Yet this is the very thing that is abolished, even before the advent of Christ, and shows in quite dramatic fashion how the New Covenant takes the place of the Old:
"And it shall be in those days...they will no longer say, "The ark of the covenant of the LORD.' It will not come to mind, nor will they miss it, nor will it be made again." Jer.3:16

Paedobaptism has miscued by fastening on to circumcision and Passover (a sort of equivalent in the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor.5:7), but ignoring the central place of the Ark. Yet that very object shows how different was the Old Covenant from the New.

Mr. J wrote:
A - is baptism synoymous with circumcision, ie, are they different signs of the same reality?
B - Are we partakers of the promises of Abraham as the true Israel?
C - Does the New Covenant organically grow out of the Old and is it foundational on the Old, ie, the Old is preparatory and the New fulfills?
D - If the first 3 are true then where is the NT injunction that the sign of the covenant in the NT is now not given to children...

Mr. J wrote:
You have to see this in the light of the OT. Who did Abraham have to circumcise? All who were directly under his headship. Now I know that in the NT adults must give profession of faith before baptism. But the position of children under the headship of the covenant head stays the same. I don't know anyone in the covenant baptist camp who would support the entire extended family. But the promise is to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN. Ask yourself, what promise? That will answer most questions. Did the Jews at Pentecost know what promise Paul was talking about? You will find there was only one promise, to which all other promises were subject. The promise of the New Covenant. And Peter says kids are still part of it.

jago wrote:
MurrayA: What do you mean?

But then, Protestant Christians don't go around fomenting riots, torching embassies, burning flags, throwing bombs and Molotov cocktails, carrying blood-curdling placards, and raising civil commotions which end up injuring and killing people, do they??

Then Mr Cur(s)e wrote,
"That's why Calvinism never had a stronghold in the United States. When people are free to think for themselves, Calvinism does not have a chance."

I issue a challenge to deal with the Belgic Conf on eschatology with solid Biblical exegesis. What do I get?
Beating of the nationalistic drum!!
I treat this with the utter contempt it deserves.
And for JD it's not the first time, wrapping the Gospel in the Stars and Stripes, and slinging off at other countries in the process.

Hence I challenge any of those detractors to SHOW, by Biblical exegesis and reasoning, how the Belgic Conf. Art. XXXVII is in any way un-Biblical.

So ends the final article.

BTW, JD, in 1 Thess.1:10 the verb rhuomenon is a PRESENT participle. The KJV, for some strange reason, has translated it with a past. It is what is called in Greek grammar, a futuristic present. Paul there envisages the final deliverance from wrath at His Return.

I do this not because the confession is some infallible authority (JD take note!), but because it expresses very capably the Biblical teaching on the subject. Also, note what IS NOT there equally as much as what IS there. So here goes.

I have seen so much of what JD et al have had to offer has been as you describe, and I too have had to endure his invective, abuse, and demeaning of my status for no good reason other than that he doesn't like what I say.

Mere mention of John Calvin (and I have barely, if ever quoted him) is red rag to a bull for JD and others. Likewise the WCF, although when one mentions the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, the French Confession, the Helvetic Confessions, or any others of the C16th, they really haven't a clue.

Both the Second Helvetic Confession and the Belgic Confession have extensive articles on eschatology, suitably lined with Scripture quotations, and neither have any notion of a secret rapture or a millennium. The Second Helvetic in particular dismisses millennialism as "Jewish dreams" (it has post-mill in mind, but pre-mill comes under the hammer as well).

It highlights the fact that hermeneutically we must read the obscure in the light of the clear, and not vice versa. IOW, we must not start with a passage like Rev.20, couched as it is in symbolism and apocalyptic language, form an interpretative grid from that into which all other passages must fit.

Of course, our Dispy friends don't accept this, but turn hermeneutics on its head: interpret the NT in the light of the OT instead of the other way around; interpret the clear by the obscure instead of the other way around; interpret literal passages allegorically and symbolic and apocalyptic passages literally instead of the other way around.

JD wrote:
MurrayA,
All of your tribe have insisted on election unto salvation.
Now, they insist that God cannot and did not elect Israel unto salvation even though he said plainly that he did.
What say you?

I am angry at your misrepresentations and distortions, and you have nothing to say about those at all, making me even more angry. And it's not as if they are over quibbles and esoteric distinctions.

Just read my post again.

I'm not sure whether you meant "foretelling" here. If so, it betrays your own utter confusion.
You continually misrepresent me, and you won't be corrected. I have always insisted that prophecy is BOTH (get it??) foretelling and forth-telling.

However, your distortions of my view can only be ascribed to either deliberate distortion or utter failure in understanding. Either way you show yourself as a knave or a fool.

If you must proceed with your mis-statements of opposing views, do me at least one favour: please leave my name out of your discussions.

"...has justified much of his unbelief and allegorizing of whole books like the Revelation and Zechariah to that fact."

It's called GENRE, something I have told you about time and again, but which you refuse to admit or grapple with. Much of Zechariah and all of Revelation is apocalyptic, and special hermeneutical principles apply for their interpretation. I know you refuse to accept this but could you at least TRY to understand, instead of charging me with allegorising.

And as for allegorising, what YOU do with numbers, with the patriarchal stories, with various other historical narratives is the wildest allegorising!!

2 Thess.2:11-12
You have not answered the question at all. Even on your "prior sin" approach, the God of truth still "sends" a delusion on people so that they believe what is false, and they finish up being condemned for what God did!! At least, that's the way it appears.

"For this reason" (Greek: dia touto - therefore) is retrospective to and a summary of the circumstances described in the previous verses. He sends judgment for His own purposes and according to His own plan.

God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is just another mystery, time and again taught side by side in the Scripture.
For example:
"Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion (planees: error), such that they believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who disbelieved the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess.2:11-12

How can the God of truth "send" upon people an influence so that they believe what is false? And even if we can get over that problem, how can He then condemn anyone for being thus deluded?

Discernig Believer wrote:
My question was, why wasn't Mary allowed to touch him, but Thomas was invited to?

This way the Lord's added words make sense: "I have not yet ascended to My Father". Mary, having recognised the Lord, was trying to keep Him where He was, but Jesus indicates that such clinging is (for the present) unnecessary.

Hope this helps.