This new volume by Kevin DeYoung should be a great resource for the church.
Our church is currently working our way through the HC during our confession of faith. And one of the reasons why I wish I had Kevin’s book now is that we’re kinda stuck on question and answer 74. It reads like the promise of salvation is for adults and children. And in some sense this is true, “for the promise is to you and your children.” However, the Catechism question leaves the statement unqualified and can be confusing.
If anyone has any thoughts about this please chime in and let me know!
Unless of course we credos are right, in which case (e) and (f) are wrong, and Q74 falls apart. Physical genealogy was for national Israel, to import it into Spiritual Israel is to do injustice to the concept of sign and seal.
If the council at Jerusalem didn’t think baptism replaced circumcision, I don’t see why we should either.
Hi Philip,
Thanks for your thoughts. Although I am struggling to remember exactly where in Acts 15 the Jerusalem counsel did not think that baptism replaced circumcision. Can you help me out?
Hi James,
I was hoping it didn’t come off as confrontational, I enjoy reading this blog.
The idea is not state directly in scripture, but it is logically apparent given the context. At the council they are discussing the importance of circumcision and keeping the law. But if baptism was the equivalent sign and seal to the New that circumcision was to the Old (like how the Lord’s supper replaces the passover) then the council would not have convened. They would simply have said “Look guys, baptism replaces circumcision, remember? They *are* fulfilling the command to be circumcised through baptism because baptism is the seal of the covenanted community. That is in keeping with the law.”
Anywho it just seems to me that you noble Presbyterians are, in this instance, interpreting the NT in light of the Old. Seems to me that Federal Vision is the result of this mistake too.