Yes and no. The verse in Romans 2 is in the context of Gentiles blaspheming God BECAUSE of the Jews, not because God was doing great things through the Jews and the Gentiles just rejected what God was doing and saw it in a different light.

As far as Jesse’s question, they are in a special covenant relationship with God through their parents. This is not equated to being saved, but they are set apart and are “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14) and experience great blessings, just as the OT non-elect Jews did.

And of course God’s name will be blasphemed. Just because His glory is revealed in His church among the nations doesn’t mean unbelievers see that for what it is. Not being able to truly appreciate God doesn’t undermine the fact that God reveals Himself clearly among men, and that’s an act of mercy — even if the people are blind.

Anyway… do you actually have an answer to Jesse’s question?

I’m not sure you can make the statement “…all people in our age…see Him graciously work and reveal His glory.”

There are many parts in the U.S. where people have never heard the Gospel or have any interaction w/ the church, or have not seen any “fruit” or “work” of God through the church.

Also, your argument proves too much. If “in our age” people interact with the church in a way that no one else has in ages past, than how could the Apostle Paul then say:

As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2:24). Surely, the Gentiles must have had quite some interaction to come to the point of blasphemy. But still, the children had greater privlidges than the people outside of the covenant did.

Just some thoughts.

Cordially,
Daniel

Thanks for answering.

You ask a good question. I’m not sure I can answer it, because I’m a futuristic premillennial credo-baptist who sees the church as distinct from Israel.

But I guess what they might say is that the same way unbelieving national Israel was privileged to be around the miracles of God, His revealing Himself, His working His grace in those who actually were his people, NT kids of believers enjoy the same good things in being around the church of God, etc.

However, then there’s an arbitrary line drawn between believers’ kids and people in general… since all people in our age interact with the Church of the living God, and see Him graciously work and reveal His glory. So yeah… I don’t know.

I agree with you. There is no compelling reason for a someone who is premillinial to believe in infant baptism, although I have known some who try. I agree that the logic which leads to pedeo-baptism sets you up to see the Church and Israel as the same, and then to see the church at the recipients of Israel’s promises. Daniel’s quotes are helpful in crystallizing that.

I am still wondering though: in pedeo-baptism, what are baptized infants elected to? If Israel was elected to the promises, and then some were elected unto salvation, and the parallel is in the church/NT, what are baptized infants who never come to faith elected to? Does it in anyway parallel OT election?

Thanks,

Jesse

Mike, it may be worth reading an article on the OPC’s website regarding the nature of the church.

http://opc.org/cce/tracts/WhyInfantBaptism.html

This is from his first point:

Step #1. The church of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament are, in essence, the same church. Kind of like a caterpillar and a butterfly, they’re very different in form, but they’re the same in essence.

Both have the same way of salvation. Romans 4:13—”It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.”

Both look to the same Savior. Romans 3:20-26—”But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify…. in his forbearance [God] had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” In Old Testament times, people were saved by trusting in the redeeming work that God would provide in Christ. Today, people are saved by trusting in the redeeming work that God has provided in Christ.

When Old Testament believers brought sacrifices in faith, they were trusting in the sacrifice that God would one day provide. Hebrews 10:1-14—”The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship…. it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins…. we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all…. when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.”

Both are under the same covenant relationship. Galatians 3:7-29—”Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’ So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith…. [Christ] redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit…. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Both are members of the same body. Ephesians 2:11-19�”Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves ‘the circumcision’ (that done in the body by the hands of men)—remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ…. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household.”

Both are “branches” in the same olive tree, Romans 11:17-26. The apostle Paul declares that Israel as a whole was not disinherited, but that the unbelieving Jews were cut off from their own olive tree, and the Gentile branches grafted in their place; and he predicts a time when God will convert many Jews and graft them back into the same tree with the believing Gentiles.

Because the church of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament are, in essence, the same church, they sometimes swap names.

On the one hand, the Bible calls Old Testament Israel “the church.” “Church” [ecclesia] is the New Testament Greek word for the Old Testament Hebrew “congregation” [qahal]. Compare Psalm 22:22 with Hebrews 2:12. Thus Stephen called the congregation of Israel at Mount Sinai “the church in the wilderness,” Acts 7:38.

On the other hand, the Bible calls the New Testament church “Israel,” Galatians 6:16. The apostle Peter applies rich Old Testament Israel terms to the New Testament church. 1 Peter 2:9—”you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession.” The apostle Paul describes all who rest in Christ alone as “the true circumcision,” Philippians 3:3. James calls a local church a “synagogue,” James 2:2. The “elders” of the New Testament Church are identical in name and function with those of the Old Testament synagogue.

So, the church of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament are in essence the same church.

All who will ever be saved were individually elected unto that salvation sovereignly by God before the foundation of the world.

But the distinction is that national Israel was God’s chosen (elect) people, but, as Jesse, said, not unto salvation. God elected to give to them the covenants, the adoption as sons, the giving of the Law, and the honor of being the nation by whom the Christ would come (according to the flesh) (see Rom 9:1ff). All of YHWH’s works throughout the OT were primarily done before Israel. So even if not every single one of them were saved (which is demonstrably the case), they still enjoyed the blessing of interacting with the God of the universe. So their non-salvific election as God’s people brought benefits in one sense. We must remember, though, that their condemnation for unbelief was only that much more just, as they had the revelation but refused to submit and believe.

The point I’m getting at is that there were promises made to Israel as a nation. So when much of the nation is unbelieving — especially now — how do we understand those promises? Do we decide that they just get transferred to the church? Or do we allegorize the entire Bible and say that they were always promised to the Church because when the OT said Israel it only meant true Israel (i.e., the elect unto salvation), and the Church is included in true Israel?

My position is that those promises made to national Israel will be fulfilled to national Israel via a mass conversion of Jews after the fullness of the Gentiles have come in (Rom 11) and through the establishment of Christ’s millennial kingdom for His people.

If my position is the right one, the covenant sign for national Israel (given to those who weren’t really part of the true Israel too) isn’t as linked to the new covenant sign for the church as the paedobaptists want to say it is. That is, there’s no logical necessity that says, “Since infants were circumcised, infants should be baptized.”

If, however, I’m wrong, and the church has been the intended recipients of the promises to true Israel all along, and it can be properly said that Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were in the Church, then we’ve all been the same people since the beginning. Then it would only make sense that our covenant signs be administered in similar fashion (i.e., to infants) without clear instruction to change the administration.

What do you think? Especially Matt and Jesse and Nate. Does ecclesiological dispensationalism necessarily require credobaptism? And does ecclesiological covenentalism necessarily require paedobaptism?

I’m relatively new to the reformed scene but from where I sit, since all are condemned via Adam’s sin, anyone saved must be saved because God has elected them to salvation…ergo, yes, if they are in heaven it’s because they are among the elect.

(And, for the record, I’d also say that yes, they are)

The OT elect and the NT elect are basically the same, all saved by the work of Christ, them looking ahead, us looking back.

I assume this means that OT elect were individuals, just as NT and post-NT elect are individuals. If this assumption is correct, then is it the Reformed position that Noah and Adam and Eve could be part of the elect (not “are they?”, but “could they be?”). Does the Reformed doctrine/theology allow this possibility?

I think the distinction is here:

The OT elect and the NT elect are basically the same, all saved by the work of Christ, them looking ahead, us looking back.

What happens with national Israel is that it’s equivalent becomes the visible church. So the claim is that the visible church is all the baptized people, some believers, some not, just as all Israel was circumcised and some believed and were saved, and some didn’t.

I don’t think there’s biblical grounds to say that the new covenant is made with non-believers and believers alike but others disagree. That’s in part how they justify infant baptism, just as the children of Jews in the OT we circumcised and therefore part of the covenant whether they believed or not, so the kids of Christian parents are baptized and therefore part of the covenant whether they believe or not…