the structure of that narrow convenantal application to Abraham’s descendants physically. It was a sanction or stipulation from God to Abraham for his house through procreation. Baptism, for Tombes, was a covenantal stipulation through the New Covenant because of, and not antecedent to, regeneration. However, with Tombes’s conclusion there is this explanatory comment, “[T]he reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams Children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith….”(27) The true children of Abraham are those who are brought into his family through an act of God.
Taken from…….
Pp 69 -78
Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
An untold story from Puritan England
Michael T. Renihan, PhD
February 01 Does Baptism replace Circumcision?Nehemiah Coxe, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005, 140) A reprint of A Discourse of the Covenants that God Made with Men before the Law, 1681 Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision. Certainly it is safer to interpret one text according to the general current of Scripture and in full harmony with it, than to force such a sense on many texts (which they will in no way admit) to bring them into a compliance to a notion with which our minds are prepossessed. It is plain that the notion I have insisted on fully agrees with other places where circumcision is discussed according to its immediate and direct use in the old covenant. For there can be no contradiction in ascribing a different and seemingly opposite use and end to the same thing, if it be done in a different respect. What circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing; what it was as subordinate to a better covenant and promise that had precedence to it, is another. It is easy to conceive that it might be that to the father of the faithful in its extraordinary institution, what it could not be to the children of the flesh or carnal seed in its ordinary use. To conclude: if circumcision and baptism have the same use and are seals of the same covenant, I can hardly imagine how the application of both to the same subjects should at any time be proper. Yet we find those that were circumcised in their infancy were also baptized on the profession of faith and repentance even before circumcision was abrogated. Yes, according to the opinion that has been argued against, the Jews that believed before Christ suffered were at the same time under a command both of circumcising and baptizing their infant seed. But if the principles that this discourse is built upon are well proved by Scripture, as I take them to be, there must be allowed a vast disparity between circumcision and baptism. The old covenant is not the new; nor that which is abolished, the same with that which remains. Until these become one, baptism and circumcision will never be found so far one that the law for applying the latter should be a sufficient warrant for the administration of the former to infants.
January 24 What the Bible is All About What the Bible is All About
Reading the Bible with Christ at the center is not reading anything into Scripture; it is refusing to read him out of it. The hit TV show Seinfeld has been called a show about nothing. One of the most pernicious falsehoods about the Bible is that it, too, is a book about nothing, that it is a random collection of ancient myths and moral aphorisms. Strangely, some Christians seem to regard Scripture this way. Others find unity in Scripture around God's plan for national Israel and/or a time of millennial glory. Still others treat the Bible as if it is about the reader, as if there is no such thing as a "text" or authorial intent but only the reader's experience of the text. Even more crassly, the Bible is read as if the reader (and his or her prosperity and happiness) is at the center of the story. Reading the Bible the New Testament WayThese errant approaches to the Scriptures are borne from the misapprehension that the biblical writers themselves did not understand themselves to be contributing to a larger unified story and that they did not have a way of reading the Scriptures. There are writers who admit that such a unity and way of reading Scripture exists, but they contend Scripture is inspired and therefore it is beyond our ability to imitate the biblical hermeneutic. This view is mistaken. Scripture is inspired, but the biblical hermeneutic is not-at least not so that we cannot observe and imitate it. That is precisely what we shall begin to do in this essay. The Scriptures are organized around God the Son who was "manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory" (1 Tim. 3:16; esv). Jesus' HermeneuticOur Lord himself claimed throughout his ministry to be not only God the Son incarnate but also to be at the center of God's saving purposes and revelation. Indeed, he attacked the hermeneutic of the Pharisees as wrongheaded. "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life," but the Scribes and Pharisees missed the unifying message of the history of redemption and revelation: the Scriptures "bear witness about" Jesus (John 5:39). The Pharisees claimed to believe Moses, but they did not, because Moses, "on whom you have set your hope" (John 5:45) accuses them. The Pharisees missed the point of the Pentateuch: "If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me" (John 5:46). One of the great and common misunderstandings of the Bible is that, before the incarnation, believers had direct, immediate access to God the Father and that the mediating work of the Son began only with his incarnation. Such a view is directly contradictory to the explicit teaching of Jesus. He said the Father's "voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen." He was even more explicit in John 6:46 that no one has "seen the Father except him who is from God ...." If anyone would see the Father he must look at Jesus, the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). According to Jesus, his mediation does not mean less access to the Father, but more: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Jesus was conscious of his office as the "revelation" of God (John 1:1). He knew that "No one has ever seen God. The only begotten God ... has revealed him" (John 1:18). Jesus repeatedly challenged the myopic hermeneutic of the Jewish leaders. Just as they claimed to follow Moses, they also claimed to be Abraham's "children." Jesus rejected the premise of their claim. He said that he is the fulfillment of Abraham's deepest longing: "'Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, he saw it and rejoiced.'" Not only did Abraham and Moses trust in God the Son and in the salvation he would bring to his people, but so did the prophet Isaiah when he said, "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" (Isa. 53:1). He was anticipating Jesus' response to the blindness of the Jews (Isa. 6:9, 10) and predicting the reception Jesus received. The Apostle John says "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him" (John 12:41). Jesus provoked the Pharisees by querying them about the identity of the Messiah: "'What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?'" Good scholars that they were, the Pharisees replied that the Messiah must be the "son of David" (Matt. 22:42). After evading so many of the Pharisees' traps, Jesus had set one of his own. If the Messiah must be David's son, how is it that, according to Psalm 110:1, David calls the Messiah "Lord?" whom God the Father has placed at the right hand in power (Matt. 22:42-46)? Totally baffled, they did not see that Jesus, whom they sought to murder, was both David's son and David's Lord. On the cross our Lord, by applying Psalm 22 to himself, appropriated to himself all the Psalms. He made it clear that it was not David who was utterly abandoned by God; David did not substitute for those whom the Father had given to him (John 6:39; 10:39), David did not drink the cup the Father had given to him (John 18:11). Jesus is the man who delights in the law of Yahweh. He announced God's name to the brothers (Ps. 21:23; Heb. 2:12). It is his royal signet ring (Ps. 2:12) that must be kissed in submission. He is the "shepherd" (Ps. 23) who went through the valley of the shadow of death, and he alone had "clean hands and a pure heart" (Ps. 24:4). We can see how the New Testament reads the Psalter by the way it uses Psalm 110. In more than twenty quotations and allusions, the New Testament makes clear that God the Son, who became incarnate, is the "Lord" to whom the Father said, "Sit at my right hand." It is to and about him that Yahweh has sworn, "You are priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." After his resurrection and ascension Jesus gave the disciples a vital lesson in biblical interpretation. All the prophets, he said, testified that the Messiah must suffer before entering into glory. "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:25-27). Jesus did not simply apply particular Messianic passages to himself. He interpreted the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures as referring to himself. Thus, reading the Bible with Christ at the center is not reading anything into Scripture; it is refusing to read him out of it. The Apostolic HermeneuticThe first official, public proclamation of the apostolic message centered on the "foolishness" of Christ and him crucified (Acts 2; 1 Cor. 1:25; 2:2). Like Jesus, Peter interpreted the patriarchs and the prophets with Jesus at the center of their message. He preached not an earthly millennium, but "This Jesus whom you crucified, God has made him both Lord and Messiah" (Acts 2:36). This twofold title, "Lord and Messiah," is important because it gives us a clue as to how Peter understood the Hebrew Scriptures. Frequently in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the covenant name of God, Yahweh (Exod. 6:3) is translated with the Greek word Kyrios. For example, in Psalm 110:1, the Hebrew text says, YAHWEH says to Adon, sit at my right hand ...." The two characters in the dialogue are distinguished by two different titles. The Greek translation of Psalm 110:1, however, from which Peter quoted in Acts 2:34 reads: "the Lord says to my Lord...." Our English versions reflect the fact that the same noun is used for both persons. The distinction that was clear in the Hebrew text became ambiguous in the Greek text and the apostles capitalized on this ambiguity. They did so because what distinguishes the Father and the Son is not a difference in divine essence, but a difference in their persons and it belongs to the person of the Son to become incarnate, but the incarnate Son is and remains consubstantial with the Father. Thus, to call Jesus Lord and Messiah is to say, "When you see the LORD speaking or acting in Scripture, think of Jesus." All this means that God the Son did not first appear in the history of redemption in the incarnation, but has been mediating the knowledge of God and saving his people for thousands of years before. This is how the Apostle Paul read the history of salvation and why he declared, "There is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). We see this way of thinking in his admonition to the Corinthians regarding their conduct at the Lord's Table, where he reminded them that they were not the first to be baptized (1 Cor. 10:1-2) and they were not the first to eat the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10:3). Indeed, they ate the same food and drank the same drink we do: "For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." Paul did not see only occasional types of Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures. Rather, he saw God the Son actively operating throughout Scripture. In other words, the unity of the covenant of grace is not merely typological but substantial. We Christians today are partakers of the same justifying and saving grace by which God the Son justified and redeemed his people before the incarnation. Paul said this much when he told the Corinthians, "For the Son of God Jesus the Messiah whom we preached among you ... is not Yes and No, but in him the Yes has come. For however many are the promises of God, their Yes is in him. Wherefore also through him is our Amen to God for his glory" (2 Cor. 1:19-20). The writer to the Hebrews also saw Christ as the center of redemptive history. Much is made of the heroes of faith and of the quality of their faith in Hebrews 11, but not enough is made of the object of their faith. Moses turned his back on privilege in favor of identification with God's people, because "He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt... " (Heb. 11:24-26). This means that there were Christians before the incarnation, believers who had, in the words of the Heidelberg Catechism Q. 21, "a certain knowledge and a hearty trust" in Christ fifteen hundred years before the incarnation. Moses' story is the story of a Christian pilgrim on the way to the heavenly city (Heb. 11:16), as we are, but who happened to live in the time of types and shadows (Rom. 5:14; Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5). More than looking forward to the incarnation, Hebrews also places God the Son at the center of the action of the story of redemption. Arguably, no place was more basic to Israel's national identity than Sinai, and whom does Hebrews place thundering at the top of the mountain? Jesus, "the Mediator of a New Covenant" (Heb. 12:24). The one to whom we have come was there all along, with whom Jacob and Moses spoke "face to face" (Gen. 32:30; Exod. 33:11) and now, in the incarnation, with us. Read this way, we understand that with the incarnation we have not been cut off from God by the incarnation. Rather, we have more and greater access to God (Heb. 4:15-16; 9:15). Writing to the suffering Christians of Asia Minor (central Turkey), the Apostle Peter assumed a Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The salvation that had been preached to them was the same prophesied by the prophets, into which those prophets had "searched and enquired carefully," asking "what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories" (1 Pet. 1:10-11; ESV). According to Peter, God the Son unifies the history of redemption and revelation despite the variety of circumstances and human authors of Scripture because God's Word also has one divine, unifying author, the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit who moved all the writers to write as did they in Scripture (2 Pet. 1:21), and who intended all along that Scripture should reveal Christ throughout. The Son in the Hebrew ScripturesChrist is the subject of Scripture. The question is not whether the Bible is Christ-centered but how? Following the pattern established by Jesus and the apostles, we find that Christ is revealed by an extensive series of types (illustrations of the reality to come) in the history of redemption. Jesus and the Apostles, however, have clued us in to an even more profound way of reading Scripture whereby Jesus does not simply appear typologically, but as a pre-incarnate actor in the drama of creation, fall, and redemption. He was the agent of creation. John 1:3 says that "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made." Remembering that Jesus is the only Mediator, we must consider that when Genesis 2:15-16 says that YAHWEH Elohim put Adam in the garden and instituted the covenant of works (Westminster Confession of Faith 7.2), we must identify that divine person as the pre-incarnate Son of God. It was he who made the woman, conducted the wedding ceremony, whom Adam heard coming in judgment in the garden (Gen. 3:10), and who pronounced the curse. It was also the Son who preached the gospel for the first time: "he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Gen. 3:15) and who covered his people (Gen. 3:21). Read this way, this narrative takes on new depth. This is neither saga nor idle promise, for with this oath the Son solemnly committed himself to incarnation, suffering, and death in order to conquer the enemy. He did so again in the covenant-making ceremony of Genesis 15:17. It was he who went "between the pieces," swearing a maledictory oath against his own life (Gen. 15:13). The mysterious figure with whom Jacob wrestled, and with whom he spoke "face to face," (Gen. 33:20) was none other than the Mediator. That same person revealed himself to Moses as the "I Am" (Exod. 3:14; John 4:26; 6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51, 8:12, 58). Not only was his incarnation illustrated by the blood on the doorposts (Exod. 12:7) but it was he who sent the plagues and led his people through the Red Sea. When we read the Bible this way, we are not only following Jesus, Peter, and Paul, but we are also following a confessional Protestant pattern. At the Heidelberg Disputation (1518). Luther argued that seeking unmediated access (trying to get around the Son) is a "theology of glory" and sub-Christian. A genuine theologian only approaches the Father through the Son and his cross.# Suggestively and brilliantly, Luther spoke of seeing God's "backside." He was alluding to Exodus 33:32 where God did not allow Moses to see his glory but only his "back, but my face shall not be seen." If we would find God, it will not be in glory, but in the mediator who became wretched for us carrying a cross up Golgotha. ConclusionScripture is not a random collection of ancient myths and aphorisms. It has a unifying message told in every genre, by every author, in every period of redemptive history. The unifying thread is not God's plan to establish a glorious national people on the earth nor is the Bible about the reader. The Bible is about God the Son who became incarnate for us. The Son has been revealing himself to his people since the garden. It is not that God is indifferent to us. After all, we are those "upon whom the end of the ages has come" (1 Cor. 10:11), but we always remain readers of and not actors in crafted drama of redemption supervised by the same Spirit who hovered over the face of the deep (Gen. 1:2) and who hovers over the living temple of God (1 Pet. 4;14). The gospel is that the Mediator "become flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." 1 [ Back ] For more detail on Jesus' applications of Psalm 22 to himself, see Edmund P. Clowney, Preaching Christ from All of Scripture (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003), p. 41. See also Geerhardus Vos, "Eschatology of the Psalter," Princeton Theological Review 18 (1920): 1-43.For examples of how the New Testament reads the Psalter, refer to Matthew 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42; 22:69; Acts 2:34; Romans 2:5; 8:34; 11:29; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3, 13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:3; 8:1; 10:12; 11:15, 17:21.For information on Luther's participation in the Heidelberg Disputation, see Martin Luther, Luther's Works, Vol. 31: Career of the Reformer I, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957), pp. 52-53. R. Scott Clark is associate professor of historical and systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California (Escondido, California). He is editor of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry (P&R, 2007). Scott blogs at http://www.oceansideurc.org/the-heidelblog/. Issue: "Gods Unto Ourselves" March/April Vol. 16 No. 2 2007 Pages 20-24 Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 500 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Modern Reformation. Copyright © 2007 Modern ReformationNovember 07 The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological ContextThe 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in its Historical and Theological Context
The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1677/89, along with its predecessor of 1644/46, are perhaps the two most influential Baptist Confessions in existence. In many ways, the more recent Confession eclipses the earlier in importance, for by 1689 copies of the First London Confession had become scarce, so much so that one of the key subscribers to the Second Confession, Benjamin Keach, stated in 1692 that he knew nothing of the earlier document until someone informed him of it earlier that year. It was the Second Confession which quickly became the standard of Calvinistic Baptist orthodoxy in England, North America, and today, in many parts of the world. This Confession, influential as it is, may perhaps best be understood against its historical and theological backgrounds. It did not appear de novo, the product of a sudden burst of theological insight on the part of an author or authors, but in the tradition of good Confession making, it is largely dependent on the statements of earlier Reformed Confessions. A superficial reading will demonstrate that it is based, to a large degree, on that most Puritan of documents, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647. A closer inspection will reveal that it is even more intimately related to the revision of the Westminster Confession made by John Owen and others in 1658, popularly known as the Savoy Declaration and Platform of Polity. In almost every case the editors of the Baptist Confession follow the revisions of the Savoy editors when they differ from the Westminster document. In addition, the editors make occasional use of phraseology from the First London Confession. When all of this material is accounted for, there is very little left that is new and original to the 1677/89 Confession. This heavy dependence on previous sources was very much part of the purpose of the composition of the Confession. In the epistle "To the Judicious and Impartial Reader" attached to the first edition of the Confession, the editors state: "And forasmuch as our method, and manner of expressing our sentiments, in this, doth vary from the former [i.e. the First London Confession] (although the substance of the matter is the same) we shall freely impart to you the reason and occasion thereof. One thing that greatly prevailed with us to undertake this work, was (not only to give a full account of ourselves, to those Christians that differ from us about the subject of Baptism, but also) the profit that might from thence arise, unto those that have any account of our labors, in their instruction, and establishment in the great truths of the Gospel; in the clear understanding, and steady belief of which, our comfortable walking with God, and fruitfulness before him, in all our ways, is most neerly concerned; and therefore we did conclude it necessary to expresse our selves the more fully, and distinctly; and also to fix on such a method as might be most comprehensive of those things which we designed to explain our sense, and belief of; and finding no defect, in this regard, in that fixed on by the assembly [i.e. the Westminster Assembly], and after them by those of the Congregational way [i.e. the Savoy Synod], we did readily conclude it best to retain the same order in our present confession: and also, when we observed that those last mentioned, did in their confession (for reasons which seemed of weight both to themselves and others) choose not only to express their mind in words concurrent with the former in sense, concerning all those articles wherein they were agreed, but also for the most part without any variation of the terms we did in like manner conclude it best to follow their example in making use of the very same words with them both, in these articles (which are very many) wherein our faith and doctrine is the same with theirs, and this we did, the more abundantly, to manifest our consent with both, in all fundamental articles of the Christian Religion, as also with many others, whose orthodox confessions have been published to the world; on the behalf of the Protestants in divers Nations and Cities: and also to convince all, that we have no itch to clogge Religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words, which hath been, in consent with the holy Scriptures, used by others before us, hereby declaring before God, Angels, & Men. our hearty agreement with them, in that wholesome Protestant Doctrine, which with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted: some things indeed, are in some places added, some terms omitted, and some few changed, but these alterations are of that nature, as that we need not doubt, any charge or suspition of unsoundness in the faith, from any of our brethren upon account of them". These words are of real importance, and need to be considered very carefully. The Baptists were concerned to demonstrate to all that their doctrinal convictions had been, from the very start, orthodox and to a large degree identical with the convictions of the Puritans around them. This was true of the First London Confession, published prior to the Westminster Standards, which was heavily dependent on the 1596 True Confession, and on the writings of William Ames. In both of their general Confessions, the Baptists purposely used existing documents in order to demonstrate their concurrence with the theological convictions of their Puritan contemporaries. In the quote above, they argue that the doctrines expressed in both Baptist Confessions are the same, but they have chosen to base the newer Confession upon the more recent and widely available documents of Westminster and Savoy. By doing this, they were declaring with some vigor their own desire to be placed in the broad stream of English Reformed Confessional Christianity. This methodology provides us with some insight into understanding the Confession and its teaching. When it concurs with these other documents, it can be read as an endorsement of the views espoused by those Presbyterians and Independents who subscribed those documents, and of the theological works they published in defense of the Confessional statements. Thus, if one wonders how the Baptists understood the doctrine of the Decrees of God, or Justification, or the application of the Law to the conscience of man, or how they worked out the implications of the teaching on the Perseverance of the Saints, one may consult the writings of paedobaptist Puritans with much profit. Since both the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration are readily available, it is relatively easy to compare the documents in order to determine agreement. Of course, not every word of every author is necessarily a fair representation of their views, but in general, their method implies substantial theological agreement with the writings of their orthodox contemporaries. When the Confession departs from either of these documents, we should take note. It is at these points that the Baptists express their distinctive contributions to Christian Theology. Sadly, few of their theological writings in defense of their views are available to us today, though it is hoped that this will soon change. Their methodology also explains the reason why certain subjects are addressed in the Confession. In the troubled times of the second half of the Seventeenth Century, topics such as the relationship between church and state, the role of the magistrate, and even the Christian doctrine of marriage were important issues. Long and heated debates over these questions fired the furnace of controversy. Recognizing many of the problems inherent in a state church, especially when that church was ruled by a foreign power such as Rome, the Independents and the Baptists were very much concerned for liberty of conscience. The Presbyterian party, with an ecclesiology more conducive to a national church, had some within its ranks who argued strongly against toleration for any dissenters. One is reminded of John Milton's famous phrase "New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large". The attitude of many Presbyterians was the same as that of their Episcopalian predecessors: those in power make the rules, and everyone else must submit. During the Commonwealth era, and Cromwell's Protectorate, a measure of liberty and toleration was given to many religious groups. The question at issue was: Should the civil ruler enforce the first table of God's Law? For the modern reader, the question seems simple and straightforward, but it was not so clear in the 17th Century. Each of these English Reformed Confessions, Westminster, Savoy and the Second London speak to the issue, and each provides a different approach. After the Restoration of 1660, and the enforcement of the Clarendon Code, non-conformists were subject to severe penal acts. It must also be remembered that the Protestants of England feared a return to Roman Catholicism throughout most of the century. Charles I and Charles II both married Roman Catholics, and James II was a professing Romanist. The old doctrines of the Reformation needed to be asserted in the face of this royal departure and its potential implications for church and society. From this mix came the pressing need to address these contemporary issues in a Confession, and accounts for the presence of topics which may seem less important at the beginning of the Twenty-first Century. Compiled by
October 08 The debate between Gene and Paul... An analysis.... Pt 3.In the second segment Paul starts off with his rebuttal with a cross-examination of Gene’s knowledge and doctrine of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. (Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Paul asked Gene if this Passage indicates that a New Covenant Member will never need to be evangelized because he is a new Covenant Member. Gene indicates that is true. Paul then asks Gene a very hypothetical question based upon backsliding and whether or not Gene might be telling a backslider who is a New Covenant Member to Know the LORD. Paul seems to be accusing Gene of going against his own understanding of scripture by telling a backsliding New Covenant Member to Know the LORD. This line of questioning is very hypothetical and misleading from my standpoint. I would say Paul is reaching here into things that do not apply and he is fishing for a self-contradiction and violation of Gene’s biblical understanding. I wouldn’t have answered the questions the same way Gene did but I am not analyzing my response. Gene did give good appropriate answers and announced he could not know if anyone was regenerate other than himself. Then we move to discussing whether a person could draw prescriptions from descriptive statements. It is fallacious to do so. It was a statement Paul quotes of Gene who made it during a debate with an atheist. Paul says it is a move from what is the case to what ought to be the case. And Gene affirms this is true for the Atheist because he has no moral ground to base anything on. The Christian has this foundation so it is not fallacious for the Christian. It is because the Christian does not base his prescriptions on a material universe. Christians are for Biblical prescriptions. Paul seems to have been baiting Gene for another fallacy up to this point by taking a question out of one context and trying to apply it to a different context. These contexts are the worldviews between the Christian and the Atheist. I believe Paul is groping and fails at this point also. Paul has challenged me concerning this and I am wondering if Gene may be correct in a sense because Christ is considered the express image of God and he reveals the Father. Just food for thought. So now we are on to the next line of questioning. Paul then associates the phrase ‘they and their children’ to New Covenant Promises and other passages of the Old Testament. He then starts a line of questioning from this thinking. In my understanding Paul flattens out the promises to much assuming that the Children are automatically born new covenant members because of these general promises. Paul then asks Gene, “Do these passages refer to all of the physical children, half their children, or is there another option?” Gene then says the passages refer to children who are believing children based upon the information given in the New Testament. Paul then gets into a discussion of how we should interpret ‘all of their children’. I am not sure any of the texts he quotes use the term all. I think he is assuming it. Then Gene asks if Paul is a Calvinist. What does all men mean in this context. Paul then diverts to another question and doesn’t answer Gene. At this point Paul does something beyond understanding. He asks Gene how could his (Paul) position be stated that believers and all of their children are to come into the New Covenant and how can that be prophesied.” In my estimation Paul is asking Gene, if he were God, how would he have breathed out the scripture concerning this fallacy of Paul’s. He asks Gene what way could God have revealed it so Gene could understand and accept it. Gene says he is satisfied with how God revealed his truth already. And that it didn’t mean all of Isreal or all of the parents or all of the children. Then Paul pushes the point even further and asks how could the scripture have been said to mean all of them. Then Paul’s line of questioning turns to the invisible /visible church as lined out in the confessions. And time is called. I don’t think Paul made his points very well and that he failed at many different levels. Gene wins this part in my estimation. September 14 The debate between Gene and Paul... An analysis.... Pt. 2My summary of Paul Manata's Intro to the debate. Premise 1. Baptism is for those who enter the Church Premise 2. Infants of one or more Christian parents are Church members. Paul discusses the grammitical historical hermeneutic. We both agree on that. Then he makes the point that family plays a BIG role in discovering the truth of what we are looking at. Then Paul starts to discuss the ramifications of being covenantally cursed and how that relates to children by quoting Jeremiah 44:7 and Michael Horton. To be covenantally cursed in the Old Covenant is something we are just going to have problems with because we see the natures of the Covenants differently. Besides this covenantal cursing is based upon the Old Covenant of Moses and not the New Covenant. The New Covenant can not be broken according to Jeremiah 31. It is not a covenant like the one made with the fathers which they broke. Grant it Paul is making a point about a Covenant Family and the basis of the Church is the Covenant Family in his understanding. Again I think we need to make a distinction between the natures of the Covenants and Covenant families here based upon the different natures of the Covenants. We are going to differ here. Paul makes mention under his second premise that no Jewish apologist has made a mention of Christians being cursed for removing their Children from the Covenant. I find this rather odd. I am not a historian but if my mind understands the days of the early church Christians were considered outside and apostate from the Jewish covenant anyways. So I am not sure that that would have been an argument. Albeit it is still an argument made from silence. Which may be a good argument or not. Paul's point in mentioning this is that the early Christians must not have excluded their children from covenant inclusion or being members of the New Covenant because the apologist don't say they are cursed for covenant exclusion of the children. But I find this a rather moot argument because the Jews considered Christians cursed anyways because of covenant unfaithfulness. Therefore the Christian's children were cursed according them and they wouldn't have written about this anyways. After this Paul goes into describe the immutablity of the Covenants. I agree with him concerning this for the most part. Covenants are immutable but their natures are different. I know we are going to disagree on the nature of the covenants. And possibly even whether or not the Covenant of Grace had a sign before Abraham. And then we will disagree on the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision probably. Then Paul discusses the Church and when it starts. Gene and I are definitely going to agree with him for the most part here. But whether or not we are going to agree on whether or not the ecclesia is fully matured or how the ecclesia is related to a specific covenant or not is another matter. Paul also shows that the children were included with this ecclesia in the Old Covenant and the whole assembly stood before the LORD. Again we are left without defining our distinctions and and consideration of the natures of the Covenants. I believe he is blurring the lines because he does not see the difference between the natures of the Covenants. Every man can stand before the face of the LORD. Even Balaam the Seer stood before the LORD and communicated with Him. Paul Manata is speaking of the Old Covenant Congregation and he is not making a distinction between natural Isreal and spiritual Isreal. Even St. Paul said not all of Isreal was Isreal. Paul is not even considering the Nature of the Covenants he is mentioning. As I mentioned before in the first Critique, Rich Leino and I had a discussion on the Abrahmic Covenant and the distinctions that are discovered in it even. There are differences to who is considered in covenant with God's everlasting Covenant and who is not but is included in the Covenant of circumcision. I don't think Paul is considering these distinctions either. A link to this discussion is in my first critique of Gene's intro. Paul then goes into a lot of Scripture quotes that emphatically say "the Children." And as a highlight verse he turns to Malachi's prophesy of John the Baptist. The turning of the Fathers hearts to their Children and the Children's hearts to the father. He is emphasizing the Covenant Family restoration as opposed to the curses found under the old covenant. After that Paul brings to the attention the passage of Jeremiah 31 and the Law on the heart. He makes mention that the law was not upon old Covenant hearts. And they were cursed for it. At this point I am scratching my head because he is implying it seems to me that because a child is born to someone who has the law written on his heart that the child automatically should be assumed to have the same law written on the childs heart. I am probably butchering Paul's points but we just are going to have a major disagreement on the nature of the New Covenant vs. the Covenant of Circumcision and the Mosaic Covenant. One of my disagreements with Paul is that our Children are not cast off because we have not baptized them or consider them to be in covenant with God. I consider children to be born under the Covenant of Works, not the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision nor the mosaic. I am commanded to raise my children in the admonition of the LORD. I am also commanded to admonish others to be reconciled to God which would bring them into a New Covenant Relationship but all children are born outside of the Covenant until God brings them into the New Covenant. My children attend Church with me and I admonish them to call upon the Lord but they are not New Covenant Members whose sins are forgiven without Christ effectually calling them. Just my 2 cents at this point. BTW... Paul is a much better debator than Gene on this issue so far. And he is a much better writer than I am so he will probably rip me apart. And that is ok. He did not ask me to critique him either. Next... Paul makes a point to say he believes all the texts he quoted on children , and that I have not mentioned because of time, are verses that include children in the New Covenant. Well, Ok but I have many questions as to their generalities and specific points. We could almost make a case for all children of believers are going to be in heaven by the passages Paul quotes and I am not sure he wants to do that either. He later discusses the training of Children up in the admonition of the Lord. And seems to imply that this is only done in a covenantal inclusion that looks like the Old Covenant inclusion. But I totally disagree with this. He then makes mention of the 5th commandment and raising children. But I think the promise of the fifth commandment would be applicable even to someone who is not covenantally included with Abraham and after. For any child who honoured there parents biblically, God would bless. BTW there were families who were in the Covenant of Grace around the time of Abraham who were not of his family and who didn't receive the Covenant of Circumcision. They had no sign but they were in the Covenant of Grace. Nehemiah Coxe mentions this in his book Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. Then Paul asserts the same argument that we have all heard before that the sign of baptism was placed upon all the family members and there must have been children there. Therefore the Covenant sign is placed upon children. Again we are just going to disagree about the Natures of the Covenants. Whether there is a cursing or non cursing in the New Covenant is a big point of contention that I believe is being missed so far. His understanding must be if one was cursed for not circumcising in the old then there is a curse for those not given baptism at birth by believing parents. His argument is that there is no removal of children from Covenantal inclusion of God's visible people. But I don't think Paul M. understands the Nature of the New Covenant clearly. The children in the New Covenant are those of faith. They are the spiritual children of Abraham who are justified by faith alone and their sins are forgiven. Another point I want to make is that every parent eveywhere is responsible for raising their children up in the LORD. It matters not if they are regenerate or not. We are all going to be held accountable for how we all discipled our children. It doesn't take some kind of doctrinal Covenant inclusion to do this. In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach a child they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant. Just from listening to his first part Paul has not proven his conclusion to me as you can see. Now I did this off the cuff and Paul may have something to say as to how I heard him and that is fine. I am not the infallible Pope. LOL That finished the first introduction section. I did this in a rather tired state so if you don't understand what I have written, your not crazy. The debate between Gene and Paul... An analysis.... Pt. 1I have decided to finish listening to the Paul and Gene debate and finish commenting on it. I will post my first two portions then start on the rest. I was commenting as I listened to the debate. so here is the first part. Well, I have listened to the first few things Gene said and He starts off on a bad foot in my estimation. He stated that Baptism is one of the doctrines that wasn't reformed. And that in itself is a major misunderstanding on the Baptist side I believe. I use to think this also. They reformed the doctrine and not the application of the practice in my estimation. IN fact many Reformed guys still accept RC baptism as authentic. CT paedo Baptism is not pagan Roman Baptism though. It is based upon a Covenant Family understanding and not as a sacrament that merits anything.. Another misgiving of Gene's is that Paedo baptism is just a Roman teaching. It was mentioned a few centuries after the Resurrection of Christ. And it was done because there was so close of a tie between it and the forgiveness of sin that one dare not leave earth or allow their children to die without it. So it started based upon the necessity of the individual who might die in infancy at first. This is discussed in a book called Baptism in the Early Church. And it is done by Paedo Baptists. The doctrine was not started based upon Covenant Theology if my understanding is correct. http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-.../dp/0952791315 Infant Baptism is not the unreformed Doctrine of the Reformation. It is reformed from the Catholic understanding. Gene starts off with a few Bad Premises in my opinion. And I would have taken him to task just for that. I do agree with Gene that our differences are based upon the nature of the New Covenant. And he seems to do a pretty good job of explaning its nature. I wouldn't have used the nature of the covenants only to explain the differences between Baptism and circumcision.. I believe the new does explain the old as progressive revelation but the natures of circumcision and baptism are different in more than one way. It isn't just in types and shadows. Circumcision is a sign and seal unto the Messiah. But it also includes a sign and seal that is bound up in promises that are national and not spiritual also. Rich Lieno and I discuss this here. Case for Believers Baptism. believe that Baptism is a sign but that the Holy Spirit is the seal in the New Covenant. Baptism is a sign of forgiveness of sin which only applies to those who are New Covenant members. August 15 A Moral Checkup for Your MouthPE071 Irvine, CA: Covenant Community Church, November 1987, Covenant Media Foundation, 800/553-3938 A Moral Checkup for Your Mouth By Dr. Greg Bahnsen
It is every Christian’s heart-felt desire to live a more holy life, one that better glorifies God and displays His love. The process by which believers grow in holiness is called "sanctification." It is the result of God’s powerful, transforming grace within us. The outworking of the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying work is not as vague or mystical as many well-meaning Christians imagine. It can be seen in very definite ways in our conduct—particularly in the way we use our mouths. About our linguistic habits God tells us: "All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body" (James 3:2). Reforming the way we use our words, then, is a key to sanctification. The mouth is so troublesome and sinful that, if it can be made more holy, so can other areas of our conduct. For that reason, the following "oral check-up" has been devised, summarizing much of what the Bible teaches us about the way we should speak. If Christian morality were more evident here, God would surely receive greater glory—not only among us, but also through us before the world. Notice the Destructive Power of Words "Thy tongue devises very wickedness: like a sharp razor, working deceitfully.... Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue" (Psalm 52:2, 4). "Who have whet their tongue like a sword, and have aimed their arrows, even bitter words. (Psalm 64:3) "There is rash speaking which is like the piercings of a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings health" (Proverbs 12:18). "A worthless man devises mischief, and in his lips there is as a scorching fire" (Proverbs 16:27). "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit: the poison of asps is under their lips" (Romans 3:13). Do You Defame Fellow Believers with Harsh Language? "A soft answer turns away wrath, but a grievous word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise utters knowledge aright, but the mouth of fools pours out folly... A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness therein is a breaking of the spirit" (Proverbs 15:1-4). "The tongue is a fire, the world of iniquity among our members which defiles the whole body...and is set on fire by hell.... It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith we bless the Lord and Father, and therewith we curse men, who are made after the likeness of God: out of the same mouth comes forth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so.... If you have bitter jealousy and faction in your heart, glory not and lie not against the truth. This wisdom is not a wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.... But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits..." (James 3:5-18). Do You Criticize Unnecessarily or Talk Too Much? "In the multitude of words there is no lack of transgression, but he who refrains his lips does wisely" (Proverbs 10:19). "He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter" (Proverbs 11:13). "A perverse man scatters abroad strife, and a whisperer separates best friends" (Proverbs 16:28). "He who spares his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise. (Proverbs 17:27-28). "For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, contention ceases. As coals are to hot embers, and wood to fire, so is a contentious man to inflame strife. (Proverbs 26:20-21). Do You Judgmentally or Maliciously Speak Evil of Fellow Believers? "Speak not one against another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother speaks against the law and judges the law...[and so] is not a doer of the law" (James 4:11). "You sit and speak against your brother; you slander your own mother’s son" (Psalm 50:20). "Who are you to judge the servant of another? Before his own lord he stands or falls.... But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you set at nought your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.... Let us not therefore judge one another any more. (Romans 14:4, 8-13). "All the day long they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil" (Psalm 56:5). "I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be...a reviler.... Be not deceived: neither fornicators...nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:10). Do You Speak Uncharitably? "Love is longsuffering and is kind...does not behave itself unseemly, seeks not its own, is not provoked, takes not account of evil, rejoices not in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). Do You Interpret People In The Best Light? The man with unsound and ungodly attitudes] is puffed up...whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil suspicion..." (1 Timothy 6:4). [By contrast, the inspired writer, after speaking of evil actions, said:] "But beloved we are persuaded better things of you and things that accompany salvation..." (Hebrews 6:9). [Examples of seeing others in the worst light: 1 Samuel 1:13-15; 17:28; 2 Samuel 10:3; 16:3; 19:25-27; Nehemiah 6:6-8; Acts 24:2,5. We can take one instance —] "And when the barbarians saw the venomous creature hanging from [Paul’s] hand, they said one to another, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped from the sea, yet Justice has not allowed to live (Acts 28:4).} Is What You Say Kind? "Let not kindness and truth forsake you; bind them about your neck: write them upon the tablet of your heart" (Proverbs 3:3). "The wise in heart shall be called prudent; and the sweetness of the lips increases learning.... Pleasant words are as a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and health to the bones" (Proverbs 16:21, 24). "She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the law of kindness is on her tongue" (Proverbs 31:26). "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Galatians 5:22-23). "And be kind one to another, tenderhearted" (Ephesians 4:32). "Put on...a heart of compassion, kindness, lowliness, gentleness, longsuffering...and above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection" (Colossians 3:12,14). "Finally, be all of you like-minded, compassionate, loving as brethren, tenderhearted, humble-minded (1 Peter 3:8). Does Your Speaking Show Humility? "Do nothing through faction or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind, let each count the other as better than himself" (Philippians 2:3). "Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought to think....In love of the brethren be tenderly affectionate one to another; in honor preferring one another" (Romans 12:3, 10). "With all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love" (Ephesians 4:2). Do You Speak Carelessly? "He who guards his mouth keeps his life, but he who opens wide his lips shall have destruction" (Proverbs 13:3). "The heart of the righteous studies how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things" (Proverbs 15:28). "Whosoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps his soul from troubles" (Proverbs 21:23). "See a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him" (Proverbs 29:20). "If any man thinks himself to be religious and does not bridle his tongue, he deceives himself and this man's religion is vain" (James 1:26). "He who would love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil and his lips that they speak no guile" (1 Peter 3:10). Do You Choose Your Words Cautiously and Fairly, or Do You Press into Service Provocative (Emotive) and Unqualified (Categorical) Expressions? " I say unto you that...whoever shall say to his brother "Raca" [a term of contempt] shall be in danger of the council, and whoever shall say "You fool" shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:22). "I said in my haste, ‘All men are liars’" (Psalm 116:11). [When we oversimplify and lump together the righteous and unrighteous under one condemning rubric, note:] "He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 17:15). "Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear" (Ephesians 4:29). "Let us follow after things which make for peace and things whereby we may edify one another" (Romans 14:19). "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in network of silver. As an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear" (Proverbs 25:11-12). "The tongue of the righteous is as choice silver.... The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked speaks perverseness" (Proverbs 10:20,32). "A man has joy in the answer of his mouth, and a word in due season, how good it is!" (Proverbs 15:23) "The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life, but violence covers the mouth of the wicked" (Proverbs 10:11). "A grievous word stirs up anger...the mouth of fools pours forth folly" (Proverbs 15:1,2). Do You Gossip or Publicly Discredit People? "You shall not go up and down as a talebearer among your people" (Leviticus 19:16). "Who shall dwell with Jehovah?... He who slanders not with his tongue...nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor" (Psalm 15:3). "And withal they learn also to be idle, going about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not" (1 Timothy 5:13). "He who utters a slander is a fool" (Proverbs 10:18). "The mouth of the wicked and the mouth of deceit have they opened against me.... They have compassed me about also with words of hatred and fought against me without a cause" (Psalm 109:2,3). "Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile" (Psalm 34:13; 1 Peter 3:10). "Let all bitterness...clamor and railing be put away from you, with all malice" (Ephesians 4:31). "Put them in mind...to speak evil of no man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all gentleness toward all men" (Titus 3:1-2). [Whisperers and backbiters are condemned: Psalm 101:5; Romans 1:29,30; 2 Corinthians 12:20] "The north wind drives away rain, so does an angry countenance a backbiting tongue" (Proverbs 25:23). Do You Publicly Criticize People Before First Speaking with Them and Seeking Their Restoration? "He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him.... He who pleads his cause first seems just, but his neighbor comes and searches him out" (Proverbs 18:13, 17). "Go not hastily to strive, lest you know not what to do in the end thereof, when your neighbor has put you to shame. Debate your cause with your neighbor himself, and disclose not the secret of another, lest he who hears it revile thee and your infamy turn not away" (Proverbs 25:8-10). "Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness.... Bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:1-2). "My brethren, if any among you err from the truth and one convert him, let him know that he who converts a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death and shall cover a multitude of sins" (James 5:19-20). "Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them who hear" (Ephesians 4:29; cf. Romans 14:19). "And if your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone; if he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two more, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it unto the church" (Matthew 18:15-17). Do You Speak with Sensitivity, the Way You Would Have Others Speak of You? [See preceding passages about kindness, humility, and gentleness: for instance, 1 Peter 3:8; Ephesians 4:32; Titus 3:2; Romans 12:10] "If there is therefore any exhortation in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions, make full my joy that you be of the same mind, having the same love, being of one accord" (Philippians 2:1-2). "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 19:19; Romans 13:9). "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Galatians 5:14). "All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do also unto them, for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12). Do You Exemplify the Very Things for Which You Criticize Others? " Judge not that you be not judged. For by the same standard you judge, you shall be judged; and with the measure you mete it out, it shall be meted out to you.... You hypocrite, first cast out the beam in your own eye, and then you shall see clearly to cast out the speck from your brother’s eye" (Matthew 7:1-5). "Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whosoever you are who judges. For in that very thing you judge another, you condemn yourself, for you who who judges practices the same things" (Romans 2:1). Do Your Words about Others Amount to Humiliation or Mockery? " With his mouth the godless man destroys his neighbor" (Proverbs 11:9). "A gentle tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness therein is a breaking of the spirit" (Proverbs 15:4). "But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you not be consumed of one another" (Galatians 5:15). [Examples of the sin of mockery: Genesis 21:9 with Galatians 4:29; Psalm 35:16, 21; Matthew 27:24] [The opposite of humiliating words is commended: Proverbs 16:21, 24; 27:9, and preceding passages about kindness, sensitivity, etc.] Do You Later Try to Evade Responsibility for Your Words"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.... And I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment; for by your words you shall be justified and by your words you shall be condemned" (Matthew 12:34b, 36-37). "As a madman who casts firebrands and deadly arrows, so is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, ‘I was only kidding’" (Proverbs 26:18-19). "He who covers his transgressions shall not prosper, but whoso confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy" (Proverbs 28:13). "Yet you say ‘I am innocent....’ Surely I will enter into judgment with you because you say ‘I have not sinned’" (Jeremiah 2:35). [Examples of attempting to evade responsibility and making excuses: Proverbs 30:20; Genesis 3:12-13; 4:9; Matthew 27:24; Luke 14:18] Are You Always Careful to Tell the Truth When You Speak? "A man who bears false witness against his neighbor is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow" (Proverbs 25:18). "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:20; Matthew 19:18). "For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts...false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man" (Matthew 15:19-20). "You shall not take up a false report; put not your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness" (Exodus 23:1). "You shall not...lie one to another" (Leviticus 19:11). "Wherefore, putting away falsehood, speak the truth each one with his neighbor, for we are members one of another" (Ephesians 4:25). "Lie not one to another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his doings" (Colossians 3:9). "There are six things which Jehovah hates, yes seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue...a false witness who utters lies" (Proverbs 6:16-19). "He who utters truth shows forth righteousness, but a false witness deceit.... The lip of truth shall be established forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment" (Proverbs 12:17, 19). "Be not a witness against your neighbor without cause, and deceive not with your lips" (Proverbs 24:28). "A false witness shall not go unpunished, and he who utters lies shall perish" (Proverbs 19:9; cf. 21:28). [The mouths of unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, must be stopped by strong reproof (Titus 1:10-13). "But for...all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8). Do You Keep the Promises that You Make? [Who shall dwell with the Lord?] "He who swears to his own hurt and changes not" (Psalm 15:4). [Among those who stand condemned by God are covenant-breakers (Romans 1:31; 2 Timothy 3:3). Does Your Mouth Use Coarse Humor or Foolish Jesting? "But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you as becomes saints: nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting (Ephesians 5:3-4). "Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth" (Ephesians 4:29). "Put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful speaking out of your mouth" (Colossians 3:8). "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be anything praiseworthy, think on these things" (Philippians 4:8). Do You Use Words to Boast or Flatter Yourself? "The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips and the tongue that speaks proud things" (Psalm 12:3). "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters" (2 Timothy 3:2). "Be not wise in your own conceits" (Romans 12:16). "I hate pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth" (Proverbs 8:13). "Do not think more highly of yourself than you ought to think" (Romans 12:3). "Let another praise you and not your own mouth—a stranger and not your own lips" (Proverbs 27:2). Does Your Conversation Use God’s Name Taken in Vain? You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11). "After this manner are you to pray: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name" (Matthew 6:9). [This requires that we reverence all of God's titles, attributes, works, etc.:] "Give unto the Lord the glory due unto His name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness" (Psalm 29:2). "O Lord our Lord, how excellent is your name in all the earth" (Psalm 7:1). "Swear not at all, neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King; neither by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black" (Matthew 5:34-36). [It also requires that we profess the name of Christ and praise Him:] "If you shall confess with your mouth Jesus as the Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.... Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:9,13). "No man speaking in the Spirit of God says ‘Jesus is anathema,’ and no man can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ but by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). "Through Him, then, let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of lips which make confession to His name" (Hebrews 13:15). [This entails that all of our speaking must be pleasing to God:] "And whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Colossians 3:17). [We must not dishonor our profession of His name by our behavior:] "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you" (Romans 2:24). "Let your lifestyle [conduct] be such as becomes the gospel of Christ" (Philippians 1:27). June 10 Everything In It's Right TimeThis is a blog I have been contemplating on writing for sometime. It is mainly written for the teens and kids who frequent my house and whom I care very deeply for. Of course most of them are boys because I have three sons. There is rumor that boys will be boys and sin is knocking on the doorstep at an unprecedented rate in most of our lives. Times are more sinful and our human nature is enticed at an alarming rate. Most of the ideas we have are sexually motivated or focused on how we can fill the time with fun and laughter. After all, friendship is mostly based upon what the guys and gals do together and how much they can enjoy it. Since pleasure is an all time adventure it pleads for us to look intently for it even if it is innappropriate. Our flesh just screams for us to fulfill our lusts. And to fulfill it the most simple and accessible way. It pleads for the easiest route without much notice. It matters not what anyone thinks about it. Because of this many adults and children start off ruining their lives at a very early age and continue to ruin them even into late adulthood. We become what the ancient Greeks called epicureans or hedonists. The epicurens were more moderate but just as sinful. Why am I bringing this up. It is because I have learned a few things in life and want to spare others from the harm I have caused and endured. In my teen years I was very wreckless. I ruined my Highschool years with drugs and alchohol. I also know kids who drank and did drugs who did good in school but became wash outs in life. I have quite a few Dead friends. The suicides and drug and alcohol overdoses are numerous. The Sexually transmitted diseases have also caused many problems like infertillity, life long diseases that can't be cured which cause sexual tensions with partners later on in life. Plus, lets not forget the deaths we can count due to other diseases. I have heard it said that one shouldn't complain when one gets splinters by going against the grain of God's will. In other words bad living and Sin has consequences. If we don't learn how to discipline our feelings and thought lives we are destined to ruin some aspect of our lives. I also want you guys to know that God is not a kill joy. He came to remind us of how much he loves us and how much He cares about us. He created us to be holy and enjoy most everything we desire. But he has an order for how we are to operate. And that order is called His perfect and good will. He created Sex. It is a very wonderful thing. It was meant to be shared in a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. It was made for the enjoyment and communion of the marriage as well as for pro creating other little bundles of joy. But I am getting ahead of myself here. Let me show you something about Jesus the King of Kings and Creator of everything according to the Holy Bible. In Matthew Chapter 4 the fallen angel named Lucifer came to tempt Jesus after He was baptized by John the Baptist. Jesus knowing his purpose on earth to save His people from their sins kept his focus, and this purpose was always on the forefront of His mind. He did not come here to get married and have children. He came to pay a price for our sin. But I do know when Jesus came He was tempted and He didn't give into the temptation and sin that was against the Law of God. When Satan came and tempted Jesus he tempted Jesus with things that were to be God's will for His life. Let's look at them. In Matthew 4:3 Jesus was tempted to make bread from stones so he could eat when he was starved. Jesus replied back to Satan that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. He didn't do a miracle just because he could to fulfill his desire. Then Satan took Jesus up to a high place in Matthew 4:5 & 6 and tempted Him to prove Himself to be the Son of God by saying "cast yourself down... God will send angels to save you." Jesus responded that No one should tempt the Lord God or put him to the test. In Matthew 4:8-10 the Devil took Jesus to a high Mountain and revealed all the Kingdoms of the world to Him and told Him if He would bow down to himself (the Devil) Jesus could rule them all right now. To which Jesus only reminded Lucifer that he should worship the Lord God and only Him should he worship. After that the Devil departed. I think Lucifer couldn't deceive Jesus as He did Adam and Eve and he gave up at this point. I bring this up to show you all something. Jesus did all these things He was tempted to do by the Devil. He made bread miraculously. He fed thousands with it. He was delivered from death and stonings from the Jews who sought to kill him before His time to die for the sin of the world. And He is the King of King and Lord of Lords, the Beginning and the End. The Creator of all of Creation. He has always been worshipped and will someday be worshipped completely in the New Heavens and New Earth after His return. And by his becoming human He purchased souls from sins penalty, which is God's wrath against sin and Eternal Punishment.
My point in this is to show you all that adult things are reserved for adulthood and made for our good when these things are properly done in accordance with God's will. Even the fruit of the vine (alcohol) has its boundaries. When anything is done outside of these boundaries it causes hurt and pain. Just ask my kids. I am not innocent in any of this. But that is why I have needed a great Saviour who would save me from God's perfect wrath. We all need this forgiveness. So in conclusion I am asking you guys to seek God's face and His wisdom so you guys can learn when it is God's time for doing the things He has created you for. If you don't you will inevitably do things the wrong way because there is a Tempter, The Worlds Ways, and the Lust of the Flesh. These are against you but God is for you. He wants you all to have a great life, even though there are many sacrifices to be lived out, and he wants you to have life abundantly. Sin will ultimately steal this from you and the Devil knows it. Be careful that your hearts are not pulled away from what is correct and good. Our actions and thoughts do have eternal consequences. Once done they can't be changed or taken back. We still bare the consequences of our sin. We can only repent from sinful choices. I really do care and love you kids. And hopefully I will always be here for you no matter what. In the good and the bad.
Mat 1:21 Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
2Co 5:21 Joh 10:10
(Pro 4:20)
(Php 2:5)
|
Thanks for visiting!
|
||||||
|
|
