Ah, why not?
In a nutshell, God's promise to save Abraham and his "seed" was without any conditions (Genesis 17:7). Abraham responded in faith to God's unconditional promise of salvation, whereby he was justified (Genesis 15:6). Although God promised Abraham and his elect son Isaac salvation, God rejected Ishmael (Genesis 17:18-21).
Nonetheless, Ishmael was to receive the outward sign of the covenant-promise, which was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff). In other words, God commanded that the sign of the covenant be "administered" with the household of Abraham, even though God only "established" his covenant with the elect in Christ. (The precedence is set!)
The apostle Paul reminds us in Romans nine that the promise of salvation was not intended for every single person to whom the outward administration of the covenant was to be administered. In fact, the apostle tells us explicitly that the children of the "promise" are counted as Abraham's seed, and not the children of the flesh (Romans nine, verse eight). Accordingly, all those who believe the promise are the true children of Abraham (Romans 9 & Galatians 3:9). Most importantly, the "seed" to whom the promise was made was actually Christ alone (Galatians 3:16). It is through union with Christ, the one seed, that we become the seed of Abraham. As Galatians 3:29 states, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, and heirs according to the promise."
In essence, God always had an elect people, which he formed into a nation about 2400 years into redemptive history. Now, God has taken the kingdom away from the nation of Israel and has started his final building project in the church. The church is the international people of God. Which is to say, when one is converted to Christ they need not become part of the nation of Israel; for Christ has sent his followers into the world to make disciples of all nations.
Finally, God commanded 4,000 years ago that the sign of the covenant be placed upon the males within the household of professing believers. Although the sign of membership has changed from circumcision to baptism, God never rescinded the principle concerning the subjects who are to receive the sign and seal of the covenant promise. In the same way that all Israel was not Israel, all the church is not the church. Nonetheless, we
are to place the sign of membership in the church upon those who qualify, per the instruction of God.
Entertaining Baptist Arguments:
The best Baptist arguments are based upon a foundational premise, that the old covenant unlike the new was not established with the elect alone. However, as I have argued, the old covenant was indeed established with the elect, as is the new. Accordingly, the reason that the new covenant will not be "broken" in the way that the old covenant was broken cannot be grounded in the premise that the new covenant is established with the elect alone whereas the old covenant was not. No matter how Baptists wish to interpret the promise of the new covenant, they must do justice to the fact that the old covenant like the new was established with the elect.
Note Abraham's request in Genesis 17: "...Oh that Ishmael might live before thee!"
Now note God's denial: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have bless him, and will make him fruitful...
"But my covenant will I establish with Isaac.." as opposed to with Ishmael.
NOTE: Abraham wanted the covenant to be established with Ishmael, but God refused! Notwithstanding, Ishmael was to receive the sign of the covenant, though it was not established with him. The promise was established with the seed of Abraham, which are the elect in Christ.
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ...And if ye be Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
As Galatians three teaches, the promise was made to the Second Adam, Christ, and to those who are in union with him, the elect. The old, like the new, is established with the elect, which undermines the heart of the Baptist position.
Some Baptists assert that circumcision was an ethnic sign:
We must keep in mind that Abraham was not Jewish. Sure, Israel according the flesh eventually came from Abraham's loins, but the promise was that Abraham would be the father of many nations. Israel did not even become a nation until 430 years after God called Abraham according to the promise (Galatians 3:17). So, contrary to what so many in the church think, the sign of circumcision primarily had spiritual significance and not national or ethnic significance. As Romans 4:11 states, "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith..." The verse does not state that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of his ethnic origin.
Some Baptists argue that baptism did not replace circumcision:
Though I think that baptism replaces circumcision, the Paedobaptist position does not require the premise. The reason being, Baptists and Paedobaptists agree that the visible people of God are to be baptized; so whether baptism replaces circumcision doesn't really matter. The only question is why are children no longer to be included among the visible people of God? I would think that such a drastic change in covenant administration would be accompanied by some sort of explicit instruction.
Now what? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Ron
