Hi J.E.,
Not<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mad3.gif" alt="" />; more <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" /> You don't seem to have the faintest understanding of what I'm trying to say and no interest in finding out. I hadn't intended to grace your last post with a reply, and this will definitely be my last on this thread. After this, I leave you to your <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mickey.gif" alt="" /> theology.
You wrote:-
------------------------------------------------------------
What you are saying is that God made the Abrahamic Covenant and then did away with it in the Mosaic. Then God made the Mosaic Covenant and did away with it in the Davidic. Then God made the Davidic Covenant and did away with it in Christ.
------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, I have never said anything of the sort. Indeed, I earlier quoted Gal 3:17 which clearly states that the Mosaic covenant does NOT do away with the Abrahamic. Heigh-ho!
What I have said is that the OLD COVENANT has passed away (Heb 8:13 etc). Now the Old Covenant is NOT the Adamic Covenant, the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant nor the Davidic Covenant. Read Jer 31:32 slowly and carefully until you understand what the Old Covenant is. It's not rocket science. It is the system of laws given by God to Moses on Mt Sinai. It is THAT which is done away with in the New Covenant. The sacrifices, the dietary laws, the Levitical priesthood, the ceremonies, circumcision are all done away with. As far as their observance is concerned, they can be put into your 'hefty bag' (whatever that is <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Not an English term) and dumped. That is not to say that there is no benefit in reading and preaching about them- they speak of Christ- but as far as their observance is concerned, they are actually harmful ((Gal 5:3 ). Even the Decalogue, as something that condemns us (Gal 3:10) is done away with in Christ (Rom 8:1; Gal 2:21 ) since the moral law is now written, not on stone tablets but upon the hearts of believers (Jer 31:33; 2Cor 3:3 ).
The other covenants (Abrahamic etc) are the Covenants of Promise (Eph 2:12 ). They speak of the coming Seed and each successive one gives more detail about Him. But the everlasting Covenant (Covenant of Redemption, call it what you will) is realised (as opposed to foreshadowed) in the New Covenant in Christ, which is shown in Heb 13:20 to be the Everlasting Covenant finally revealed (Col 1:25-27 ).
Therefore we do not impose the shadow upon the reality by baptizing infants when the NT clearly states that baptism is reserved for disciples (Acts 2:41 etc). Baptism is NOT the seal of the New Covenant; the Holy Spirit is (Eph 1:13; 2Cor 1:22). If we baptize infants, we are performing a law work upon them, something we do, which we hope will make them in some way right with God. Well, it won't. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone.
Does it really matter? Is it important whether we baptize infants or not? Well, if all paedo-baptists were like Pilgrim, who is quite clear that baptism has no effect upon the infant, then I would not keep keeping on about it. It's just a little confusion about the covenants. It is when we get to the realm of 'Presumptive Regeneration' that the matter gets serious. I append an article which appear in a Christian mag recently:-
‘Individual anecdotes are not normative, but illustrative of the fruit of men’s labours. The fruit of a belief will be seen in how it manifests itself in practice. Ideas have consequences. Let me illustrate. A friend with whom I attended seminary called me recently to discuss a matter affecting the life of the church he presently pastors. The church is Presbyterian. My friend has always been a traditionally conservative Presbyterian pastor holding to all of the Westminster Standards- even the Directory for Publick worship. His recent experience struck at the heart of how the infant’s interest in the Covenant of Grace via the Abrahamic Covenant is working itself out in some covenantal Presbyterian or paedobaptist circles.
A young woman in her late teens had become a nightmare to her Christian parents. She was disruptive at home and rebellious to the authority figures in her life. Her church prayed for her regularly over the course of almost two years. In fact, they prayed so regularly that it seemed to the Pastor that the congregation had given her over as a hopeless cause. They had become desensitized through familiarity with her condition. A christioan friend of this young woman, however, also showed concern for her. She ‘reached out to her with a lifeline’ (as the evangelical cliché says). This friend invited her to a church other than her family’s where there were special summer evangelistic meetings. She agreed to attend. The rebellious one was struck by the force of the preaching and made a public profession of faith. (Let’s not get lost in a visceral reaction to methodology at this point.) Late that night, she announced to her parents with tears of repentance interspersed with her words that everything was going to be okay from now on because she was now a Christian. Sounds good, doesn’t it?
Her father went into a tirade. He had presumed that his daughter was already regenerate by virtue of her election and her place as a “Covenant child.” He would not be shown to be wrong. His hyper-covenantal theology blinded him to the possibility that his daughter might have been unregenerate. In his view, she had “broken the covenant again” by making such a public confession of faith. After all, he had professed faith for her at her baptism sixteen years or so earlier. What might have been perceived as a merciful answer to the church’s prayers was perceived as a greater evil than her two years of rebellion. For this act she was cast from the home. It was the proverbial last straw. The father’s real grief was that she had become “a [expletive deleted] Baptist!” In these words, the father conveyed his horror to his pastor, my friend. For the first time in his ministry, my friend saw the consequences of “pressing to much out of covenant theology.” He asked in desperation, “What’s a pastor to do?” Since he knows my dry sense of humour, I replied, “Become a Reformed Baptist.” I also sent him John Tombes’ work on the Abrahamic Covenant.’
Michael T. Renihan
Such an occurence as this will be relatively rare. What is likely to be more common, and much more serious is when the child does NOT rebel. When he/she follows all the outward ordinances of the faith without demur. But such a child will never have been urged to repent and trust in Christ! How can he have been? It is 'presumed'that he already has. He will join a youth group called 'King's Kids' or 'Covenant Kids' where he may hear lots about the Bible, but never that 'You MUST be born again.' It is 'presumed' that he already is. and the deadly danger is that he will hear, on the Last Day, our Lord say to him, "I never knew you!"
Steve
