Some of you may have seen this

I received this email the other week and thought I would share it with you. Though our government has the right to wage war on those who threaten it's citizens because they are ministers of God and hold the sword as a means against evil doers, we as individual believers should have a heart of compassion for these who have been deceived and we are obligated to love them and present to them the blessed gospel of Christ, which alone can save them. Here is the email.

These Pictures tell it all!

Muslims have stated that England will be the first country they take over!

These are pictures not shown on American TV or in American Newspapers (as they might help Bush's war on terror), but were forwarded to me by a Canadian Friend who thought Americans ought to know!

These pictures are of Muslims marching through the streets of London during their recent

"Religion of Peace Demonstration."










Why would anyone think

that we should be at war

with such nice, peaceful Muslims?!

PS>Our war brothers is not with carnal weapons, but they are mighty spiritual weapons God has given us in the tearing down of strongholds.

Pics from Jamestown

I thought I might post a few pics from our trip to Jamestown. I don't do a lot of pic posting, but thought some might enjoy:) So here they are.

The John Smith Monument
The Susan Constant.


Teddy Roosevelt reenactment

Fifers at Jamestown

First Landing Reenactment.
Inside the first Jamestown church building

The Memorial Cross at Jamestown

Dakota showing that Jamestown is not only 17th century history, but also Civil War history

The Browns in front of the Jamestown settlement.

Hannah enjoying the delights of fruit..

Caleb becoming a young man and helping his mother by carrying the diaper bag.


OK, Mom & Dad got into trouble. Fortunately we weren't hung

Hailey enjoying a piggyback ride. Dad with a super short hair cut!
And people think boys are only interested in science fiction.....

A Reformed Baptist's kids with the idol of Pocohantus..
A very cute Brown girl beside the James River.



The family by the James River

The kids with Ms. Hawley & Ms. Regina, and yes RC is having a caniption fit:)

Tori and Tabitha with a new friend Emma

Hailey with new friend Jacille (not sure about spelling:)

The Brown kids on Duke of Gloucester St. in Colonial Williamsburg

DSS Update 7-1-2007

Well it has been 6 months since R.C. was released from the hospital. It has been about 5 since DSS claimed that our case was "indicated". I got a call this week from the social worker letting us know that at least for now, she will be coming once every other week, rather than every week. Praise God for that! He has certainly shown us mercy in this area:) He has continued to keep our rebelliousness at bay by His Spirit in the matter and for that we give Him glory. We don't know when there will be finality. The doctor wrote some things in a letter to the social worker that were clearly not true and the worker knew it from previous experience, so I will be confronting that with video recorder in hand on our next visit at the end of the month.

We covet your prayers for a demonstration of the power of God to continue to restrain our own sinful desires and to cause us to love those who are against us. Please pray for the social worker and doctor. I have shared our concerns and the gospel and am desirous that God might be pleased to use it for His glory in their lives. Finally, please continue to remember Denise as she is due in the first part of November. We are very, very tight in our finances, so please pray with us for the Lord's provision as the midwife now is another responsibility we have. May God continue to be glorified in all of this:)

Jamestown Quadracentennial 1607-2007

This week our family was given a very special gift. A very sweet lady and her daughter from San Antonio, TX purchased tickets for our family to attend the Jamestown Quadracentennial in Virginia. We were greatly humbled and appreciative as our children had been studying some of the beginnings of our nation. We arrived here on Wednesday and these dear ladies had lunch ready for us at the hotel where we registered for the celebration. Then later when we checked into our hotel we entered and these ladies had found out where we were staying and filled our room with all sorts of fruits and organic goodies:) Denise and I were speechless and in all honesty were moved to tears. They then proceeded to purchase for us hot air balloon tickets and a historical boat tour for all the members of our family.

These dear ladies attend a church in San Antonio and after speaking with several of the men in that church, this is not unusual for them to do. God has given them tremendous means and a wonderful gift of His Spirit. This church is greatly blessed to have such women in its midst. God has indeed been gracious to these ladies, their church, and to us as well. We bless Him for His goodness through the means of women like these in His body.

Now, we are here to learn about the Providential hand of God in our nation's founding. As we are instructed in Psalm 78 as fathers :

Give ear, O my people, to my law; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old,3 Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us.4 We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.5 For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children;6 That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children,7 That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments;8 And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God.

One of the desires I have is to better understand history and the Providence of God, so when I get an opportunity to hear men speak of historical events and put it in the perspective of seeing the hand of God at work and the purposes He was accomplishing, I jump at it. This week has been pretty impressive so far. We missed the first two days, so of course we are hearing all about the wonderful tours and speakers. I was really encouraged on Wednesday evening by the fact that the dramatic presentation of the first colony settlement basically came down to a memorable quote:

There are no extraordinary men. God simply puts ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances to achieve extraordinary things for His purposes and glory.

SBC MONEY USED FOR CALVINISM ATTACK!

I just finished reading Nathan's blog, along with several other's including Tom Aschol and Timmy Brister concerning what the Florida Baptist Convention has done in distributing what they feel are "evils" coming into the church. First and foremost, it simply should have never been done. Whoever authorized it should not only apologize, but should have to foot the bill or lose his job. Many of you who know me, know I can be very gracious about a lot of things, but when it comes to someone outrightly attacking the doctrine of God's sovereign grace, well, I have no patience for that at all. If someone is not understanding the doctrines, fine, I have no problem with patience, but when men who should be able to read and articulate properly another's view and should have been trained to exposit Scripture and they openly misrepresent and mischaracterize and demonize those who hold to those doctrines that they are so foolishly balking at, then it is time to do what the apostle Paul says to do.

Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

This passage falls right in the midst of a section concerning elders. Many of those in the position of leadership in the SBC are in fact elders, though most want to use the title pastor. As such, we must remember that those in leadership in the SBC must be held accountable and that does not merely mean some "apology", but biblical repentance.

Just so that we understand, the SBC has been politicized for over a decade. While some of the men such as Dr. Jerry Vines, Dr. Adrian Rogers, and Dr. Paige Patterson were incredibly effective in bringing the SBC back from total liberalism, these men, along with others, are the ones keeping the convention from returning to truly conservative Christianity and a clear biblical gospel AND returning to the rich calvinistic heritage of their forefathers. As a matter of fact, many who founded the SBC would see these men as liberals. This must be kept in mind when confronting this situation.

Once the SBC had pushed the issue of inerrancy to the forefront, many thought that was all that needed to be done and as long as you hollered from the pulpit that you believed the Bible was inerrant made you one of the "good ole boys". Well, there are many great men of God who have been used of God in that. However, what eventually happened was that many of the liberals wanted to stay in the SBC and try to retake the convention. When this happened those who had battled their way to the top via standing upon the Word of God as the Word of God, sunk to political maneuvering and sought to rid the convention of the liberals through means of money. By using money as a ploy to maintain status in the SBC, those in power hoped to rid themselves of the liberals. Gentleman, you should have simply stood fast upon the Scriptures apart from the political tactics.

With that in mind, now calvinism (the true gospel), is under open and blatant attack. There is no reason for the ignorance of these men. They are PhD's for crying out loud, not some small town guy from South Carolina. There is simply no excuse for the blatant misrepresentations, dishonesty and yes outright lying concerning the doctrines of grace. These men evidently express such arrogance in their sermons that sometimes I simply think they are desirous of the applause of men when it comes to this issue and not good pleasure of God (that's my opinion). You can hear it in their tones.

As Dr. Nettles told me at the conference in October in Virginia, "the battle right now in the SBC is over recovering the true gospel." He is right. Basically we are seeing a similar battle raging in the SBC that took place 500 years ago. Many Southern Baptists don't know their own heritage and are WILLINGLY IGNORANT OF IT.

I recall receiving Bob Selph's little book titled, "What Southern Baptists believe about the doctrine of election" some years ago. He detailed a tremendous amount of history concerning our forefathers and the faith they held to. While I applaud the efforts of men like Dr. Aschol, Dr. Nettles, and others, I wonder if in the end many in the SBC should not simply pull out, let it implode and be separatists rather than puritans. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have experienced the same thing in the local church and it seems that when a little leaven enters in it leavens the whole lump. Getting rid of it is next to impossible. You don't have to remind me that all things are possible with God. This I know. I'm just saying that even history bears out that there will more than likely be a clear break that will have to be made in the SBC between the Arminians and the Calvinists. I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I can't see it any other way.

Hodge on Paedo Baptism

In light of the recent posts concerning paedo baptism, I thought this little excerpt from Charles Hodge might be enlightening to the conversation. I added some comments and questions at the end.

In either view we are said to be cleansed (whether from guilt or pollution) by baptism. What does this mean? How does baptism in either of these senses wash away sin? The Protestant and scriptural answer to this question is, that baptism cleanses from sin just as the word does. We are said to be saved by the truth, to be begotten by the truth, to be sanctified by the truth. This does not mean:
That there is any inherent, much less magic, power in the word of God as heard or read to produce these effects.
Nor that the word always and everywhere, when rightly presented, thus sanctifies and saves, so that all who hear are partakers of these benefits.
Nor does it mean that the Spirit of God is so tied to the word as never to operate savingly on the heart except in connection with it. For infants may be subjects of regeneration, though incapable of receiving the truth.
In like manner when the Scriptures speak of baptism as washing away sin (Acts 22:16); or as uniting to Christ (Gal. 3:27); or as making Christ's death our death (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12); or as saving us (1 Pet. 3:21); they do not teach:
That there is any inherent virtue in baptism, or in the administrator, to produce these effects; nor
That these effects always attend its right administration; nor
That the Spirit is so connected with baptism that it is the only channel through which he communicates the benefits of redemption, so that all unbaptized will perish.
These three propositions, all of which Romanism and Ritualism affirm, are contrary to the express declarations of Scripture and to universal experience. Multitudes of the baptized are unholy; many of the unbaptized are sanctified and saved.
How then is it true that baptism washes away sin, unites us to Christ, and secures salvation? The answer again is, that this is true of baptism in the same sense that it is true of the word. God is pleased to connect the benefits of redemption with the believing reception of the truth. And he is pleased to connect these same benefits with the believing reception of baptism. That is, as the Spirit works with and by the truth, so he works with and by baptism, in communicating the blessings of the covenant of grace. Therefore, as we are said to be saved by the word, with equal propriety we are said to be saved by baptism; though baptism without faith is as of little effect as is the word of God to unbelievers.
The scriptural doctrine concerning baptism, according to the Reformed churches is:
That it is a divine institution.
That it is one of the conditions of salvation. "Whosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). It has, however, the necessity of precept, not the necessity of a means sine qua non. It is in this respect analogous to confession. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. 10:10). And also to circumcision. God said, "The uncircumcised male child-should be cut off from his people" (Gen. 17:14) Yet children dying before the eighth day were surely not cut off from heaven. And the apostle teaches that if an uncircumcised man kept the law, "his uncircumcision was counted to him for circumcision" (Rom. 3:26).
Baptism is a means of grace, that is, a channel through which the Spirit confers grace; not always, not upon all recipients, nor is it the only channel, nor is it designed as the ordinary means of regeneration. Faith and repentance are the gifts of the Spirit and fruits of regeneration, and yet they are required as conditions of baptism. But if faith, to which all the benefits of redemption are promised, precedes baptism, how can those benefits be said to be conferred, in any case, through baptism? Just as a father may give an estate to his son, and afterwards convey it to him formally by a deed. Besides, the benefits of redemption, the remission of sin, the gift of the Spirit, and the merits of the Redeemer, are not conveyed to the soul once for all. They are reconveyed and reappropriated on every new act of faith, and on every new believing reception of the sacraments. The sinner coming to baptism in the exercise of repentance and faith, takes God the Father to be his Father; God the Son, to be his Saviour; and God the Holy Ghost to be his Sanctifier, and his word to be the rule of his faith and practice. The administrator then, in the name and by the authority of God, washes him with water as a sign of the cleansing from sin by the blood of Christ, and of sanctification by the Holy Spirit; and as a seal to God's promise to grant him those blessings on the condition of the repentance and faith thus publicly avowed. Whatever he may have experienced or enjoyed before, this is the public conveyance to him of the benefits of the covenant, and his inauguration into the number of the redeemed. If he is sincere in his part of the service, baptism really applies to him the blessings of which it is the symbol.
Infants are baptized on the faith of their parents. And their baptism secures to them all the benefits of the covenant of grace, provided they ratify that covenant by faith; just as circumcision secured the benefits of the theocracy, provided those circumcised by infancy kept the law. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that is, the doctrine that inward spiritual renovation always attends baptism rightly administered to the unresisting, and that regeneration is never effected without it, is contrary to Scripture, subversive of evangelical religion, and opposed to universal experience. It is, moreover, utterly irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Reformed churches. For that doctrine teaches that all the regenerated are saved. "Whom God calls them he also glorifies" (Rom. 8:30). It is, however, plain from Scripture, and in accordance with the faith of the universal church, that multitudes of the baptized perish. The baptized, therefore, as such, are not the regenerated.
The foregoing remarks are intended to show in what sense the Reformed understand this and similar declarations of Scripture. Christ purifies his church by baptism. That is the initiatory rite; which signifies, seals, and applies to believers all the benefits of the Redeemer's death. The apostle is speaking of the church, the body and bride of Christ, and of the effect of baptism on those who constitute that church, not of its effect on those who are not included in the covenant and are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.

This quote comes from Charles Hodge (1797 – 1878) in his commentary on Ephesians (pgs 320 and following). I am just wondering if it sounds as confusing to others as it does to me.

Let me ask some questions. For instance, where in the New Testament does it teach that “infants are baptized on the faith of their parents?” Where does the Scripture teach that the covenant is “ratified by faith”? How can it be said that baptism “secures to them [infants] all the benefits of the covenant of grace” and then add that there must be a ratifying in order for that to be “secure”?

Hodge goes on to state, “The baptized, therefore, as such, are not the regenerated.” So the question for me becomes, “Then why should we baptize those who are clearly unregenerate?” At least from the Baptistic standpoint we have a profession of faith by the individual, which we see all throughout Scripture, rather than by an individual’s parents on their behalf, which we never see in Scripture (Note: This statement concerns baptism, not circumcision).
Notice that he ends with this: “The foregoing remarks are intended to show in what sense the Reformed understand this and similar declarations of Scripture. Christ purifies his church by baptism. That is the initiatory rite; which signifies, seals, and applies to believers all the benefits of the Redeemer's death.” But can it be said of all who are baptized? Absolutely not, and he said that earlier. So it appears, at least to me, that Hodge really doesn’t show these “declarations from Scripture”, but rather follows after the Reformed “tradition” (yes, there are traditions in the Reformed community as well).

Finally, could someone tell me where in the Scripture baptism applies to believers all the benefits of the Redeemer’s death? I’m sorry, that sounds very Romanist to me, and I’m being gracious:)

Paedo-baptism 2

Continuing on with posts concerning paedo baptism, we will look at Romans 4:11. In the passage we find the apostle arguing against those who would seek a works righteousness. Specifically he argues against circumcision. His primary objective is to demonstrate that Abraham was given a righteousness that was not his own before he was circumcised. The text says,

9 ¶ Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.
13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

The blessedness spoken of in verse 9 refers to verses 7-8. There we see that the blessedness is the forgiveness of sins, those to whom God does not impute their sin. So Paul is going to make his point by using the “father of all those who believe”, Abraham. It is crystal clear that Abraham is indeed justified by faith apart from circumcision. Paul says as much in verse 10. He also makes a point in verse 11 concerning those who believe who are not circumcised. Paul’s point is that though there are those who are uncircumcised, they still might have righteousness imputed to them because they would have the same faith that Abraham possessed.

We also note in verse 12 that those who were circumcised found righteousness the same way those who were not circumcised found it: by faith.

So, with this said, am I saying that paedo-baptists don’t believe this? Absolutely not. But here is where the inconsistency comes in, IMHO. Circumcision simply was a sign given by God concerning the promises He made to Abraham and yet those promises were made to him and affirmed to him BEFORE he was circumcised. My paedo-baptist friends will point here and say there is a correlation between baptism and circumcision. At least in this passage I cannot even begin to see that correlation. By this I mean that I don't see the passage tying the two together. The only thing I can assume that is meant by that is this: Since Abraham then circumcised Ishmael and Isaac and since they in turn gave that sign to their children and so on and so on, then we should administer baptism in the same manner, as merely a sign.

However, as a previous commenter pointed out, many in church history put far more emphasis upon baptism than a mere sign. They actually said it had salvific efficacy. If baptism has salvific efficacy, then I might want to ask those who believe that, “Why did Christ die?” This will come out more clearly in Colossians 2.

Now, the paedo-baptists I know of do not declare that baptism has any power to save, though some of them in their language seem, at times to indicate that, apart from clarification. Those I have spoken to simply indicate that it is a sign, just as circumcision was a sign in the Old Covenant, and that it points to the doctrine of regeneration, which is fine. I have absolutely no problem with that. However, they will then go on to say that this brings children of believers into the covenant community of the church. This I do have a problem with. Does it bring them into the covenant community in the same way that an adult believer who has professed Christ and actually been regenerated come into the “covenant community”? I don’t think so.

From the Baptist perspective, we don’t deny the picture of regeneration in baptism. We actually go further than that. We recognize that the Scriptures teach death in baptism as well.

Ro 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Only true believers are really identified in Christ’s death and thus ONLY true believers are identified in His resurrection. Therefore, as far as the Scriptures are concerned, only those who have been identified with Christ in His death AS WELL AS His resurrection should submit themselves unto baptism. The clear reading of the text seems to indicate that. I simply can’t understand, apart from assuming a silent mindset, which we are told that the Jews would have had about circumcision, that we should be baptizing infants.

Why would I say that this is “clear” concerning believers? Notice Romans. Paul uses the term “we” and identifies that we were buried with Christ and that “we” should walk in newness of life. In Colossians he uses the term “you” and indicates that the Colossian believers were raised with Christ. So it seems that baptism is simply the outward sign of the reality that one has both died and risen with Christ, not a hoped for event in the future.

I will next deal with the Colossians 2 passage.

Quick Update Pt. 2

I received word from our attorney yesterday that our appeal was denied. Now pay close attention, lest you come into an encounter with Social Services. You would think an appeal would mean that you would actually be heard and that a basis would be heard concerning this matter. Not in Social Services (notice anything familiar about the initials of said organization? hint:Gestapo). Nope, we are not in a judicial matter hear, it is purely administrative. So our appeal was heard by a judge? NOpe. An outside party? uh uh. Anyone who could objectively look at evidence and hear testimony. Nada. It was looked at by the same organization that has accused us of neglecting our son, who by the way is crawling, chattering, eating well, and has tremendous strength in his legs!

All in all, we are at the mercy of DSS. They will determine when and IF we go to court. Please remember to pray for us that our conduct may be that which glorifies Christ and His gospel and that God may grant us grace in this matter. As soon as a court date has been set I will post that, but getting that will be diffcult for getting anyone from DSS to return a call is like pulling teeth.

A Quick Update

We are still in Limbo concening our appeal. Our attorney has advised us to be patient that DSS is notorious for drawing things out over a long period of time. The woman in charge of the appeal will not contact me though I call and request it of her every week. We must continue to allow them in our home until the appeal takes place and then we will see whether it goes to a family court. More than likely it will, unless the Lord brings us into favor with the judge. He can do it, just as He brought Daniel into favor with those who were in authority over him and so we petition Him for this. Many wonderful brothers and sisters have encouraged us with letters and even some financial support. We are tremendously humbled by their love and if you read this and have even offered prayers for us, let me say on behalf of my family, "Thank you so much."

Indeed God is sovereign and we have learned much about ourselves (both good and bad) and experienced the loving hand of the Father working in our midst. Also, we have recently found out that the Lord has added to our number. We are now 10 B's in a hive. Yes, Denise discovered last week that she is pregnant again. We rejoice, though we realize that people probably think we are crazy (we didn't have to have 8 children to determine that:).

Please remember us before the throne if the Lord brings us to mind, especially Denise. The added stress is not good for the adults, much less the baby that grows in her womb.

By the way, I am toying with the idea of actually recording a few thoughts rather than typing them and offering them sort of like a podcast. There is lots of "free" time in my van, but it is so noisy, so this week my boss is looking to replace my van with a new quiet one or possibly.......could it be?.........a new truck (please please please). If so and the road noise is significantly minimized, then I will probably record thoughts each day entitled, "One for the road".

That's a quick update, I post more as soon as things change.

Understanding Paedo-Baptism

A couple of weeks ago our family was invited to spend the weekend (a much needed vacation) with a dear brother in the Lord, Jerry Johnson. Many will recall Jerry as the author of the Apologetics Group’s wonderful DVD “Amazing Grace – The History and Theology of Calvinism”. Jerry has been a great friend in the last few years. He has housed us on several occasions for the Apologetics Group’s Conferences and we have had many wonderful discussions of theology and books, as well as, shared in some business together.

During our past stay with Jerry we were able to relax on a beautiful mountain in Draper, VA right on the Blue Ridge Parkway. We drank lots of coffee, took it easy, watched a few movies, and discussed numerous theological matters. One of these topics was the subject of infant baptism (paedo baptism). This subject sometimes becomes lost in understanding the connection and also the disconnection of the covenants of the Bible. Let me make clear that my comments are not in anger, nor are they saying that those who baptize their infant children non-Christians. I do not believe that at all. However, I have not come to the conclusion that they are correct either. With that said, I wanted to be able to question Jerry regarding the reasoning behind coming to this conclusion. Jerry was more than willing, since he understood I was not trying to argue with him, but to understand his position. Therefore, I will try to lay out the position as I understand it. Note: I said, as I understand it, this way I will be able to be open for correction from any paedo Baptists who might read this entry. Please do not take this in any way as me trying to be inflammatory towards paedo Baptists, but I truly want to understand the position because should I be found in error, then I want to repent. As of this moment, I cannot turn into the path of paedo baptism.

First, I understand the paedo Baptist position to be consistent up to a certain point, that is from their perspective of how the covenant works. They see a continuity of the covenants, as do I. We both see one over-arching covenant and that is the covenant of grace. Historically, as you read many paedo Baptist authors their language does seem to imply baptismal regeneration, though, thankfully, at least orthodox writers do make the point of stating they do not believe in such a thing. Nevertheless, I have run across numerous statements that even in their context, seem to suggest that. I will provide some of those in a future installment.

We must keep in mind that while there is one over-arching covenant and that being the covenant of grace, there were numerous covenants throughout history between God and man. The covenant of grace is a covenant between God the Father and God the Son, with men being the beneficiaries. The other covenants include the Adamic covenant, the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Old covenant, and the New covenant. In the New Covenant is the fullest expression of the covenant of grace. In it is the fulfillment of all of the promises that He has made because in this covenant comes the promise that He made and that is in the person and work of Jesus Christ. However, the issue we are concerned with requires that we understand the difference between the Abrahamic covenant and the Old covenant and the difference of these from the New covenant.

First there is a difference between the covenant God made with Abraham and the covenant God made with the nation of Israel at Sinai (the Old covenant). The major difference is two-fold.

The Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional, while the covenant made at Sinai was conditional. God made promises to Abraham that were not dependent upon Abraham, but upon God. However, at Sinai, that covenant was accepted by the people and was dependent upon their obedience. Consequently, this is why this covenant has passed away
The Abrahamic Covenant is most clearly extended in the New Covenant, while the Old Covenant is made obsolete and ready to vanish away.

Here is where our dispensational friends get tripped up. They intermingle the two as though they are the same covenant and as Dr. John MacArthur showed in his recent attack against a straw man he called a-millenialism. Now paedo-baptists recognize the difference here between these two covenants well. But it appears to me that there is a melding of some of the thoughts behind the “covenant community” of Old Testament Israel and the “covenant community” of the New Testament. This is where I see a glaring inconsistency.

First, we will note that in the Abrahamic covenant we see that this covenant is completely dependent upon God. Abraham is simply the recipient of the promise of God. We find in Genesis 15,

12 ¶ Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him.
13 Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.
14 "And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions.
15 "Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age.
16 "But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."
17 ¶ And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.
18 On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—
19 "the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites,
20 "the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim,
21 "the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."

They covenant was completely dependent upon God’s own word. We find in Genesis 17 that Abraham believed the promise of God and as it was counted unto him for righteousness, there was also given to him a “sign” of this covenant, circumcision. Abraham, his son Ishmael and all the males in his house were circumcised. Later we discover in the Old covenant that all the males of the nation Israel would take up this sign of the covenant on the eighth day.

Now if one was not circumcised he was to be cut off from his people (Gen. 17:14). In the New Covenant, the paedo-baptist sees continuity between the covenants concerning this sign. That continuity is that the new sign of baptism, which identifies one with the Lord of the New Covenant, is simply a replacement for circumcision. They will reference such passages as Romans 4:11 and possibly their strongest argument comes from Colossians 2:11. We will take a look at these passages in the next post.

They believe, and their argument is really an argument from silence, that the mind of the first century New Covenant Jew would be that since baptism replaced circumcision that it would be natural for believers to baptize their children into the covenant community. I remind us, this “mindset” is argued from silence in the Scripture. I will attempt to show that the covenant community of the New Covenant is not the same as the covenant community of the Old Covenant. For in the New Covenant there are only believers, not unbelievers. All in the New Covenant community are the elect or the true Israel of God.

Now, much like our dispensational friends who want to go back to separating believers based upon ethnicity and end up promoting some fleshly appeal to the Jew for the future, I believe the paedo-baptist does something similar. They have carried the idea of the Old Covenant community into the New Covenant and therefore, they baptize their children based upon flesh (ie. They are their offspring). However, if they are to be consistent with the Scripture it would seem that they would baptize only the children of Abraham. And who might the children of Abraham be? The apostle Paul identifies them for us in Galatians 3,

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The children of Abraham should receive the New Covenant sign of baptism because they are of the same faith as Abraham and because they are Christ’s, not because they have believing parents.