tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post7137876670302560754..comments2024-03-22T07:16:35.188+00:00Comments on Against Heresies: Preaching Christ from the Old TestamentMartin Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-3501686584575102092013-09-13T00:04:09.116+01:002013-09-13T00:04:09.116+01:00Hebrew children in the Old Testament were born int...Hebrew children in the Old Testament were born into God's covenant, both male and female. Circumcision was the sign of this covenant for boys, but the sign was not what saved them. Faith saved them. Rejecting the sign, circumcision, for boys, either by the parents or later as an adult himself, was a sign of a lack of true faith, and therefore the child was "cut off" from God's promises as clearly stated in Genesis chapter 17:<br /><br /> "Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”<br /><br />What was the purpose of this covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? God tells us in the beginning of this chapter of Genesis:<br /><br />"And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you." <br /><br /> This covenant wasn't just to establish a Jewish national identity or a promise of the inheritance of the land of Caanan, as some evangelicals want you to believe. In this covenant, God promises to be their God. Does God say here that he will be their God only if they make a "decision for God" when they are old enough to have the intelligence and maturity to decide for themselves? No! They are born into the covenant!<br /><br /> If Jewish children grew up trusting in God and lived by faith, they then received eternal life when they died. If when they grew up, they rejected God, turned their back on God, and lived a life of willful sin, when they died, they suffered eternal damnation. Salvation was theirs to LOSE. There is no record anywhere in the Bible that Jewish children were required to make a one time "decision for God" upon reaching an "Age of Accountability" in order to be saved.<br /><br /> Therefore Jewish infants who died, even before circumcision, were saved.<br /> <br /> The same is true today. Christian children are born into the covenant. They are saved by faith. It is not the act of baptism that saves, it is faith. The refusal to be baptized is a sign of a lack of true faith and may result in the child being "cut off" from God's promise of eternal life, to suffer eternal damnation, as happened with the unfaithful Hebrew in the OT.<br /><br /> Christ said, "He that believes and is baptized will be saved, but he that does not believe will be damned."<br /><br />It is not the lack of baptism that damns, it is the lack of faith that damns. <br /><br />Gary<br />Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals <br />An orthodox Lutheran blogGaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-44856250692858423462012-06-12T00:26:00.074+01:002012-06-12T00:26:00.074+01:00To be honest, I really don't know the differen...To be honest, I really don't know the difference between the Old Testament and the new one that Roman Catholics use now. But all I know is I really believe in God and in Jesus Christ.<br /><br />"Bradley" for <a href="http://www.bandeauled.net" rel="nofollow">bandeau publicitaire</a> Bradleyhttp://www.bandeauled.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-56273042290078067642011-05-14T02:09:14.507+01:002011-05-14T02:09:14.507+01:00I should have included the caveat that Edwards may...I should have included the caveat that Edwards may have changed his views toward the end of his life, considering those two essays were separated by about 30 years.<br /><br />I've seen many people reference that work, and no one has made an argument to that effect, though.Zac Wysehttp://www.afterdarkness-light.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-16666691092642002872011-05-14T02:02:44.656+01:002011-05-14T02:02:44.656+01:00That's a really helpful way of classifying the...That's a really helpful way of classifying the ways people approach OT salvation. In my experience, the notion that Christ was mediating for His elect prior to His incarnation is difficult for many Christians to conceive of. I'm sure it's connected to the Angel of the Lord problem that you've previously identified.<br /><br />I do wonder if Edwards is really the guy to put forward as the prototype that we should follow, though. I appreciated History of the Work of Redemption, "Images of Divine Things" shows that he had real problems in his typological approach - he perceived that Christ's Person and Work were typified in nature, e.g., the silkworm is a type because it dies in order that we may be clothed. Oftentimes, the Puritans seemed to stray into allegory instead of typology.Zac Wysehttp://www.afterdarkness-light.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com