Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Very little to say
I had 22 hits excluding myself today... sorry there was nothing new posted. I hope to post some more thoughts on baptism some time which could be interesting (i'll get some comments at least).
The US election is taking place as I write. I hope Kerry doesn't get in.
I also heard a sermon recently online on Genesis 6:18 where it talks of God "establishing" his covenant with Noah. The minister argues that the word should be "confirmed"... well, more on that at the weekend when i have listened to the other 3 sermons on the verse!
Today was the first day A-levels were boring, I hope that is not the beginning of something bad. I remember very little except playing the worst game of tennis ever in the history or bad tennis.
Will post a longer post tomorrow. night one and all
(0) comments
The US election is taking place as I write. I hope Kerry doesn't get in.
I also heard a sermon recently online on Genesis 6:18 where it talks of God "establishing" his covenant with Noah. The minister argues that the word should be "confirmed"... well, more on that at the weekend when i have listened to the other 3 sermons on the verse!
Today was the first day A-levels were boring, I hope that is not the beginning of something bad. I remember very little except playing the worst game of tennis ever in the history or bad tennis.
Will post a longer post tomorrow. night one and all
Monday, November 01, 2004
Here we go Jon... OK I'm quoting reymond but I would have come up with something similar...
Why do we baptise female infants if only the males were circumcised? In fact why was circumcision chosen as a sign if it could obviously only be administered to males?
Robert Reymond in his systematic theology deals with this fairly briefly but I think they are helpful thoughts... ones which can be expounded upon at a later date... Here they are:
"It is often asked why God selected a covenant sign in Old Testament times which could be applied only to male infants. In response, it must be noted that the world of the Old Testament was a patriarchal world. Originally its patriarchy was a perfect patriarchy, reflecting the federal headship of the male in the pre-Fall Edenic condition. After the Fall patriarchal culture continued to prevail by divine design (see Gen 3:16) but with many injustices occuring towards women due to mankinds fallen state (Gen 6:2, 12:11-20, 16:3, 20:2-18, 26:6-7 etc.) Nevertheless, God continued to honour the original patriarchal arrangement of Eden, even in its corrupted character, and assigned to the male rite of circumcision the role of being the sign of his covenant with Abraham. It should be noted that the sign of circumcision, by the very limits to its applicability, allowed for the sign that replaced it (baptism in the New Testament age) to signify by its capacity for application to both genders the universality and extension of grace to all nations and the further enlarging of Christian liberty, the greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and the fuller communication of the Spirit of God."
He goes on but that is really the basis of his argument. Admittedly most of you will not be persuaded by the argument and therefore lambast me about adhering to Paedobaptism... feel free, I am convinced of my way, however poorly I can argue it and you are convinced of yours. But lets not let an issue like this divide the reformed church... The world looks at us and so often sees us debating and arguing over small points of doctrine when perhaps when it looks at us it should see Jesus Christ. Although obviously these are important issues :-p
(5) comments
Robert Reymond in his systematic theology deals with this fairly briefly but I think they are helpful thoughts... ones which can be expounded upon at a later date... Here they are:
"It is often asked why God selected a covenant sign in Old Testament times which could be applied only to male infants. In response, it must be noted that the world of the Old Testament was a patriarchal world. Originally its patriarchy was a perfect patriarchy, reflecting the federal headship of the male in the pre-Fall Edenic condition. After the Fall patriarchal culture continued to prevail by divine design (see Gen 3:16) but with many injustices occuring towards women due to mankinds fallen state (Gen 6:2, 12:11-20, 16:3, 20:2-18, 26:6-7 etc.) Nevertheless, God continued to honour the original patriarchal arrangement of Eden, even in its corrupted character, and assigned to the male rite of circumcision the role of being the sign of his covenant with Abraham. It should be noted that the sign of circumcision, by the very limits to its applicability, allowed for the sign that replaced it (baptism in the New Testament age) to signify by its capacity for application to both genders the universality and extension of grace to all nations and the further enlarging of Christian liberty, the greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and the fuller communication of the Spirit of God."
He goes on but that is really the basis of his argument. Admittedly most of you will not be persuaded by the argument and therefore lambast me about adhering to Paedobaptism... feel free, I am convinced of my way, however poorly I can argue it and you are convinced of yours. But lets not let an issue like this divide the reformed church... The world looks at us and so often sees us debating and arguing over small points of doctrine when perhaps when it looks at us it should see Jesus Christ. Although obviously these are important issues :-p
