This seems to drive a false wedge between Old and New Covenants. Surely Abraham’s act of faith was not merely an outward deed? His deed was such due to his inward circumcision?

I appreciate your comments.

This is the difference between the Old Covenant people and the New. The Old was about cutting off the flesh. Even Herod’s slaughter of the innocents counts toward this (Matthew puts the event at “Division”, corresponding with Circumcision.)

In the New, we are to be righteous judges, discerning the spirits, not simply outward deeds. So there is a gap between the historical church and the eschatological church, but our job is to minimise it, close the gap, be discerning.

As mentioned in another post, bringing children to Jesus is one thing. Baptism is about recognising their conversion and readiness to “send out” again.

I also know people who’ve believed as long as they can remember. Three of them are my children. So, we baptized them (two down, one to go). It doesn’t matter if we can’t identify “the moment.” We know it happened. If it hadn’t happened, it would be apparent.

Psalm 8 refers to Deut 31:21 (or was it 21:31?) Anyhow, it’s the Lord’s command to train the kids in the Law by rote, so that when they sing it (without understanding) they will unknowingly be condemning their parents who have strayed. So the Hosannas of the children condemned the Herods. The RSV gives a much better rendition, and I will be posting an analysis of the Psalm’s structure later today.

“Spirit within” simply means regenerate. No one is born regenerate. No one is born convicted of sin! The Word always comes first. You have to have a tree before you can cut it down. Circumcision made Israel a tree with the shadow of an angelic sword continually hanging over it’s “firstborn” to kill Cain and avenge Abel.

I don’t see any of your objections as attacks, and I appreciate your attitude – it is about the text, not human traditions or denominations. The Word has a way of using these, but also smashing them up to build something new.

Kind regards,
Mike

I get the argument that “people are either outside the New Jerusalem, or inside the New Jerusalem by faith.” I don’t think this is in dispute. Abraham believed and it was accreditied to him as righteousness. Salvation, entrance into the kingdom has always been by faith. There were always those who confessed or were part of the body and then fell away and were pruned out. Is the church and its members, in history, the same thing as the New Jerusalem?

Wilson & Jordan explain that there is the church in/through history (warts and all) and the eschatological church – the 2 books of the roll and of life?

So when we are commanded to bring the little children/infants to Jesus, for Him to lay His hands on them, do we bring them to Him via another means than the church?

“When your three year old is converted, baptized him.” My wife grew up with a Christian mum, she never had a watershed moment that she could identify. Her mum tauight her the faith from day dot. She believed as long as she can remember. I have taught my 3 (9, 6 and 2) year old the faith since he was in his mothers womb. So what am I looking for in conversion – must he show the fruit of the spirit in the sense that a 3 year old can (obeying mummy and daddy, being kind etc) or must he be more mature, more filled with the spirit? Surely maturity also implies growing up in the faith, working out our salvation in history in fear and trembling. Jesus as the Federal Head brings humanity/His people to maturity, surely not every member of the body is mature in an individual sense? I am not as mature as Moses (etc) on a personal level, but am much more so on a corporate sense?

What does the “Spirit within” mean? If Jesus could receive praise from children and babes on His entrance to Jerusalem surely He can now too?

I am thinking the arguments through, not attacking your position. Trying to understand it and challange mine with Scripture.

Thanks for engaging, I am enjoying it.

Blessings,
Trev

Baptism is the beginning of ministry, but it certainly isn’t the end of maturity, any more than it is for a newly hatched chick. FVs think being born and being born again can be tied together. One even told me that “born again” was only referring to the church as a body, and I should check the Greek. But it takes sheep to make a flock.

People are either outside the New Jerusalem, or inside the New Jerusalem by faith. It’s not a “carnal” city, so no one is in there simply by inheritance. Maturity is simply “resurrection life,” the Spirit within.

When your three year old is converted, baptized him. He doesn’t have to be William Lane Craig before you do this, but if he is, let me know and we can pit him against Sam Harris.

So, children can never love God from their mothers womb/breasts? They need to first mature somewhat? Again, when my three year says he loves Jesus do I wait until he can intellectually defend the faith – ie minister to the nations? You seem to be pushing maturity as a baptismal prerequisite; please define the parameters of maturity.

Those who argue for infant baptism have really muddied the waters. It’s really not that difficult. Raise your kids to believe in Christ and baptize them when they do. This will take some wisdom, but it takes wisdom with adults as well!

Regarding “infant” churches, baptism is the beginning of ministry, not life. The foundation of the church was the beginning of Israel’s full ministry to all nations.

That is: The church did not appear in history in fully mature form; it is still far from fully mature. Were the infant churches of the apostolic age Christian churches? Did the troubled Corinthian congregation count as a Christian communion? Galatia? We should say Yes, since Paul treated these churches as churches.

Infant churches are Christian churches, immature and inadequate though they may be. Ergo….” http://www.leithart.com/2010/07/29/infant-baptism-and-church-history/.

So even though there were OT infant baptisms (e.g. 1 Cor 10 reference) you are arguing that this aspect of the covenant has been altered/reduced to exclude children who are born to Christian parents in the new world? And at the same time you are arguing that the new covenant is more glorious?

Are you not limiting your definition of what a Christian is to maturity? Can my 3 year old have the faith of a 3 year old? Are you implying that my 3 year old must first grow up and work through unto maturity before being baptised in order to be sent out? How do I then bring my little Children to Jesus to be fed and watered?

I have read the tos and fros and so this is probably repeated.

A Christian is a tree with fruit, linking the Land (Bronze Altar) with heaven (Incense Altar). Circumcision marked out a plot of Land. It classified Adamic caterpillars, not Evian butterflies. There’s a death and resurrection in the middle : )

So, our children can be “Christian” even if they are not yet Christians. There is an outflow from the source of the Spirit into family and culture. But the young are receivers, not the springs. Christians are the true fonts.

Not sure what you mean about the early church. We have water-to-water from Christ’s baptism to His resurrection, then water-to-water from Pentecost to the first resurrection, and water-to-water from then till the second resurrection. It’s Garden, Land, World – they are all “church.” But each period has its distinctives. Paul uses the Red Sea history to call for perseverance through trials and spiritual unity in 1 Cor 10. But it’s still water to water (see my comments to John under Shakin’ the Tree).

Glad Bible Matrix is a help. I’ll check out your comments on Matthew 25 later today.

Kind regards,
Mike