God’s secret decrees are none of our business. But history is a process of coming to the same conclusion as God. Discerning the spirits WITHIN the church is as much a New Covenant job as discerning the ones at the door. That’s certainly something we can apply directly from the apostolic experience.

Christ is the end of the law for everyone who believes. The curses don’t apply on a corporate level. The true church will never suffer in the way Israel did. The true church suffers as a righteous witness. The Reformation is a great example.

I think we do suffer curses — consequences — within our own domains, as David did. But perseverence is the sign of a true work of the Spirit. I know plenty of Christians who struggle at times, including myself, but the righteous man gets up again. Can’t keep a good resurrection life down!

Just want to know, how you can be absolutely sure you have a circumcised heart, and it will remain circumcised? It seems that you are saying that everyone who receives baptism has to know unquestionably that he will persevere in the faith, have a truly circumcised heart, and then, once he is sure of that, then he is to be baptized. But how in this world does a person have infallible knowledge of God’s secret decrees? it is impossible. A person could receive baptism, and really think he is regenerate, but then come to find out some day down the line he doesn’t believe in Jesus anymore. Then what? He really didn’t have the internal did he? But he received the external. How dare he?!?! Doesn’t he know that he shouldn’t have been baptized because
baptism is only for those who are decreetally elect to persevere?

The nature of the covenant is promise obligation, blessing and curses. you say the the Old Covenant this was true, but in the New Coveanant, there really aren’t any corresponding curses for not fulfilling the demand of the covenant b/c the covenant is only made up of true beleivers, who will never fall away and never experience those curses. How convienient that those curses in Hebrews and Corinthians and Galatians and John, really are only hypothetical. It really is impossible for baptized people to NOT persevere in the faith and to apostatize, despite what Jesus and the Apostles say. that’s real nice of you Mike.

“What about the person who is baptized as an infant, but then tells us that he didn’t become a Christian until a campus minister explained the gospel to him in college? Without devaluing his experience, we should help him reinterpret it along more covenantal lines. He became a Christian when he was baptized. He may have been an unfaithful Christian for some time (though this doubtful if he grew up in a family and church in which Christ was honored). If so, he was a prodigal son and adulterer who has now returned home and repented. But more likely, he was simply immature and has now entered into a higher level of Christian maturity. Such quantum leaps of growth are wonderful, but should not be confused with one’s initiation into the Christian family…”

Well, there you have it. Take a look at the story of the Prodigal Son. Based on the matrix (which you will agree is not my invention), where would we put circumcision and baptism in this story?

Circumcision is the son departing from his father. He is cutting off flesh in a bad way. He is abusing his heredity, or his inheritance.

Baptism is the son’s return home with a circumcised heart, gained in the wilderness. It is the father giving him a robe and his ring of authority.

And we must remember that this parable was spoken to Jews.

Against Lusk, this is not a higher level of Christian maturity. It might have been “true” Judaism as opposed to inherited Judaism, but there is only one kind of Christianity, and it begins with a circumcised heart. There is no Christian parallel to circumcision except the death of Christ.

Good objections. I’ll do my best.

Jesus was speaking to natural branches, Jews. He told His disciples that Israel had been Him all along.

I haven’t read that book by Sutton. But I really think it messes up the “type to reality” of circumcision to circumcised heart, then baptism to resurrection pattern, which we see in the Old Testament (head and body – see Lev. 1)

So, yes, baptism is a New external, but it is only for those who have the Old internal already, the circumcised heart.

Infant baptism does confer a carnal identity. You can call a Christian baby a spiritual identity if you like, but it’s hereditary. That’s done with.

Again, I’m not talking disembodied Spirits, but a physical body of Spirit-filled people, as it is in heaven. Ain’t no babies in heaven, not as babies anyhow.

Regarding apostasy, I think the enlightening “taste” that Hebrews speaks of is the hearing of the gospel. It wakes people up. They either repent and get baptized, or they reject Christ and become demonic. Their sin is no longer one of being led astray. It becomes high-handed. And we must remember that Hebrews was written to those in OLD Covenant with God who reverted back to it.

See:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/01/28/strong-delusion/

I’ll check out Rich Lusk’s articles. Thanks for the link.

http://www.trinity-pres.net

go under the Pastor’s Page and check out some of his articles.

But Jesus said there could be branches on His vine that don’t bear fruit. They will be cut off. Cut off from what??? Cut off from HIM. How can they be cut off from Him if they were never truly in Him? I think the NT speaks alot more about the objective external form of salvation more than you would like to admit.

Concerning the “external regeneration” interpretation, I got that from Ray Sutton, in his excellent work, “Signed, Sealed, and Delivered” which is an excellent study on Holy Baptism. I believe Titus 3:5 teaches the necessity of being saved through baptism (washing of regeneration) and through the Holy Spirit. Both are needed, the New external, and the internal. That is how God saves us. Baptism does not confer a carnal identity, you are right, it confers a spiritual identity, which is manifested in the physical – i.e. the Church. The Church is a Spiritual Kingdom, but made up of humans, not disembodied spirits. It seems like you are divorcing the Spirit from the physical person. as you know, that is gnostic and bad.

I don’t think a “true believer” could ever apostatize either. But how do you explain apostasy if included in the covenant aren’t both true believers and untrue believers. We speak to the false believers, as though they have something real that they are forfeiting. They are forfeiting Christ and the Holy Spirit, whom they have available to them in the word and sacraments and church. When covenant members prove to be false believers, that doesn’t mean they were never in covenant with God IN ANY WAY AT ALL. It just means that they did not enter into the “internal” covenant. The sacraments then become curses for them, not blessings.

More to come Later.

Cheers, Michael

THOSE WHO END UP SAVED

I don’t see that a true believer can apostatize. If the church misjudges and baptizes someone who is not regenerate, church discipline will sort them out — just like Solomon’s sword. If they are excommunicated and it brings repentance, even if they weren’t saved before, they are now. All revival begins with a fresh cutting of the heart.

Just as circumcision was a prefigurement of a circumcised heart, so baptism is a prefigurement of resurrection. See:

http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/06/17/blood-to-blood-water-to-water/

WHY BAPTIZE AT ALL?

Baptism, like the Laver, is the barrier of priesthood, those who minister in God’s presence. Unlike circumcision, baptism does not confer a carnal identity (i.e. familial or cultural). It confers authority to minister. It is the robe Adam forfeited.

I think I commented that paedobaptists put up a non-biblical “carnal” water-wall and become exclusive (which might not be as apparent to you as insiders!) and credobaptists tend to break down the bloody wall of repentance. Neither is good.

MALES AND FEMALES

1) Yep – I agree.

2) I agree here, too. Luke makes a big deal of the fact that it was for men and women. But he stops there. Baptism is bridal. It’s the beginning of spiritual ministry. It’s Adam and Eve, and there’s no Cain to cut off. This is where the distinction between flesh and Spirit-filled flesh makes a distinction. It’s not a move from Adam to Adam+Eve; it’s a move from the Old Covenant life of Adam (beginning at birth) to his New Covenant marriage.

3) I don’t see any support for paedobaptism in your excellent article. When you get to the point of announcing an “external” regeneration, you are cutting against the grain of the Old Testament. We put on Christ as a robe of righteousness. But only after we are slain under the Law first. If we disengage baptism from an individual, personal faith, we have to disengage it from an individual, personal repentance as well. Yes, baptists can be dangerously individualistic, but the solution is not paedobaptism. It takes sheep to make a flock. Under FV, I’m guessing that you could technically have a congregation that was entirely unregenerate and under church discipline — except for the elders of course. That’s exactly what happened under the Law, which was weak. We’ve moved on…

THIRD DAY

The “Covenantal obligations” of the New Covenant are spelled out in the sermon on the mount. It’s not following a bunch of rules that were designed to lead to faith, it is the outflow of a faith that is already living. It’s not trainer wheels. It’s the Tour de France.

You are correct about apostates, but expecting New Covenant fruit from an unregenerate person is flogging a dead horse. If an unregenerate person is baptized and this becomes apparent, then the elders deal with the situation legally and compassionately. Their earlier failure of judgment is rectified.

As I’ve written elsewhere, baptism is not a tent peg marking out a territory to be made regenerate. That’s the Bronze Altar. Baptism is the Laver, the circle within and above that square, a boundary encircling a different kind of Altar, a golden one, a bridal one, where the only flesh is the memorial of blood on its four corners. This is the Lord’s Table. It’s a flat earth, but it has ascended. It is a heavenly country.

Regards,
Mike

when the covenant sign is applied to a person, that person is now obligated to fulfill the covenantal obligations/oaths. A “third day” baptism, whether by an adult who believes for a while and then falls away, or a child who doesn’t improve on their baptism and grow up into it, doesn’t mean jack if they don’t have living faith. Baptism is a promise from God that He will never leave or forsake us, and it is also a promise from us that we will never leave or forsake God. If we, whether being a child or adult, don’t fulfill the obligation to believe, we will never see the seventh day baptism.

Now if you think that this can be remedied by adult baptisms, then please explain adult apostasy? It seems you would need the third day baptism to be on the seventh day just for good measure, to make sure they really are a true believer. But that would do away with the necessity for a third day baptism, wouldn’t it?

Then with that logic, only those who actually end up saved in the end should be baptized, since apostasy is a real danger. We should only be baptized with the water that really is from above, the heavenly crystal sea, when we go to heaven.

“Circumcision was replaced not by baptism but by the death of Christ, which united Jew and Gentile. Jesus tore down that wall, and paedobaptism unwittingly puts it up again.”

So then why baptize at all? If all we are doing is erecting barriers, and barriers are bad, then we should wait until people are really saved and in heaven to baptize them. But Or perhaps the dividing wall is now a different wall. the dividing wall is not one that separates Jew and Gentile, but Christian and Non-Christian; in Christ and in Adam, of the Heavenly Father, or of the their father the Devil. Of course baptism sets up barriers, it destroys the old and builds up new ones.

Regarding the males circumcision/female no-circumcision problem, perhaps this will help.
1.) Since we agree on the maturation process of going from glory to glory, which includes the glorification of the Bride, with each “New Covenant”, we can see how on a broad scale the old covenant was Adamic, and thus only males were to receive the covenant sign. Now we are in the new covenant, both males and females receive the covenant sign.

2.) Perhaps circumcision was the rite which ordained the nation of Israel to be the Priestly Nation. Covenantal Headship of families would be in place, and so the males would represent the females. Now that the Church is made up of all nations, and baptism is the rite of ordination into the priesthood of all believers, all believers, male and female, Jew and Gentile, should receive it.

3.) As you know, every time God brings about a “new creation” it is always through water. See my article –

http://reformedcrosswords.wordpress.com/2010/03/13/new-creation-via-baptism/