Correction, Jews WERE God’s chosen people. But because they rejected Christ, that status was taken away from them and given to the gentiles who accepted Christ (aka Christians).>Matthew 21:43 "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit".Christians are God’s chosen people now, the Church is the new Israel. There is no salvation outside of Christ and no Jew will be saved unless they repent and convert to Christianity (which most still haven’t).Also, most Jews don’t even follow the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament) anymore. They primarily follow the Talmud, a fanfic written in the 5th century that was created as a response to Christianity (and also contradicts the Tanakh/Old Testament several times).
>>18013785Rabbinic Jews think Gentiles only need to follow the 7 Noahide Laws to win Gods favor, while the Jews themselves are burdened with the other Mitvah
>>18013785True.
>>18013785>They primarily follow the Talmud, a fanfic written in the 5th century that was created as a response to Christianity (and also contradicts the Tanakh/Old Testament several times).You're half correct, it was written in response to the New Testament but it's just a commentary on the Tanakh and is just filled with Rabbis opinions on it, whereas the New Testament was meant to reconcile and compliment the Old Testament. Both the New Testament and the Talmud were attempts by 1-3rd century scholars to reconcile the compiled and then-recently codified body of oral and written works of the ancient Judeans.
Great...now we have to listen to them seethe about it the whole thread.
>>18013785This was good when it was just the snake girl.
>>18013785correct on all points
>>18013795>Both the New Testament and the Talmud were attempts by 1-3rd century scholars toFalse. The New Testament was written in the 1st century AD.The Babylonian Talmud was written in the 3rd-5th century AD and was based on gnostic writings that predate it like 3 Enoch (where the Talmud got the term "Metatron" and picked up gnostic cosmology).These two things are not the same.
>>18013785You are calling God a liar.>The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “Have you not noticed that these people are saying, ‘The LORD has rejected the two kingdoms he chose’? So they despise my people and no longer regard them as a nation. This is what the LORD says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.’”The only way God will ever reject Israel is if the day and the night stopped being day and night.
>>18015096See the following:"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."- Romans 9:6-8"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."- Galatians 3:16"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."- Galatians 3:29
>>18015096>>18015213Also this:"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."- Acts 3:22-23"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"- John 5:43-47
>>18015096 #>IsraelJews never were the entirety of "israel", a fact that they were willing to kill Jesus to suppress. Ironically they've about got everyone convinced that they are today.
>>18015252They are a fraud, the Bible even says so."I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."- Revelation 2:9
>>18015213You are again calling God a liar.
>>18013785No, the Jews were never God's chosen people. The chosen people have always been those which are saved by grace through faith, irrespective of ethnicity. Faith in Christ has always been what defined the covenant of grace.
>>18013785>Also, most Jews don’t even follow the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament) anymore. They primarily follow the Talmud, a fanfic written in the 5th century that was created as a response to Christianity (and also contradicts the Tanakh/Old Testament several times).You don't know what you're talking about. The Tanakh is the basis of the Mishnah, which has a similar role to the Church Fathers. Torah and Mishnah study is still extremely widespread with Hasidim and even Conservative Jews. Talmud study isn't much of a thing beyond rabbis and ultraorthodox like Kiryas Joel and the Israeli guys who refuse to fight in the IDF
>>18015096See >>18015707The Israel of God are believers. The new covenant is the same covenant which was made with Abraham (Galatians 3:15-19)>>18015712Incorrect, the traditions of the rabbis by which they make the word of God of no effect is the basis of the Mishnah. If they had believed Moses, they would have believed Jesus, because he wrote of Him.
>>18013790No different to a muslim. 5 pillars and all that rubbish. Dont these pharisees see their works wont save them?
If you believe the Hebrew Bible, then Jews are the Chosen People. Any deviation from this is pure cope.>oh Israel is the church.No lol
>>18015741Are the descendants of Ishmael the chosen people?>No lolBut actually yes.
>>18015748Stop trying to be Jewish if you're not Jewish, it's not heckin' based it's cringe. You are not YHWH's little pogchamp.
>>18015760OK
>>18013785>Jews were god's chosen people>But they aren't anymore because they rejected an incoherent obviously heretical sect which went against every previous prophet and had no priestly authority
>>18015767Jesus is our high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
>>18015769No he was a heretic according to the Hebrew Bible>>18015766Not an atheist :^)
>>18015769You don't get authority of a position by just declaring yourself as it. For example I can't just declare myself the US president and sign an executive order tomorrow.
>>18015717Same argument Mormons use to convert Christians>WHY DON'T THEY BELIEVE IN DA PROPHECY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>18015778That's correct. He has that position because God appointed it to Him (Matthew 3:17)
>>18015783>according to our NEW book this thing is totally true and you can't dispute it even by pointing to the OLD book that our guy believed inWhats the point of these discussions really? Feels like we are just talking past each other, no one is convinced of anything new.
>>18015775Jesus was a heretic according to who?
>>18013785> Also, most Jews don’t even follow the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament) anymore. They primarily follow the Talmud, a fanfic written in the 5th century that was created as a response to Christianity (and also contradicts the Tanakh/Old Testament several times).Ok. Fix this one for next time cuz AI saying some different shit.
>>18015825You really can't dispute it by pointing to *our* (not your) old book because it proves Jesus is the Messiah of God by His fulfillment of prophecy eg Isaiah 53.
>>18015717God clearly mentions the descendants of Jacob in that verse. It is 100% impossible that God would ever abandon Jacob's descendants forever because he already spoke with his holy voice and said that the day and night would have to stop being day and night before he abandons them.So it literally cannot happen.
>>18016123>God clearly mentions the descendants of Jacob in that verse.I have two questions, 1. Who are the descendants of Abraham (and by extension, Jacob) in Galatians 3:29? 2. To whom does "Jacob" refer in Jeremiah 30:18-22?>It is 100% impossible that God would ever abandon Jacob's descendants foreverAmen. Jacob's descendants are the Christians, who alone have ever been the partakers of his covenant. It has never been by birth or by law, but always by grace alone.
>>18014804>The New Testament was written in the 1st century AD.No it wasn't, it's believed the later books of the NT were written in the early 2nd century AD (generally accepted as Second Peter)In any case, the Nicene Creed was 3rd Century, and the Talmud was written as a response to this
>>18015687Not the God of the Bible, anon. That's what that post is quoting from.
>>18015962Explain. What is the prophecy? How does Jesus fulfill it? Why do Jews not agree with you about this? Because they definitely do not think Jesus is/was the Messiah. >>18016123>>18016145So you believe that all things and indeed this particular thing described in the Bible, from the Old Testament both a) literally happened and then b) applies to you even though you are not a descendant of this Jacob fellow? Seems a bit strange to hold both of these views at the same time, I think it's more reasonable to assert either your book is factually true and Jacob's descendents are always going to be supported by YHWH (i.e. Jews rock!), OR the entire Hebrew Bible is parables and this promise applies spiritually to Gentiles even though they are definitely not descended from this Jacob in any way shape or form.
>>18016166>it's believednobody cares what your authority figured decreed anon
>>18016173See >>18015766
>>18016174>He admits to being openly anti-intellectual...
>>18015712>Torah and Mishnah study is still extremely widespreadWord games. The "Mishnah" is part of the oral tradition or Talmud, and it is usually lumped together with the Gemara. When you say "Mishnah study" that refers to part of the Talmud.Moreover, those who claim to be Jews often claim that the word "Torah" (Law) refers to the "oral law" represented by the Mishnah/Gemara – aka Babylonian Talmud. So again, you are literally just talking about the Talmud again, nothing to do with the Bible.>Talmud study isn't much of a thingYou are probably using the term "Talmud" in the restrictive sense meaning only the Gemara. This is pilpul wordplay, because most people, almost always, are referring to the entirety of the so-called oral law (Mishnah and Gemara) as "the Talmud", every part of which is a false gnostic tradition.
>>18016177>not being the mindslave of a magisterium means you are anti-intellectual Then yes, I am boldly anti-intellectual, as are all rational and free men without exception.
>>18015760>Stop trying to be Jewish if you're not Jewish,I'm not the one who unquestioningly accepts the claims of an impostor to a heritage that isn't theirs. You're the one who apparently believes them when they say they are Jewish, and you apparently get angry if anyone questions this.
>>18016179NTA but do you even know what the Talmud is? It's literally just some Rabbi going over the verses of the Torah. The Torah is the body of Oral and Written works and tradition of the people of ancient Judea. I think where people often get confused is that most people don't realize that this body of oral and written works was first compiled and codified by 1st-3rd century religious reformist movements that included both Christians and Rabbinic Jews
>>18016180You're just too dumb and media illiterate to properly parse data so you just got burnt out on academia when you read some sensationalist news headlines.
>>18016184>what the Talmud isthe Talmud is:>the central text of Rabbinic Judaism>the primary source of Jewish religious law>the primary source of Jewish theology>the foundation of all Jewish thought>the guide for the daily life of JewsIt is hard to overstate just how important the Talmud is to Jews
>>18013785jews are still the chosen people. modern synagogue goers are not jews, real jews like peter paul andrew james john etc etc follow jesus
>>18016188Did the experts tell you that?
>>18016123>God clearly mentions the descendants of Jacob in that verse.You're misunderstanding who the descendants or "seed" is referring to. See Galatians 3:16. Paul explains this very clearly, it's a reference to Christ and to those who are in Christ, and always has been. That's why he says "seed" singular and not plural "seeds/descendants."Your misunderstanding is partially caused by the fact that you're using an inaccurate translation of Jeremiah. The KJV says "seed" here, accurately reflecting the original Hebrew word which was also singular "Seed" and not plural "Seeds", which is exactly Paul's point that he makes in Galatians 3:16. Read it for yourself, anon."Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them."- (Jeremiah 33:25-26)
>>18016192>t.I'm so glad you underlined sections of this 5-line screenshot of a wikipedia article because otherwise I totally would've missed them!You also don't seem to understand what they mean by religious law
>>18015707its not that the jews were never chosen, its that who is truly a jew has nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with faith.rahab was a canaanite whore and she's a proper jew because she feared god. the pharisees and saducees despite meticulously tracing their ancestry back to abraham are not jews because they rejected their messiah
>>18016166>it's believed the later books of the NT were written in the early 2nd century ADNo it wasn't. They are liars.>In any case, the Nicene Creed was 3rd Century,It was 4th century AD, anon.
>>18016197>You're misunderstanding who the descendants or "seed" is referring to. See Galatians 3:16. Paul explains this very clearly, it's a reference to Christ and to those who are in Christ, and always has been. That's why he says "seed" singular and not plural "seeds/descendants.Amen. That is also why we baptize our children, since the Lord promised to Abraham "I will be a God to you and to your seed after you", and "Every male among you will be circumcised" (which corresponds to baptism under the new covenant).
>>18016173You're just misunderstanding the original prophecies. They were to the "seed" singular the whole time. Read Genesis 22:17 in the KJV. The person in view of that promise is Christ. It's the same as the reference to Christ in Genesis 3:15, the "protevangelium." He is the "seed" referenced in these passages of the Old Testament. It's a singular seed.
>>18016200>It was 4th century AD, anon.You're right, it was during the 300s and I'm retarded, I meant 4th century
>>18016198>You also don't seem to understandOh, but I do... yes, I do understand.
>>18016207Does your understand go beyond this crusty .jpg you saved from /pol/ and keep reposting?
>>18016208Notice how the jew does not deny the contents of the Talmud, or even attempt to distance himself from its teachings.
>>18016184>It's literally just some RabbiNo, it's not a rabbi. It's someone claiming to be a rabbi who is actually a gnostic cult leader.>The Torah is the body of Oral and Written works and tradition of the people of ancient Judea.No, the written Law, both Old and New Testament, is the only authentic Law. The so-called oral law is a falsehood. It was invented by cultists centuries after Christ.>most people don't realize that this body of oral and written works was first compiled and codified by 1st-3rd century religious reformist movementsThe latest parts of the original Old Testament were written in the 5th century BC during the Achaemenid era. Afterward it may have been translated, as we know the books of Moses were most likely translated to Greek in the 3rd century BC. In order for that to happen, they had to already exist in the original language, obviously.
>>18016203Not to get on a tangent, but circumcision happened after physical birth, while baptism takes place after being saved (i.e. born again).
>>18016214>The latest parts of the original Old Testament were written in the 5th century BC during the Achaemenid era.Right, but before religious reformist movements they were largely fragmented texts until people codified them into a coherent narrative under a single unified text.
>>18016214>gnosticfunnily enough though, the trinity can only be coherently explained under a "gnostic" paradigm. But that term is loaded, and not exactly correct because it has come to imply a host of incorrect supplemental presuppositions.
>>18016218No, they both happen after one visibly enters the covenant. Converts to Judaism under the old law were likewise only circumcised after they professed faith, and it was the seal of the righteousness they had by faith (Romans 4:11). If this didn't prevent infants from being circumcised, why does it prevent them from being baptized? Also, we cannot truly know who is and is not born again. See the parable of the sower, and also search your own memory. Sometimes there is rapid growth and a person seems to bear the fruit of regeneration, but then proves their faith to be false by falling away. Finally we don't know that our children *aren't* regenerate, why on earth should we assume this, especially since the Lord promised to be a God to our seed? John the Baptist was born again in the womb.I was being cheeky, but still the point stands. Historically, about the only thing all Baptists have held in common is the denial that we belong to Abraham's covenant. Whether dispensationalist or progressive covenantalist or 1689 federalist, they all deny it. You are very inconsistent to accept the biblical doctrine of covenant theology and yet reject infant baptism, since the question is raised: seeing as God explicitly incorporated our children under the covenant with our father Abraham, where was their membership abrogated? The burden of proof is on the Baptists to show where in the New Testament this change is clearly taught.
>>18016237Before we get into explaining doctrine, I'm not the only one with this view.>If this didn't prevent infants from being circumcised, why does it prevent them from being baptized?As explained in the image, the congregation (c.f. Psalm 22:22 as referenced in Hebrews 2:12) of the Old Testament was in many ways a type of what was coming. Just like how the Tabernacle is said in Hebrews to be a foreshadowing of something far greater: a holy place made without hands (Hebrews 9:24). While the same Savior was in view (i.e. the "seed") for the unconditional promises or covenant with Abraham, that doesn't mean there are no differences between the type / foreshadowing of the church, and the church itself. They are/were two distinct institutions.While the people of God is a continuous body of believers, as seen from Seth to Melchizedek and beyond, the institutions did change according to God's infinite wisdom. He also knows who is going to believe. Their path is set by Him (2 Timothy 1:9, Acts 13:48).>You are very inconsistent to accept the biblical doctrine of covenant theologyIt depends on if you're referring to the correct biblical doctrine about covenants, or to what you think that term means even if it is not in fact Biblical. To defend the truth, all I have to offer is the Bible.>The burden of proof is on the BaptistsIt really isn't on me. I can just keep following the Bible regardless of what other peoples' views are. This is true regardless of whether I am able to convince you or not. Religious liberty.>why does it prevent them from being baptized?In the most rudimentary sense, baptism means immersion. This is different from the baptism spoken of in Matthew 28:19 or in most mentions you find in the New Testament (e.g. Acts 2:41, 8:37, 18:8, etc.). Belief is mentioned as occurring before baptism. It's the same in other Acts passages as well. It's the same in Matthew 28:18-19 and Mark 16:16 as well: belief is mentioned first, baptism afterward.
>>18016176>see my fantasy picture of a reddit atheistI'm not an atheist and haven't been on that site except for google results since the early techbro days circa 2011>>18016204Wow, you twist yourself into knots trying to shoehorn the Hebrew Bible to your Jesus worship religion, why not just abandon the "Old Testament" like Marcion did? Seems like a much more reasonable thing to do instead of these weird interpretations.
>>18016285>I'm not the only one with this viewKeach was a 1689 federalist.>While the same Savior was in view (i.e. the "seed") for the unconditional promises or covenant with Abraham, that doesn't mean there are no differences between the type / foreshadowing of the church, and the church itself. They differ, as to external administration, in rites, ceremonies, and other such accidents of the covenant, but as to the substance of the covenant, that is, the covenant people, and the ground upon which they are covenanted to God, this is one and the same. To say otherwise is to overthrow everything we have hitherto established from scripture alone concerning Abraham's (whom, I note, was not Moses, and did not have the law Gal. 3:17) covenant. The addition of the law did not abolish the gracious covenant, into which the gentiles were grafted.>It depends on if you're referring to the correct biblical doctrine about covenants, or to what you think that term means even if it is not in fact BiblicalI mean the same thing as John Calvin, as was so defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith: "Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.">It really isn't on meObviously, I did not mean a literal legal burden of proof.(1/2)
>>18016285>Belief is mentioned as occurring before baptismFor converts. What we never see mentioned is baptismal neglect, that is, the practice of withholding the sacrament from covenant children until they personally profess faith. Now, I think the great commission is proof that infants are to be baptized, since it is not individuals but nations which are to be discipled and baptized. There is not (despite what some allege) a great significance in the order in which the Lord gives the commands, because of limitations of space and time it was unavoidable that there would be an order, even if the order was meaningless, so without scripture imputing significance to the order it should not be read into. But the Lord says "make disciples of all nations". Now, this is fulfillment of the prophecies which foretold the nations would come unto Zion. So then, the meaning of "make disciples" is not merely "win souls", but, "bring whole nations into the covenant of God, as Israel has been". It is a command to bring every nation (including the apostate Jews) into covenant with God, which is achieved by the preaching of the gospel and the response of faith. Thus it is subjoined, "baptizing them", by which He both declares baptism to be the sign of the new covenant by which one is formally initiated, as circumcision was under the old, and that all those who are so received into the covenant are to receive this sign. The biblical case for infant baptism therefore stands as follows: 1. Those whom our Lord commanded to be baptized are everyone which are visible members of the covenant of grace, and them only, and, 2. Those who actually profess faith as well as their children are visible members of the covenant of grace, (Gen. 17:7, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14 etc etc.) therefore 3. Those whom our Lord commanded to be baptized are those who profess faith and their children.I hope I can bring you around, brother.
>>18013785Jews were never God's chosen people and Christians are not currently God's chosen people
>>18016370See the analogue between those born after the flesh and those born after the spirit in Galatians 4. A person is said to be born again when they are saved, John 3:1-12 and especially 1 John 5:1 and 1 Peter 1:23. The Lord contrasts the two kinds of being born in John 3:3-7, especially verse 6 of John 3.So the analogy of Colossians 2:11-12 holds, as does that of 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. Physical birth marked the entry into an important institution of the past, which was really a foreshadowing of the congregation made up of spiritual descendants (Galatians 4:23-28, Romans 2:29, Romans 4:16) that would be formed from Gentiles as well as Jews.On references to this in the Old Testament, see Psalm 22:31, Psalm 102:18 & 28, Hosea 1:10 + Romans 9:24-26, Exodus 19:6 + 1 Peter 2:9, and Psalm 22:30 + Matthew 24:34 for example.The institution of the church, by comparison to the Old Testament congregation, is entered by believers, e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:13.The two people groups are distinct as they do not fully overlap. As you said already, the conditional Mosaic covenant is not to be confused with the unconditional promises to Abraham. The Mosaic covenant was setting the stage for the new one. Galatians 3:22-25 makes that clear. But the unconditional covenant, which was before Moses, had one seed – Christ – in view from the very beginning. That's why accurate translations will have the word "seed" in places like Genesis 22:17, etc. as it referred to Christ (singular, Galatians 3:16). His spiritual descendants are equivalent to those who are saved in every time period. The concept of receiving salvation by the shed blood of Christ, as opposed to biological ancestry, runs along the same division as Galatians 4:23. It also explains why baptism is an analogous sign that follows being born again, which is the "spiritual" birth mentioned in John 3:5-7 and 1 John 5:1. Circumcision could not happen before physical birth by physical descendants either, so the analogy holds.
>>18016375To use an appropriate analogy, if a group of visitors came to my house yesterday, and I said, "they ate everything that could be eaten," one would not be inclined to think that I was saying they also ate the mountain nearby my house. They wouldn't expect me to specifically exclude the mountain because it is understood that physical mountain ranges are not eaten by people, and it would be strange for me to specifically point it out. Likewise, it would be strange if someone interpreted me as saying that the visitors ate the mountain outside my house – based on an argument from silence – because one time I briefly said "they ate everything," and didn't add that they neglected to eat the physical mountain outside my house. Unless there's some exception I haven't heard of, everyone knows that mountains are not eaten by people. But if there is an exception you can think of, I could probably come up with another analogy. That would be how I would apply the concept of synecdoche to this situation.Also see Acts 2:41 and Acts 8:36-38 (including verse 37), and compare Acts 16:34 to Acts 16:33, as well as 1 Corinthians 16:15 to 1 Corinthians 1:16.
Are we going to just gloss over that OP used a Monster Musume image? Not judging, of coarse. I'm just curious if Christians prefer the snake girl or the horse girl?
>>18017909They are among the most degenerate, but assure of "salvation" because they went to the front of a church in February of 2007 and were saved once and for all. Sin more so grace may more abound!
>You're not the imaginary being's favorite, WE are!>Great post!What a dumb circlejerk of retards.
>>18019013>mad at something you think is imaginaryOh no fukkin' unicorns and leprechauns I hate them they piss me off!!!
>>18019234No I'm mad at the gaggle of retards I'm forced to share a board with and who will continue to use dumb arguments like the one you just said and never learning.
>>18016500>A person is said to be born again when they are savedNo, a person is said to be saved when they are born again, as your own citations testify. It is not that one believes and is saved and then on account of that act of their own power is considered to be 'born again', but by this phrase the Lord referred to the same event as other scriptural authors who call it "the new man", "the new creation", "regeneration" etc. It is an act of God in which a sinner is internally raised to spiritual life and thereby restored to communion with Him, being given a new nature and a new desire to serve Him. It is impossible to be saved without being born again not because they are the same thing or it is a human work which they can choose to bring about, but because without this gift of regeneration nobody will have faith, which alone apprehends the merits of Christ for which alone they are justified.>Physical birth marked the entry into an important institution of the pastNo, membership in the covenant is not derived from natural birth but by grace alone. Rahab was a member of the covenant, but Ishmael (who was no less a natural descendant of Abraham than any Jew) was not. Abraham had a great deal of 'natural seed' which were not members of the covenant, but through Isaac his seed was called, because a true son has always been one who was a child of promise through faith. As was before established the covenant was never with an ethnic group but those who are saved by grace through faith. This is Paul's argument in Romans 9:7
>>18016500>which was really a foreshadowing of the congregation made up of spiritual descendants Then the old covenant was not made up of spiritual descendants? They did not walk by faith? They didn't eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink? I know you will say they were saved and it was by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, but this is essentially why 1689 federalism died out and gave way to dispensationalism, it's a schizophrenic halfway house. Covenant theology does not merely describe redemption history, but redemption itself. There are according to the bible two ways to relate to God: by your own works (in which case you are damned), or by the works of Christ (in which case you are saved). But this is what we are talking about when we speak of the covenant of works and covenant of grace, they are these ways of relating to God. So, I think it is a very strange doctrine that Abraham would receive all the blessings and promises of the covenant of grace and even by saved through that covenant, and yet not a member of that covenant. What, precisely, is the difference? But if he is a member then we are members of the same covenant and our children's membership is not abrogated.
>>18016500>The two people groups are distinct as they do not fully overlap. As you said already, the conditional Mosaic covenant is not to be confused with the unconditional promises to AbrahamBut you don't seem to realize Moses is irrelevant to this discussion because the promises our argument hinge on were made to Abraham. The Particular Baptists like Keach in the 17th century tended to describe the Abrahamic covenant as a covenant of law because they recognized the problem. If you are agreeing with us that this "everlasting covenant" was gracious and unconditional then how do you distinguish it as to substance? >baptism is an analogous sign that follows being born again1. How do you know when someone has been truly born again and is not a hypocrite, 2. Was Abraham circumcised before or after he was born again?>>18016513I genuinely do not understand what the relevance of this is.
>I genuinely do not understand what the relevance of this is.It shows the weakness of the argument from silence basically.
>>18020063Meant to reply to >>18019977
>>18019971>It is not that one believes and is saved and then on account of that act of their own power is considered to be 'born again',Did I say, "an act of their own power" somewhere?>It is impossible to be saved without being born again not because they are the same thing or it is a human work which they can choose to bring about,Great, I agree. My point is that the two things always coincide and go together, that's it. I'm not sure where you're hallucinating all this stuff about synergism all of a sudden, but it's not from me.>No, membership in the covenant is not derived from natural birth but by grace alone.People could join the institution as well as be removed from it, but the point is that the whole thing was a foreshadowing of the church. Membership in the institution does not confer salvation, anymore than official church membership guarantees salvation (see Judas Iscariot). Both rites being discussed are intended to be outward signs of already-existing inward regeneration, with one difference being that Biblical baptism is supposed to reflect the spiritual birth discussed in John 3:3-7, 1 John 5:1, 1 Peter 1:23.>>18019973>Then the old covenant was not made up of spiritual descendants? They did not walk by faith?Some did, but other official members were nonbelievers. Ultimately, every nonbeliever will be removed, but it was possible for nonbelievers like Judas Iscariot to be part of it. See Acts 3:22-23. Of course the Lord knows about this already, but as it says, some nonbelievers were crept into the church. As it says in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.">What, precisely, is the difference?Someone who is saved should be in God's institution (Hebrews 10:25), but being in that institution does not automatically confer and is not equivalent to salvation.
>>18019977>If you are agreeing with us that this "everlasting covenant" was gracious and unconditionalWell the promises given there were given with one Person, one seed, in view. They were indeed unconditional. As it turns out the only Person worthy to inherit it was the only-begotten Son, as explained in Galatians 3 and 4. The only way for anyone else to gain those promises is as a joint-heir with Christ. If they are in Christ, then they are perfectly legitimate children of God, they can claim all the biblical promises to Israel. If they choose to reject Christ, then there is nothing they can do to earn it on their own and will die because of their own sins and offenses against God – this is true even if they were officially members of one of the institutions God set up, such as members of a church, but were inwardly nonbelievers. This unbelief will be made manifest sooner or later.>then how do you distinguish it as to substance?Distinguish it from what, the Mosaic Law? The answer should be obvious. If you're talking about something else, then I can't decipher what you're trying to refer to in this question. Usually when you ask "how do you distinguish A" there is some other thing B (either explicitly stated or implied) that it is being distinguished from.>1. How do you know when someone has been truly born again and is not a hypocrite,See Matthew 7:18-20. "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."And if you ask, what about those who make false professions, the answer is again to go to 1 John 2:19. If they are not of us, this will be made manifest by the fact that they do not continue with us.>Was Abraham circumcised before or after he was born again?According to Romans 4:9-10, he was already saved before he obeyed the commandment to implement circumcision.
>>18020063I didn't make an argument from silence.>>18020070>I'm not sure where you're hallucinating all this stuff about synergismIt is implied by the assumption that an infant cannot be born again.>Membership in the institution does not confer salvationAgreed, I don't know what the relevance of the point to this discussion is though because this is neither a difference between the old and new covenants (which you yourself point out) nor are we talking about salvation but membership in the institution, which is who we are to baptize. >one difference being that Biblical baptism is supposed to reflect the spiritual birthCircumcision wasn't supposed to reflect circumcision of the heart?>Some did, but other official members were nonbelieversThis is not different from the new covenant, as again you yourself point out. The Baptist position essentially denies the distinction between visible and invisible Church, and asserts that if one was not saved, then they were not a member of the Church; they may have been welcomed in, baptized, admitted to the Lord's table, called brother etc. yet they were in no way members of the Church because they were not saved. From this also arises the aberration of baptizing the same person more than once, since if one professes faith and is baptized, and then falls away, and then is restored to faith, does it not follow they were never baptized because they were not a believer? But the problem is that our knowledge of the Church is not the same as God's. Baptism does not happen in our souls, it happens externally before the congregation. Hence why I said those who are to be baptized are *visible* members; in no way is regeneration a prerequisite to a valid baptism, the prerequisite is visible and external membership.
>>18020070>Someone who is saved should be in God's institution (Hebrews 10:25), but being in that institution does not automatically confer and is not equivalent to salvation.This is completely irrelevant to the point being made. The question at hand is not whether membership saves you but whether Abraham was a member of one and the same covenant as us. If yes, then the covenantal promises made to Abraham are inherited by us, including that He will be a God to our seed after us, thereby including them in His gracious covenant.
>>18020077>The only way for anyone else to gain those promises is as a joint-heir with Christ.Which was true of Abraham no less than us, who was commanded to circumcise his children. Your arguments presently seem to revolve around the idea that external membership in the covenant saves you, which I did not say and do not believe. I propose to ask yourself the following question: do your arguments against infant baptism under the new covenant not also preclude infant circumcision under the old?>Distinguish it from whatThe new covenant. I would in fact say the Mosaic covenant was also a gracious covenant grounded in promise and not works (it is true the law was republished but not as a means of righteousness which it cannot be, but for the 3 uses our reformers described) but that's actually irrelevant because the entire issue is the relationship between the Christian and Abrahamic covenants. See also the entire Epistle to the Hebrews, in all cases wherein the old and new covenants are contrasted the former is always the Mosaic covenant and never the Abrahamic. >If they are not of us, this will be made manifest by the fact that they do not continue with us.Amen, BUT you cannot know in advance this will be the case at baptism, which means you do not baptize for internal regeneration (which you cannot know) but external membership which evinces but not proves the former. >he was already saved before he obeyed the commandment to implement circumcision.Precisely, this is no difference between baptism and circumcision, your arguments should logically preclude both.
>>18020203>circumciseIsrael and Judah were conceived of as Greek peoples, not Semitic Babylonians or some other such nonsense.
>>18020197>It is implied by the assumption that an infant cannot be born again.That doesn't really imply synergism.>The Baptist position essentially denies the distinction between visible and invisible Church,That's just biblical congregationalism. There is a rejection of the concept of invisible church. Each church is an assembled body of believers that is answerable to Christ as our head. That is why Paul said, "Ye are the body of Christ" (second person plural) to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 12:27.>and asserts that if one was not saved, then they were not a member of the Church;That is not what I assert, actually. I just do not have the concept of the invisible church at all. I think it's manmade.There is a people of God, and it properly consists of all believers in every time. But this has been confused and muddled by some people with the New Testament institution of the church. A church on the most rudimentary level is a called-out assembly. The biblical church specifically is the called-out assembly established by Jesus Christ. It is what can be called an institution.>does it not follow they were never baptized because they were not a believer?In the case you describe they were never biblically baptized to begin with. That doesn't contradict where it says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" in Ephesians 4:5.>in no way is regeneration a prerequisite to a valid baptism, the prerequisite is visible and external membership.If you want to get technical, a person has to be saved first to be a valid subject for the ordinance of baptism. And baptism is the way in which they join the church. 1 Corinthians 12:13.>>18020201>If yes, then the covenantal promises made to Abraham are inherited by us, including that He will be a God to our seed after us,See Galatians 4:21-31, Ephesians 2:11-22. That's referring to spiritual offspring. (1/2)
>>18020203>do your arguments against infant baptism under the new covenant not also preclude infant circumcision under the old?I would say no because they were commanded to do it differently. One was meant to represent physical offspring (the first part of what Paul talks about in Galatians 4:29-31). The other represents descendants by faith.And it is true that certain temporal blessings (but not eternal life) were conferred to Abraham's physical seed – see Romans 11:28-31. That doesn't mean they didn't go to hell when they died in unbelief, though. Circumcision marked out the physical descendants of a faithful individual. That isn't exactly how baptism works, thus why it was instituted separately. It is supposed to be based on a completely different kind of descent, as mentioned in 1 John 5:1 and Galatians 4:28 for example.>The new covenant.So you're asking how I distinguish the everlasting covenant mentioned in Genesis, from the new covenant?The everlasting covenant has really existed since at least Genesis 3:15. It has pertained to all believers. Since then the Lord has progressively revealed more details of some aspects of what He has in store for His people, including through institutions like the priesthood of Melchizedek and later the Mosaic Law, which often had types and foreshadowings of future blessings. The new covenant meanwhile, was predicted in Jeremiah 31, and was implemented even later. It can be considered part of what God has in store for His people, but there are more things beyond our imagination that are still not revealed. Thus it says in 1 Corinthians 2:9, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." Hopefully that makes sense.
>>18013785I don't blame them for rejecting him.
>>18015717>because he wrote of Him.Where.
