The following is a discussion I had with ChapGPT about the heresy of "Israel Only" view that some full preterists have that gradually and organically led to the question of whether paedobaptism or credobaptism is more Biblical. As most of us know, Artificial Intelligence can be manipulated to come to conclusions one already favors. So, it's no surprise that in the end ChatGPT came to my credobaptist conclusions. Nevertheless, the discussion is interesting to read.

I also have my own answers to the questions and challenges/tasks/assignments I posed to ChatGPT. I wanted to add to my arsenal of answers and arguments. So, I asked questions and made statement as if I were more ignorant and less opinionated than I actually am.

Here’s a clear, structured way to refute the “Israel Only” (or “IO”) doctrine—the view that the New Covenant applies only to biological Israelites and excludes real Gentiles. This position is historically fringe and internally inconsistent, and it can be answered biblically, contextually, and linguistically.

Below are six major lines of refutation, each with scriptural support and explanation.

✅ 1. The New Covenant Explicitly Includes the Nations (Gentiles)

Isaiah foresaw Gentile inclusion

Isaiah 49:6 – The Messiah is given as “a light to the nations (goyim), that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
Isaiah 56:3–7 – Foreigners who join themselves to the Lord are accepted; God’s house is “a house of prayer for all peoples.”

These texts refer to actual non-Israelites, not scattered Israelites.

Jesus’ commission includes literal nations

Matthew 28:19 – “Make disciples of all nations.”
IO interprets “nations” as scattered Israelites, but Jesus explicitly distinguishes Israel from the nations (e.g., Matt 10:5–6).

✅ 2. Gentiles in the NT Are Clearly Non-Israelite

The New Testament uses the word ethnē hundreds of times. In many passages Israelites and Gentiles are contrasted, making it impossible that Gentiles = Israelites.

Key examples:

Romans 9:24 – “not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.”
Romans 11:11–13 – Israel’s rejection leads to salvation for the Gentiles; Paul explicitly says he is the apostle to Gentiles, not Israelites.
Ephesians 2:11–12 – Paul speaks to people who were:
- “Gentiles in the flesh”
- “separated from the commonwealth of Israel”
- “strangers to the covenants”

IO collapses the distinction, but Paul makes the opposite point:
these Gentiles were NOT Israelites until brought near through Christ.

✅ 3. The Early Church Was Filled With Non-Israelites

Example 1: Cornelius (Acts 10)

Cornelius is described as:

a Gentile
of a Roman cohort
uncircumcised
considered unclean by Jews (Peter affirms this)

Yet God pours out the Holy Spirit on him and his household before they become part of the New Covenant.

Example 2: Antioch (Acts 11:19–21)

The gospel spread to Greeks (Hellenes), not Hellenized Jews.
“A great number who were Greeks believed.”

The IO claim that these people were “Israelites in disguise” is historically impossible and textually unsupported.

✅ 4. The New Covenant Was Always Intended to Expand Beyond Israel

The New Covenant promise in Jeremiah 31 is indeed made to Israel and Judah—but the NT reveals that:

Gentiles are grafted into that covenantal tree (Romans 11).
Believing Gentiles are “fellow citizens” with Israel (Ephesians 2:19).
Christ created one new humanity out of Jew and Gentile (Ephesians 2:15).

The covenant is not restricted to Israel; instead, Israel becomes the vehicle through which the nations are blessed (Gen 12:3).

✅ 5. Paul Explicitly Rejects Ethnic Exclusivity

Paul repeatedly teaches that ethnicity has no bearing on covenant membership:

Galatians 3:28–29 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek… if you are Christ’s, you are Abraham’s offspring.”
Galatians 5:6 – “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything.”
Romans 4:11 – Abraham is the father of all who believe, including uncircumcised Gentiles.

If covenant membership depends on biology, then Paul’s whole argument collapses.

✅ 6. IO Depends on Linguistic and Hermeneutical Errors

★ Error 1: Claiming “Gentiles” means “dispersed Israelites”

This is linguistically false.
The Greek ethnē and Hebrew goyim overwhelmingly refer to non-Israelite peoples.

★ Error 2: Confusing “lost sheep of Israel” with Gentiles

The mission of Jesus to Israel (Matt 15:24) is about the order of salvation (“to the Jew first”), not the exclusivity of salvation.

★ Error 3: Ignoring context in passages like Hosea

Paul explicitly applies Hosea both to Gentile believers and Jewish believers (Rom 9:24–26).

🚨 Summary: The IO Position Cannot Stand

A robust refutation shows:

Contradicted by Jesus’ teaching
Contradicted by Paul’s theology
Contradicted by Acts’ historical narrative
Contradicted by Old Testament prophecy
Contradicted by language, context, and scholarship

The New Covenant is for Israel first, but it expands to include all nations in one unified people of God.

If you'd like, I can also provide:

✅ A verse-by-verse rebuttal of major IO prooftexts
✅ A historical analysis of where the doctrine came from
✅ A debate-ready short version or long academic version

Just tell me what format you want!

yes

Sure! Since you said “yes,” I need to know which of the options you want. Here are the formats I offered—just tell me the number:

Which format would you like?

Verse-by-verse rebuttal
(refuting Israel-Only prooftexts like Jer 31, Matt 15:24, Hosea, etc.)
Historical analysis
(where the IO doctrine originated and why scholars reject it)
Debate-ready short version
(quick, punchy, 1–2 minute refutation)
Long academic version
(detailed theology, Greek/Hebrew notes, scholarly arguments)
All of the above

Which number?

1, 2, 4

Great — here are 1, 2, and 4, delivered clearly and in depth.

1️⃣ VERSE-BY-VERSE REBUTTAL OF ISRAEL-ONLY PROOFTEXTS

Below are the most common IO passages, with a concise refutation of each.

▪ Matthew 15:24 — “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

IO claim: Jesus was sent exclusively to Israelites, therefore the New Covenant is only for Israelites.

Refutation:

Jesus’ earthly ministry was first directed to Israel, in fulfillment of prophecy (Rom 1:16; Matt 10:5–6),
NOT because salvation was exclusive to Israel.
Jesus immediately ministers to a non-Israelite Canaanite woman in the same passage (Matt 15:25–28).
Her faith is praised as exemplary.
Jesus repeatedly ministers to Gentiles (Matt 4:15; 8:5–13; John 4).

Conclusion:
This verse describes sequence, not exclusion.

▪ Jeremiah 31:31 — “A new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah.”

IO claim: Since the New Covenant is with Israel/Judah, only biological Israelites can participate.

Refutation:

Paul explicitly teaches Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s covenant tree (Rom 11:17–24).
The covenant is with Israel, but Gentiles are included within it through Christ.
Ephesians 2:11–19 says Gentiles were once excluded but are now “fellow citizens” and “members of the household.”
Isaiah foresaw that through the covenant, the nations would join God’s people (Isa 42:6; 49:6; 56:3–7).

Conclusion:
The covenant originates with Israel but is designed to extend to all nations.

▪ Hosea 1–2 / Romans 9

IO claim: Hosea’s “not my people” refers only to lost northern Israelites, proving Romans 9 is only about Israelites.

Refutation:

Paul applies Hosea to both:
- the Jewish remnant (Rom 9:27)
- and believing Gentiles (Rom 9:24–26)
Paul says God is calling people “not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles” (Rom 9:24).
This directly contradicts IO.
Paul explicitly calls Gentiles “vessels of mercy” (Rom 9:23–24).

Conclusion:
Paul uses Hosea typologically to show that God calls a people from outside Israel.

▪ Ephesians 2 — “Gentiles in the flesh… strangers to the covenants”

IO claim: IO does not typically use this passage, but if they try, they reinterpret “Gentiles” as scattered Israelites.

Refutation:

Paul says they were “Gentiles in the flesh.” The Greek phrase (ethnē en sarki) means biologically non-Jewish people.
They were “strangers to the covenants” — impossible if they were Israelites.
They were “far off” but now “brought near” (v. 13), meaning they were not part of Israel until Christ united Jew and Gentile into one new humanity (v. 15).

Conclusion:
Paul destroys the IO reading by distinguishing real Gentiles from Israel.

▪ Romans 11 — The olive tree

IO claim: The whole tree is Israelites; Gentiles merely represent scattered Israelites being restored.

Refutation:

The natural branches = ethnic Israel.
The wild olive branches = Gentiles, who by definition are not natural branches.
Wild branches can be grafted into Israel, not back into Israel.

The metaphor only makes sense if Gentiles are non-Israelites.

▪ Matthew 28:19 — “Make disciples of all nations.”

IO claim: “Nations” refers to Israelites scattered among the nations.

Refutation:

The same Jesus previously distinguished between Israel and the Gentiles/nations (Matt 10:5–6).
The grammar (panta ta ethnē) is the standard Greek term for the non-Jewish nations.
The early church interpreted this as a literal mission to pagans (Acts 13–14; 15; 17).

Conclusion:
Jesus commands a mission to actual Gentiles.

2️⃣ HISTORICAL ANALYSIS: WHERE THE ISRAEL-ONLY DOCTRINE CAME FROM

▪ Not held by early Jews, early Christians, or any classical theologians

There is no evidence before the 1800s of any Christian group teaching:

that Gentiles in the NT were secretly Israelites
that the New Covenant excludes real Gentiles
that the Great Commission was only to Israelites

This already tells you IO is not apostolic doctrine.

▪ Rooted in 19th–20th century fringe movements

Israel-Only or “Anglo-Israelism” ideas arose from:

British-Israelism (1800s–1900s)
Claimed Europeans are the lost tribes.
Sacred Name / Armstrongism influences (1900s)
Some taught the New Testament was only for Hebrews.
21st-century internet hyper-preterism
A subset began arguing that everyone in the New Testament was a biological Israelite and that Gentiles “never meant Gentiles.”

This is where modern IO comes from.

▪ Why scholars reject IO unanimously

Academic consensus (Jewish, Christian, Catholic, Protestant, secular) is that:

Ethnē (Gentiles) in the NT refers to non-Israelite peoples.
The early church rapidly became majority-Gentile (historically documented).
The New Covenant is explicitly universal and fulfills the OT expectation of the nations coming to God.

No linguistic, archaeological, textual, or historical evidence supports IO.

4️⃣ LONG ACADEMIC REBUTTAL (DETAILED THEOLOGY + CONTEXT)

Below is a more scholarly-level treatment.

I. Linguistic Foundations

Greek: ἔθνη (ethnē)

Used over 150 times. Means:

nations (non-Jewish)
Gentiles
ethnic groups distinct from Israel

It is contrasted with “Israel,” “Jews,” and “circumcision” throughout NT.

Hebrew: גּוֹיִם (goyim)

Always refers to non-Israelite nations unless context specifies otherwise.

IO’s redefinition requires overturning millennia of usage, which is linguistically impossible.

II. Covenant Theology and Narrative Flow

A. Old Testament expectation

The OT predicts that:

Yahweh will gather Israel (Isa 11:11–12; Jer 30)
AND the nations will join the covenant people (Isa 2:2–4; 42:6; 49:6; 56:3–7; Amos 9:11–12)

The New Testament sees Jesus as fulfilling both.

B. Jesus’ ministry

Christ:

begins with Israel (Matt 15:24)
expands to Gentiles (Matt 8:11; 28:19; Luke 24:47)

C. Acts: Gentile inclusion as a divine act

Acts 10–11 (Cornelius) is the decisive moment.
Peter says:

“God has granted the Gentiles repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:18)

This is the church’s official interpretation, not a later idea.

D. Paul’s theology

Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians are built on:

Israel’s promises
Gentiles being grafted into Israel’s story, not replaced

Paul insists the mystery of the gospel is the inclusion of the Gentiles (Eph 3:6).

III. Anthropological/Historical Evidence

The early church was majority Gentile by 100 AD

This is confirmed by:

Roman historians
Justin Martyr
Ignatius
Eusebius
early church writings

They repeatedly mention large numbers of non-Jewish converts.

If IO were true, the early church would've immediately denounced Gentile participation — but instead they welcomed it.

IV. The New Covenant as Universal

Paul describes the gospel as:

the blessing of Abraham to “all the nations” (Gal 3:8)
breaking down the wall between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:14–15)
creating one new humanity (Eph 2:15)

This theological structure is incompatible with IO, which requires:

exclusive ethnicity
no actual Gentiles being saved

Paul simply does not allow this interpretation.

✔ Summary of the Whole Case

Israel Only fails because it contradicts:

Jesus
Paul
the book of Acts
the OT prophets
early church history
Greek and Hebrew linguistics
covenant theology
universal scholarly consensus

The New Covenant is with Israel, but for the world — exactly as God promised Abraham:
“In you all nations will be blessed.”

If you'd like, I can now produce:

📌 A point-by-point debate script
📌 A full formal article
📌 A YouTube-style breakdown
📌 A short “one-page refutation” you can share

Just tell me!

Thanks. Different topic unrelated to the Israel Only issue which you dealt with very well. Jesus quotes the Old Testament about God saying he wants mercy not sacrifice. What did the original context mean? What did Jesus mean? Did Jesus mean it the exact same way, or did he use it in a slightly different new sense and meaning?

Great question — and a really important one.
The phrase “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hebrew: ḥesed not zebaḥ) appears twice in the Old Testament, and Jesus cites it twice. Understanding both contexts reveals a deep continuity with a fresh Christ-centered direction in Jesus’ use.

Below is a clear breakdown.

1. The Original Old Testament Context

The phrase appears in:

Hosea 6:6

“For I desire mercy (ḥesed), not sacrifice,
and the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.”

WHAT IT MEANT IN HOSEA’S DAY

Hosea is addressing idolatrous, morally corrupt Israel in the 8th century BC.

Israel was performing sacrifices at the temple (or local shrines).
But their hearts and lives were corrupt (injustice, adultery, covenant-breaking).
So God says:
“Your rituals are meaningless if you refuse covenant loyalty, compassion, and faithfulness.”

Key Hebrew term:

ḥesed = covenant faithfulness, loyal love, mercy, kindness.

So the meaning is basically:

“I want genuine covenant loyalty and mercy toward God and neighbor,
not mere ritual observance.”

It is not a rejection of the sacrificial system (God commanded sacrifices),
but a rebuke of empty formalism.

2. How Jesus Uses the Phrase

Jesus cites Hosea 6:6 twice:

A. Matthew 9:13 – Eating with tax collectors and sinners

“Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’
For I came not to call the righteous but sinners.”

Meaning here:
Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for objecting to Him showing mercy to social outcasts.

The Pharisees emphasized ritual cleanness, separation, purity boundaries.
Jesus says they have missed God’s heart — mercy toward the lost.
The “sacrifice” here metaphorically represents ritual observance or legalistic purity.

So Jesus uses Hosea to say:

“God cares more about compassionate restoration of sinners
than about ritual categories or religious scruples.”

B. Matthew 12:7 – Plucking grain on the Sabbath

“If you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’
you would not have condemned the guiltless.”

Meaning here:
The Pharisees accuse Jesus’ disciples of violating Sabbath law by picking grain. Jesus argues:

Human need (“mercy”) overrides ritual restriction (“sacrifice”).
The Sabbath law must be interpreted through the lens of mercy, not rigid rule-keeping.

Jesus is not rejecting Torah; He is insisting on the prior weight of mercy (cf. Matt 23:23: “the weightier matters of the law — justice, mercy, faithfulness”).

**3. Did Jesus Mean It Exactly the Same Way as Hosea?

Or is it an expanded meaning?**

Yes and no — both continuity and development.

Same meaning (continuity):

Hosea condemned ritual without moral faithfulness.
Jesus condemned ritualism without compassion.
Both target hypocrisy, empty religion, and heartless piety.

Jesus is not changing Hosea’s meaning.
He is applying the same prophetic principle to a new situation.

Expanded meaning (development):

Jesus applies Hosea to:

His own messianic mission
(“I came not to call the righteous but sinners”)
The new covenant ethos
(mercy as the interpretive key for all law)
Sabbath interpretation
(human need > ritual boundary)
The nature of God’s kingdom
(a community formed by mercy, not purity codes)

In Hosea, “sacrifice” meant literal animal sacrifices.
In Jesus, “sacrifice” becomes a symbol for rigid religious rule-keeping that obscures compassion.

Thus Jesus deepens Hosea’s message.

4. Summary: What the Phrase Means in Both Contexts

In Hosea:

God wants covenant faithfulness (ḥesed), justice, mercy, and love.
God rejects empty ritual disconnected from ethical life.

In Jesus:

God wants compassion for sinners and the marginalized.
Mercy is the “weightier” principle that governs how laws are applied.
Ritual observance without mercy is spiritually worthless.
The mission of Jesus is itself the supreme revelation of divine mercy.

**So Jesus didn’t reinterpret Hosea;

He fulfilled its meaning by embodying God’s mercy.**

5. The Key Theological Insight

Jesus is not denouncing sacrifice as a bad thing;
He is declaring:

“Mercy is the heart of the law.
Sacrifice and ritual are secondary, and must never override love.”

This becomes a foundational principle of Christian ethics.

If you'd like, I can also give:

A Greek/Hebrew word study of ḥesed and how Matthew renders it.
A comparison of rabbinic uses of Hosea 6:6.
A sermon-style summary or teaching outline.

Just tell me!

Someone was stoned to death for gathering sticks for a fire in the sabbath. Doesn't this contradict Jesus' teaching about plucking grain on the sabbath? Maybe the guy needed to gather wood for a fire to cook food for his family. How is this different than Jesus plucking grain to satisfy hunger?

This is a very thoughtful question — and it pushes us right into the heart of how to read the Torah, how to understand the Sabbath, and how Jesus can appeal to mercy without contradicting the law God gave through Moses.

Let’s go step-by-step and keep everything clear, respectful to Scripture, and theologically coherent.

1. The Story in Numbers 15:32–36 — What’s Actually Going On?

A man is found gathering sticks on the Sabbath.
God says he must be put to death.
Israel stones him.

At first glance it seems like:

“He gathered sticks…”
“Jesus’ disciples plucked grain…”
So: “Isn’t this the same thing?”

But context shows they are not the same thing.

2. The Man in Numbers 15 Was Not Innocently Meeting a Need

Immediately before the story is a crucial section (Numbers 15:30–31):

“But the person who does anything with a high hand [i.e., defiantly]…
reviles the LORD… his guilt shall be on him.”

Then the very next verse (v. 32) begins:

“While the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks…”

These stories are placed back-to-back intentionally.

Meaning: the stick-gatherer is meant to be seen as an example of intentional defiance — a “high-handed” sin.

He wasn’t:

confused
hungry
desperate
unaware

He was refusing to keep the Sabbath in an explicit, deliberate act of rebellion — the kind described in the immediately preceding verses.

This is the key difference.

3. Why Gathering Sticks Was Serious

In Torah, gathering sticks = intentionally preparing to kindle a fire
= explicitly forbidden work (Exod 35:3).

This man is not simply “feeding his family.”
Starting a fire in ancient times was work-intensive and represented:

a purposeful abandonment of Sabbath rest
a conscious rejection of God’s command
a public, visible act of rebellion
at a time when Israel just received the law and God was forming them

It is not equivalent to brushing aside grain heads while walking.

4. Jesus’ Disciples Were Not Violating Mosaic Law

A. Plucking grain on the Sabbath was permitted

Deuteronomy 23:25 explicitly allows someone walking through a field to pluck grain with their hands.

This was not considered harvesting.
It was understood as a form of permitted, non-laborious eating.

The Pharisees invented manmade rules that equated:

rubbing grain = threshing
removing husk = winnowing
etc.

Jesus rejects those interpretations, not Moses.

So Jesus’ disciples:

did not violate the Torah
did violate Pharisaic additions to Torah

Hence Jesus’ statement:

“If you had known what this means… you would not have condemned the guiltless.”

His disciples were not guilty under the law.

5. Jesus’ Core Argument: Mercy Interprets the Law

Jesus references:

David eating the consecrated bread (1 Sam 21)
Priests working on the Sabbath (Num 28)

Both show that:

Human need
Worship
Covenant purpose

override ritual boundary when there is no defiance involved.

The essence:

“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)

This is completely consistent with Moses — who allowed compassionate exceptions (cf. rescuing animals on the Sabbath) and was aimed at rest, not starvation.

6. Why the Stick-Gatherer and the Disciples Are Totally Different Cases

A. The man in Numbers 15:

deliberate, defiant violation
intentionally breaking the Sabbath
doing labor explicitly forbidden
after clear instruction
in front of the whole community
characterized as the “high-handed” sin that Numbers 15:30 just condemned

B. Jesus’ disciples:

doing permitted Sabbath action
not violating Mosaic law
fulfilling the Sabbath’s purpose (sustenance + rest)
accused only by Pharisaic traditions
acting without defiance
receiving Jesus’ explicit validation

These two cases are not in the same category in Jewish law, ancient context, or Jesus’ teaching.

7. Jesus Isn’t Undermining Moses — He’s Correcting the Pharisees’ Additions

Jesus’ entire Sabbath teaching is built on:

what the Torah itself allowed
what the prophets emphasized (mercy > ritual)
what David and the priests practiced
the Sabbath’s purpose as rest and life-giving mercy

Jesus never contradicts Moses.

He does contradict:

Pharisaic legalism
additions to Torah
interpretations that disregard mercy
uses of the law that harm instead of help

8. Key Insight: The Issue Is Not “Work vs. Not-Work” — It’s “Rebellion vs. Mercy.”

The man in Numbers 15:
→ rebelled.

The disciples in Matthew 12:
→ received mercy.

The difference is not small.
It’s the entire theological distinction between:

high-handed sin (intentional covenant rebellion)
human need interpreted through God’s mercy

9. A Short Summary Paragraph

The man gathering sticks in Numbers 15 was judged not for meeting a need but for committing a deliberate, defiant violation of the Sabbath, explicitly described in the surrounding verses as a “high-handed” act against God. Jesus’ disciples plucking grain were not violating the Torah — Deuteronomy 23:25 allowed it — but violating Pharisaic traditions added on top of the law. Jesus appeals to mercy, covenant purpose, and Scripture’s own examples to show that human need is not rebellion. Thus the two cases are fundamentally different in intent, context, and law, and Jesus’ teaching fulfills rather than contradicts Moses.

If you’d like, I can also explain:

how Jewish rabbinic tradition interprets the Numbers passage
how Jesus’ view of Sabbath compares with other rabbis
why intentional vs. unintentional sin is central to Torah
how early Christian interpreters read this story

Just tell me!

Are New Covenant Christians required to keep the seventh day sabbath as Jews? If not, how is this consistent with obeying the 10 commandments?

Short answer: No, New Covenant Christians are not required to keep the seventh-day Sabbath as under Mosaic law, and this does not contradict obedience to the Ten Commandments.

But to see why, we need to understand (1) how the Sabbath functioned in the Old Covenant, (2) how Jesus fulfills it, and (3) how the apostles interpreted the command for the New Covenant community.

Below is a careful, step-by-step explanation that avoids oversimplification.

1. The Sabbath in the Old Covenant: What Was It?

The Sabbath command appears in the Ten Commandments (Exod 20:8–11; Deut 5:12–15), but it is also deeply embedded in the Mosaic covenant structure in ways the other nine commandments are not:

The Sabbath was a covenant sign

“It is a sign between me and the people of Israel forever.”
— Exodus 31:16–17

This is crucial.

Just as circumcision was the covenant sign of the Abrahamic covenant,
the Sabbath was the covenant sign of the Mosaic covenant.

A sign is:

unique to a covenant
binding on those in that covenant
not universally required of all humanity

So already we’re seeing that Sabbath is not exactly like the other nine commandments.

2. Jesus and the Sabbath: Fulfillment, Not Abolition

Jesus did not break the Sabbath, but He:

redefined its meaning
declared Himself its fulfillment
placed mercy above ritual observance
claimed divine authority over it

Most importantly, He said:

“The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
— Matthew 12:8

This means:

He has authority to interpret it
He has authority to transform it
He has authority to fulfill it

Hebrews 4 explicitly teaches that the Sabbath was a shadow pointing to the true rest found in Christ.

“There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God…
whoever has entered God’s rest has rested from his works.”
— Hebrews 4:9–10

This is not a command to keep the 7th day.
It is teaching that Jesus is the ultimate Sabbath rest.

3. The Apostles’ Teaching: Sabbath Not Required for Christians

This point is decisive.

A. Paul explicitly rejects Sabbath observance as a requirement

“Do not let anyone judge you… regarding a Sabbath day.
These are a shadow of the things to come,
but the substance is Christ.”
— Colossians 2:16–17

Paul says:

Sabbaths = shadow
Christ = reality
No one can judge Christians over Sabbath keeping

B. Paul says Christians may or may not keep specific days

“One person esteems one day as better than another;
another esteems all days alike.
Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.”
— Romans 14:5–6

If Sabbath were morally required, Paul could not say this.

C. The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

When deciding whether Gentile Christians must keep the Mosaic Law, the apostles:

did not include Sabbath
explicitly refused to impose Mosaic observances on Gentiles

If Sabbath was required for Christians, the apostles missed the most obvious command.

D. The early church gathered on the first day (“the Lord’s Day”)

Acts 20:7 — believers met “on the first day of the week”
1 Cor 16:2 — offerings taken on the first day
Rev 1:10 — “the Lord’s Day”

The early church could have kept the seventh-day Sabbath and worship on Sunday.
But Scripture shows Sabbath is not binding, while Sunday became a traditional Christian day, not a law.

4. How This Is Consistent With Obeying the Ten Commandments

A. The 10 Commandments are part of the Old Covenant

This is repeated many times:

Exod 34:28 — Ten Commandments = “the words of the covenant”
Deut 4:13 — “He declared to you His covenant… the Ten Words”
Heb 8:13 — that covenant is obsolete in Christ

Christians are not under the Old Covenant, but under the New.

B. Nine of the Ten commandments are reaffirmed in the New Testament

no idols
no murder
no adultery
no theft
no false witness
etc.

The Sabbath is the only command not reiterated.

Why?
Because it pointed forward to Christ’s rest.

C. The moral law behind the Sabbath continues

Even if the seventh-day command does not.

What continues:

God requires rest
God requires worship
God requires trust in Him rather than workaholic self-reliance
God requires compassion and renewal

Christians obey these through:

resting in Christ
regular worship
a rhythm of work and rest
living in the Spirit’s new-creation Sabbath

D. Jesus Himself taught that He fulfills the Law (Matthew 5:17)

Fulfillment does not mean “abolition.”
It means “bringing to completion,” the way a flower fulfills a bud.

The Sabbath command was a seed.
Christ is the full bloom.

5. In Simple Terms

Old Covenant Sabbath
→ Seventh day, tied to Sinai, a covenant sign
New Covenant rest
→ Jesus is our Sabbath rest (Heb 4)
→ The shadow gives way to the substance
→ Christians are not judged for Sabbath observance (Col 2)

So Christians obey the Ten Commandments in their fulfilled, Christ-centered form, not by re-entering Mosaic covenant obligations.

6. One Perfect Summary Sentence

New Covenant Christians are not required to keep the seventh-day Sabbath because the Sabbath was the Mosaic covenant sign fulfilled in Christ, and the apostles explicitly teach that Sabbath observance is not binding — yet its moral purpose of rest, worship, and reliance on God continues in a deeper, Christ-centered way.

If you want, I can also give:

✅ A comparison chart of Sabbath vs. Lord’s Day
✅ How early Christians (1st–2nd century) understood the Sabbath
✅ A theological defense of keeping the Sabbath voluntarily without legalism
Just tell me!

The Mosaic covenant as originally given is no longer binding, but the inner moral precepts on which the laws of the Mosaic Covenant were grounded are, right? This is the view of General Equity theonomy.

Yes — you’re describing the classic Reformed position (held by most covenant theologians, the Westminster Standards, the Puritans, and modern “general equity” theonomists), which distinguishes between:

The Mosaic covenant as a covenantal system, which is no longer binding, AND
The underlying moral principles (“general equity”) that the Mosaic laws expressed, which are still binding because they reflect God’s unchanging moral character.

So yes, what you’re saying is broadly correct — but let’s make it precise and theologically tight.

1. What General Equity Theonomy Actually Teaches

General equity theonomy is not “keep all Mosaic case laws.”
It is:

The Mosaic civil and judicial laws expired with the Mosaic covenant, except for the underlying moral principles revealed in them — the “general equity” — which continues.

This is exactly what the Westminster Confession of Faith 19.4 teaches:

“The judicial laws… expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”

General equity = the universal moral principle behind a particular Mosaic law, as it reflects God’s justice, mercy, or righteousness.

Example

Mosaic law: “Build a parapet around your roof so people don’t fall off” (Deut 22:8).
General equity principle: “You must take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of others.”
Application today: building codes, guardrails, safety measures.

So, yes:
The Mosaic covenant itself ended, but the moral law encoded within—and expressed through—its statutes continues.

2. How This Relates to the Ten Commandments

A. The Ten Commandments = the moral law in summary form

Reformed theology sees the Decalogue as:

a timeless expression of God’s moral will
binding before Moses (moral law existed long before Sinai)
binding under Moses
binding under the New Covenant

**B. But the Mosaic form of the Ten Commandments was covenantally conditioned**

The “Ten Words” as a covenant document belong to Sinai (Exod 34:28; Deut 4:13).
But the underlying moral norms precede Sinai and continue after it.

For example:

“Honor your father and mother” is timeless.
But “so that your days may be long in the land the LORD your God is giving you” is covenant-specific.

General equity distinguishes between:

the abiding moral command, and
the old-covenant form in which it was expressed.

3. How This Relates to the Sabbath Command

This answers your prior question about the Sabbath perfectly:

The Reformed view:

The moral principle of the Sabbath continues (a pattern of work/rest, set times for worship, trusting God).
The Mosaic seventh-day requirement is not binding (it was a covenant sign unique to Israel).
Under the New Covenant, the day shifts to the first day (“Lord’s Day”) because of Christ’s resurrection — not from Mosaic law, but from apostolic practice and new-creation theology.

This is why:

Christians obey the moral equity of the 4th commandment,
but not its old-covenant ceremonial and typological form.

4. How the Apostles Apply Mosaic Law by “General Equity”

The apostles never ask Gentile Christians to keep the Mosaic civil/judicial laws.
But they do apply their moral principles.

Example 1 — “Do not muzzle an ox” (Deut 25:4)

Paul applies this to paying ministers (1 Cor 9:9; 1 Tim 5:18).
That is general equity theonomy in action.

Example 2 — Case laws on sexual immorality

Paul applies their moral principles universally (1 Cor 6; 1 Thess 4).

Example 3 — Murder, theft, lying

All reaffirmed, because they are moral.

Example 4 — Food laws, purity laws, penalties, ritual laws

Not reaffirmed, because they are not moral; they were typological and covenantal.

So yes:
The apostles themselves interpret Mosaic law using general equity.
This is why the Reformed tradition codified it.

5. The Big Picture (Stated Systematically)

✔ The Mosaic covenant as a legal structure has expired.

✔ The moral law that underlies the Mosaic law continues.

✔ **The civil and ceremonial forms of the Mosaic law do not continue,

but the moral equity embedded in them does.**

✔ This is entirely consistent with Jesus fulfilling the law and with Paul’s teaching.

6. One-Sentence Summary

Under the New Covenant, Christians are not bound to the Mosaic covenant’s specific laws, but we are bound to the universal, moral principles (“general equity”) that those laws expressed — because God’s moral character does not change.

If you want, I can also explain:

The differences between general equity theonomy and reconstructionism
Why some groups misuse the word “theonomy”
How Christ’s law relates to Mosaic law
Augustine vs. Aquinas vs. Calvin vs. Westminster on this issue

Just tell me!

Okay, but then if Christians are under the Abrahamic covenant, why isn't circumcision necessary?

Great question — and this is exactly the issue Paul answers in Galatians and Romans.
Here’s the key point:

Christians are children of Abraham, but they are under the fulfilled, Christ-centered form of the Abrahamic covenant — not the old, shadow-form of it.
And in the fulfilled covenant, circumcision has been replaced by what it pointed to: the circumcision of the heart and baptism.

Let’s walk through it clearly and carefully.

1. Circumcision Was a Sign, Not the Substance

In the Abrahamic covenant, circumcision functioned as:

a sign
a seal
a typological marker of belonging to the lineage through which the Messiah would come

But it was never the thing that saved:

“Circumcise your hearts, not your flesh.”
— Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4

So even in the Old Testament, the heart-circumcision was the real, inner reality.

Thus, circumcision itself was a sign pointing to something deeper.

2. The Abrahamic Covenant Has Two Phases: Shadow → Fulfillment

This is the part many people miss.

A. Shadow/Preparatory Phase (Old Covenant form)

Physical descendants of Abraham
Physical circumcision
Land of Canaan
Nationhood, ethnicity, boundary markers
Promise of the coming Seed

B. Fulfillment Phase (New Covenant in Christ)

Spiritual descendants of Abraham (believers)
Circumcision of the heart (not the flesh)
Inheritance of the world (Rom 4:13)
Multi-ethnic family of faith
The Seed (Christ) has come

Paul explicitly teaches this two-phase structure.

3. Paul’s Argument in Romans and Galatians: Circumcision Was Temporary

**A. Abraham was justified before circumcision**

“He received circumcision as a sign… of the righteousness he already had by faith.”
— Romans 4:11

Therefore:

Circumcision cannot be essential to the covenant
Abraham become the father of all who believe, circumcised or not

B. The true seed of Abraham is Christ

“To your Seed… who is Christ.”
— Galatians 3:16

And believers are Abraham’s children in Christ, not in the flesh:

“If you belong to Christ, you are Abraham’s seed.”
— Gal 3:29

C. Circumcision pointed to Christ and is fulfilled in Him

“In Him you were circumcised…
having been buried with Him in baptism.”
— Colossians 2:11–12

Paul directly connects:

Old Covenant sign = circumcision
New Covenant sign = baptism (because it shows union with Christ)

Thus:
Circumcision’s meaning is now carried forward in heart transformation and union with Christ, not in the cutting of the flesh.

4. Circumcision is “Nothing” Under the New Covenant

Paul couldn’t be clearer:

“Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.
Only faith working through love.”
— Galatians 5:6

“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything.”
— Gal 6:15

“Was anyone called while circumcised? Don’t become uncircumcised…
Was anyone uncircumcised? Don’t get circumcised.”
— 1 Cor 7:18–19

This makes no sense unless circumcision has ceased to be covenantally required.

5. Why Circumcision Ended: Because Its Purpose Was Completed

Circumcision marked:

the family through whom the Messiah would come
the boundary of the old-covenant people
the promise of a coming “seed”

Once Christ came, its purpose was finished.
The sign of anticipation ended; the sign of fulfillment began.

This is exactly how other Old Covenant signs and shadows ended:

Passover → Lord’s Supper
Priests → Christ the High Priest
Sacrifices → One sacrifice of Christ
Temple → Christ’s body, and the church
Circumcision → Heart circumcision and baptism

Jesus didn’t “abolish” them.
He filled them up and transformed them.

6. Abraham’s Covenant Still Stands — in Its Fulfilled Form

The Abrahamic covenant is:

eternal (Gen 17:7)
prior to Moses
the root of God’s redemptive plan

But its administration changes at Christ’s arrival.

Old form:

Biological descendants + circumcision in flesh

Fulfilled form:

Believers in Christ + circumcision of the heart + baptism

This is why Christians can be:

“Children of Abraham”
without:
“Requirement to be circumcised.”

7. A One-Sentence Summary

Circumcision was the temporary, fleshly sign of the Abrahamic covenant pointing forward to Christ; once Christ came, the sign was fulfilled, and the covenant continues not through circumcision of the flesh but through circumcision of the heart and baptism — which is why New Covenant Christians are Abraham’s children without circumcision.

If you want, I can go deeper into:

circumcision vs. baptism (parallels & differences)
how early church fathers explained this
the theological distinction between Abrahamic & Mosaic covenants
how Galatians 3–4 structurally ends circumcision as requirement

Just let me know!

given all you've said, then, which is true credobaptism or paedobaptism?

Great question — and since we just discussed Abrahamic → New Covenant continuity, circumcision → baptism, and “general equity,” we’re now in the territory where credobaptists and paedobaptists interpret the same biblical data in different ways.

BUT

Your question is:

Which is true — credobaptism or paedobaptism — given everything we’ve said?

To answer this responsibly, I’ll show:

What logically follows from the theology we built in the last few messages.
How each side interprets that same theology differently.
Where the internal consistency pushes you depending on which assumptions you accept.

In other words, I’ll give you a clarified pathway to the answer rather than just a denominational slogan.

Let's do this carefully.

1. Starting Point: What Have We Established?

From our previous discussion, we have these conclusions:

(A) Circumcision = sign of membership in the Abrahamic covenant

(B) In the New Covenant, that sign shifts to baptism (Col 2:11–12)

(C) The Abrahamic covenant continues in a fulfilled form, not abolished

(D) The moral core (“general equity”) continues while the form changes

(E) Believers in Christ are Abraham’s children

(Gal 3:7, 29)

The big question is:

Does the “household”/“generational” structure of the Abrahamic covenant continue into the New Covenant?

Your view on that determines whether you land in credobaptism or paedobaptism.

2. If You Accept Covenant Continuity of Households → Paedobaptism

Paedobaptists argue:

Circumcision was given to infants (8 days old) as the sign of covenant membership.
Baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign (Col 2:11–12).
Therefore:
the sign still belongs to believers + their children, unless the New Testament explicitly removes them (and it never does).
Household baptisms fit this continuity (Acts 16; 1 Cor 1:16).
The New Covenant is more inclusive, not less.

Their core logic:

If Abraham’s children received the covenant sign before personal faith,
and the covenant continues, and the sign continues,
then children should receive the sign unless God explicitly says otherwise.

This is the classic Reformed/Covenant theology line.

3. If You See a Structural Break at the New Covenant → Credobaptism

Credobaptists argue:

Circumcision identifies physical descent;
baptism identifies spiritual rebirth.
The New Covenant is made only with those who know God (Jer 31:31–34).
Therefore, the covenant community = believers only, not a mixed community of believers + unbelievers as in the Old Covenant.
The sign (baptism) belongs to those who have faith, not their infants.
All examples of baptism in Acts involve belief preceding baptism.

Their core logic:

The New Covenant community is regenerate; therefore only regenerate people should receive the covenant sign.

This is the classic Baptist theology line.

**4. Which Position Follows More Directly From What You Affirmed?**

Based on your previous statements, you affirmed:

✔ the Abrahamic covenant still applies
✔ the sign of the Abrahamic covenant changed (circumcision → baptism)
✔ the moral core continues but the form is fulfilled
✔ Christians are Abraham’s children
✔ circumcision’s principle (initiation into the covenant people) continues in baptism

From this theological structure, the logic leans heavily toward paedobaptism, unless you insert a new assumption:

“The New Covenant excludes children from the covenant sign.”

But that assumption is not stated anywhere in Scripture.

In fact:

The Old Covenant included children.
The New Covenant is more inclusive (Gentiles added).
Jesus welcomes infants and says the kingdom belongs to them.
No text says children are removed from receiving the covenant sign.

To move from Abrahamic continuity → credobaptism, you need an argument like:

“Covenant membership is now ONLY for those who have personal faith.”

But in practice:

Churches do not exclude their children from spiritual instruction.
Paul calls children of believers “holy” (1 Cor 7:14).
Household baptisms still reflect a covenantal family structure.

So if you fully accept the Abrahamic → New Covenant continuity we’ve been discussing, paedobaptism flows more naturally and coherently.

Credobaptism can still be argued — but it requires breaking covenant continuity at a structural level.

**5. The Most Honest Answer:

Given the theology you personally affirmed, paedobaptism follows.**

Not because the Bible lacks support for credobaptism (it doesn’t),
but because your premises align cleanly with the Reformed/covenantal paedobaptist framework:

continuity between Abraham and Christ
continuity of covenant signs
continuity of covenant inclusion
baptism as circumcision-fulfilled
children as part of covenant households
general equity view of the law

From that system, paedobaptism is the consistent conclusion.

If you reject paedobaptism, you must modify at least one of these assumptions.

6. Summary (Very Plainly)

Paedobaptism is the position that naturally follows if you believe:

the Abrahamic covenant continues
circumcision becomes baptism
covenant membership still includes believers and their children
the sign goes to the covenant community
nothing in the NT revokes children’s inclusion

Credobaptism is the position that follows if you believe:

the New Covenant community includes only regenerate persons
the covenant sign must follow personal faith
Abrahamic household structure ended at Christ

Both systems are coherent
—but they start from different assumptions about continuity and membership.

If you want, I can now do:

🔹 A direct side-by-side comparison
🔹 A summary of the earliest church practice
🔹 An exegetical breakdown of household baptisms
🔹 A critique of both positions
🔹 Or help you reason toward the view most consistent with your broader theology

Just tell me which direction you’d like to go!

you said, "Not because the Bible lacks support for credobaptism (it doesn’t)," Are you saying the Bible DOES lack support for credobaptism?

Ah, I see why my wording could be confusing — let me clarify very carefully.

I meant:

The Bible does have passages that credobaptists use to support their position — it does not completely lack support for credobaptism.

So the correct statement is:

Yes, the Bible contains support for credobaptism, but that support depends on how you interpret covenant continuity and the role of household baptisms.

Here’s why people see support for credobaptism:

Faith precedes baptism in every explicit narrative of individual baptism in Acts (e.g., Samaritans in Acts 8, Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, Lydia in Acts 16).
Paul emphasizes belief as the requirement for being “in Christ” (Gal 3:26–27; Rom 6:3–4).
The New Covenant focuses on spiritual regeneration (Jer 31:31–34), not physical descent.

Credobaptists read these passages and conclude:

Baptism is for those who consciously believe — the “faith first” principle.

Paedobaptists, by contrast, read the same Bible through covenant continuity and household logic, and see household baptisms (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor 1:16) and the inclusion of children in the covenant as sufficient for infant baptism.

In short:

Credobaptism has biblical support — the explicit examples always involve believer baptism.
Paedobaptism has biblical support — through covenant theology, household baptisms, and continuity from circumcision.
Neither position is unbiblical; the debate is about interpreting how covenant inclusion and baptismal signs carry over from the Abrahamic/Mosaic covenant to the New Covenant.

If you want, I can make a side-by-side table of every key biblical text relevant to both credobaptism and paedobaptism, showing exactly why each side claims support. That usually helps people see the real weight of each argument.

Do you want me to do that?

Given all that has been said by you, and combining that with unconditional election, which follows better, credobaptism or padeobaptism?

Ah — now we’re bringing baptism together with covenant theology and unconditional election. This actually sharpens the analysis a lot. Let’s reason carefully, step by step.

1. What We’ve Already Established

From our prior discussion:

Abrahamic covenant continuity
- The covenant continues in Christ.
- Covenant sign shifts: circumcision → baptism.
- Children are included in the covenant households (1 Cor 7:14; Acts 16:15, 33).
Circumcision → Baptism analogy
- Circumcision was given to infants as a covenant sign.
- Baptism is the New Covenant equivalent, pointing to union with Christ and the inward work of the Spirit.
The New Covenant includes regenerate believers
- Believers are Abraham’s spiritual children.
- But the household pattern of covenant inclusion is not abolished.

2. Unconditional Election

Key points of unconditional election (classic Calvinist/Reformed view):

God chooses individuals for salvation not based on foreseen faith or works, but solely by His mercy and sovereign will.
Those elected will necessarily persevere in faith (the “effectual calling” principle).
Election is God’s covenantal plan — He ordains both the means and the ends.

3. Connecting Election to Baptism

The question: If God elects, does that favor credobaptism or paedobaptism?

We reason as follows:

A. Credobaptism under election

Credobaptists argue: baptism is for those who already show faith, because faith is necessary to be “in Christ” and receive the covenant sign.
Unconditional election can fit here: God elects, regenerates, and then the person consciously believes → baptism follows.
Limitation: this can make baptism feel almost like a “test” of regeneration, when in reality the sign is supposed to convey God’s covenant inclusion.

B. Paedobaptism under election

Paedobaptists argue: baptism is the covenant sign, just as circumcision was.
God’s elect children are included before they can personally exercise faith.
Baptism, like circumcision, functions as a seal of God’s covenant promises to the household, including elect infants.
Later, the child comes to faith, fulfilling the promise God had already given in the covenant.

This aligns beautifully with unconditional election:

God chooses His elect from the womb (Ps 139:13–16; Rom 9:10–13).
Baptism of infants does not depend on their faith, because God’s covenant promises don’t depend on human decision.
The covenant sign confirms what God has already sovereignly elected — exactly as circumcision did for Abraham’s children.

4. Summary Reasoning

Factor	Credobaptism	Paedobaptism
Relation to covenant continuity	Needs a break: the household/infant covenant is no longer operative	Fits perfectly: baptism replaces circumcision in households
Relation to unconditional election	Works if election is tied to prior regeneration	Works seamlessly: God elects, covenant sign administered to elect children
Faith requirement	Must wait for faith before sign	Faith comes after sign; sign anticipates God’s covenant work
Biblical examples	Believer baptisms in Acts	Household baptisms; infants included in covenant households (1 Cor 7:14)

5. Conclusion

When you combine:

Abrahamic → New Covenant continuity
Circumcision → baptism as covenant sign
Household inclusion
Unconditional election

…it favors paedobaptism far more naturally than credobaptism.

Reason: God’s election of His people is not dependent on their conscious faith, just as circumcision did not depend on the infant’s understanding. Baptism, like circumcision, is a seal of God’s promise to the covenant family — which perfectly aligns with election.

✅ One-Sentence Summary

Given covenant continuity and unconditional election, paedobaptism is the more consistent and theologically coherent position, because it seals God’s elect in the covenant before they can exercise personal faith, just as circumcision did under the Abrahamic covenant.

If you want, I can now draw a diagram showing the flow from Abraham → Christ → baptism → faith → election, so it’s visually obvious why paedobaptism fits best. This is often the clearest way to internalize the logic.

Do you want me to make that diagram?

Considering all you've said, combine it with Acts 2:39 which says, "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." Paedobaptists like to emphasize the part that says, "For the promise is for you and for your children " to support their paedobaptist view. While credobaptists who hold to unconditional election like to emphasize the part that says, "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." Because it implies the candidates for baptism are those whom God has sovereignly called. And we can only know them by their credible profession of faith [which may or may not be genuine]. Genuine or not, credobaptists who hold to unconditional election [usually Calvinistic credobaptists] argue only those who make such a credible [i.e. apparently real] profession of faith are candidates for baptism because they show signs of regeneration. Also, many of them [Calvinistic credobaptists] would point out and argue that circumcision is fulfilled not in baptism ultimately, but in regeneration in the circumcision of the heart. Given all you've said, and all I've said, which is more likely on the assumption of unconditonal election? Paedobaptism or Credobaptism?

Perfect — now you’ve brought Acts 2:39 into the mix, which is really the pivotal text in the baptism debate when combined with unconditional election. Let’s reason very carefully and step by step.

1. Acts 2:39 Text and Key Phrases

“For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Paedobaptist emphasis: “you and your children” → the promise and covenant sign extend to children.
Credobaptist emphasis: “everyone whom the Lord… calls to himself” → baptism only applies to those effectively called/elect, which must be verified by credible profession of faith.

Both readings are valid from a grammatical standpoint. The question is which dominates given unconditional election and covenant theology.

2. Unconditional Election + Circumcision/Baptism Analogy

From our previous reasoning:

Circumcision included infants as covenant members (Gen 17:12).
Baptism fulfills circumcision (Col 2:11–12).
Unconditional election: God chooses His elect regardless of their future profession of faith; election is prior to any human response.

3. How Acts 2:39 Reads in Light of Election

Paedobaptist Reading

God elects individuals from the covenant line, including their children.
Baptism is the seal of God’s promise to the household.
Children are included in the covenant not because of their own faith, but because God’s covenant promises extend to them (like circumcision).
“You and your children” fits perfectly: covenantal inclusion anticipates God’s elect in the next generation.

Implication: Faith follows the sign, as with circumcision → covenant promises extend to the child, not because of a visible profession.

Credobaptist (Calvinistic) Reading

God elects His people.
The elect manifest their calling through credible profession of faith.
Baptism applies only to those who can demonstrate faith (because the outward sign must follow inner regeneration).
“Everyone whom the Lord calls” is emphasized — baptism occurs after the elect demonstrate evidence of God’s effectual call.

Implication: Faith precedes the sign, because baptism is a seal of what is already spiritually true in the elect.

4. Key Tension Between the Two Readings

Paedobaptists: God’s promise → baptism → faith.
Credobaptists: God’s calling → faith → baptism.

Where Acts 2:39 says:

“the promise is for… your children”

Paedobaptists read this as God’s covenant promise including elect children — consistent with circumcision logic.

Credobaptists reinterpret “your children” as non-covenant members until they are credibly regenerate. They often say: the promise is potentially for children, but only effectually for those who respond in faith.

5. Which is More Consistent with Unconditional Election?

Let’s combine all the principles we’ve already established:

Election is unconditional — God chooses before any human response.
Circumcision → baptism analogy — baptism is the covenant sign, just like circumcision.
Covenant household inclusion — children were included in the covenant (Old Testament precedent).
Promises are applied to elect children — God’s promises don’t wait for human faith; God is faithful to apply them to the elect.

Analysis:

Credobaptists force faith to be the precondition for the sign, implying a break in covenant continuity: baptism becomes a reward for visible faith rather than a sign of God’s covenant promise.
Paedobaptists maintain continuity: God’s elect children are included before personal faith, just like Abraham’s infant descendants were circumcised.

Logical outcome: Paedobaptism aligns more naturally with unconditional election because it respects the principle that God applies His promises to His elect independent of their ability to make a credible profession of faith. Faith will inevitably follow (perseverance of the saints), but it is not the precondition for the covenant sign.

6. Summary in Light of Acts 2:39 + Election

Principle	Paedobaptism	Credobaptism
Relation to unconditional election	Covenant sign applied to elect infants; faith comes after	Covenant sign applied only after visible profession of faith (faith first)
Continuity with circumcision	Direct continuation	Break: outward sign now depends on internal faith
Reading of Acts 2:39	“Promise… your children” → promise extends to elect children	“Everyone… called” → only visibly called individuals are baptized
Covenant theology	Maintains household continuity	Reduces household inclusion to a faith test

✅ Conclusion: On the assumption of unconditional election, paedobaptism follows more naturally. Acts 2:39’s reference to “your children” strengthens this view, because God’s promise is applied to covenant households, including the elect children, before personal faith is expressed.

If you want, I can draw a timeline diagram showing: God’s election → covenant sign applied to children → later faith → full realization, to make the logic of paedobaptism with unconditional election crystal clear.

Do you want me to do that?

you didn't address the fact that credobaptists claim that the ultimate fulfillment of circumcision is not baptism, but regeneration which is the true circumcision [circumcision of the heart]. Factor that in to your re-assessment which is more consistent with all that we've both said, paedobaptism or credobaptism. I won't tell you which, or if, i lean toward one or the other. I was just trying to steelman the credobaptist view.

Ah, perfect — this is exactly the nuance we need to factor in. Let’s take this seriously and re-assess carefully.

1. Credobaptist Steelman: Circumcision is ultimately “circumcision of the heart”

Credobaptists argue:

Physical circumcision was a sign, pointing forward to regeneration (Deut 30:6; Rom 2:28–29; Col 2:11–12).
Baptism is not the ultimate fulfillment of circumcision. Rather, regeneration is.
Therefore, baptism is only appropriate after regeneration, because it must signify what is already inwardly true.
This allows credobaptists to claim: infant baptism is inappropriate because infants cannot manifest regeneration or faith.

In other words: the covenant sign points to the inward reality, not just external membership.

2. Paedobaptist Counterpoint in Light of Election

Paedobaptists respond:

Circumcision in the Old Testament was given to infants, and it was a real covenant sign, not merely symbolic of future regeneration.
God’s promise applied to Abraham’s descendants before they exercised personal faith.
Baptism inherits the same logic: it is the covenant sign of God’s promises, applied to the household, including children of believers.
Regeneration comes afterward, inevitably, for the elect (Rom 8:29–30; 1 Cor 7:14).
Therefore, baptism can be administered before personal faith because it is God’s sign to His elect, not just a reflection of inward regeneration.

3. Weighing the “Ultimate Circumcision” Claim Against Election

Credobaptist logic:

Circumcision points forward to circumcision of the heart.
Baptism is a sign only for those who have experienced inward circumcision/regeneration.
Therefore, baptism must wait for credible profession of faith.

Problem with this under unconditional election:

God has already chosen His elect before they manifest faith.
Waiting for the child to demonstrate faith does not add to God’s election — it makes the covenant sign contingent on human action.
Faith is inevitable for the elect, but not yet present in infants. Using “faith first” breaks the covenant continuity.

Paedobaptist logic:

Circumcision was a real covenant sign applied to infants.
Baptism inherits that function — a visible sign of God’s covenant promises.
Regeneration is the inward reality corresponding to the outward sign.
Faith follows God’s elect children — the outward sign anticipates the inward reality.

Consistency with election:

Perfectly aligned: God’s elect receive the sign regardless of ability to express faith.
Covenant continuity preserved.
The promise to “you and your children” is naturally fulfilled.

4. Factoring Acts 2:39 + Election + “Circumcision of the Heart”

Acts 2:39: “Promise… you and your children…” → favors inclusion of children in the covenant sign.
Election: God’s elect children are chosen before personal faith.
Circumcision of the heart argument: Even if inward circumcision/regeneration is ultimate, the outward covenant sign can still be applied anticipatorily — as circumcision was under Abraham.

So even granting the credobaptist claim that circumcision ultimately points to regeneration:

Paedobaptism remains consistent, because baptism can be the covenant sign pointing forward to inward reality (regeneration).
Credobaptism is not required by the “ultimate circumcision” argument; it is only one possible interpretation, and it introduces discontinuity with Abrahamic household inclusion and unconditional election.

5. Key Insight

Credobaptists try to “upgrade” the sign to only apply after inward reality. But:

Under unconditional election, God’s promise applies before inward reality — the outward sign can legitimately anticipate the inward work.
The ultimate fulfillment (regeneration) does not negate the covenantal function of the outward sign (circumcision → baptism).
This preserves covenant continuity, household inclusion, and the logic of election.

6. Re-assessment Conclusion

Even when factoring in the credobaptist steelman argument:

Paedobaptism still follows more naturally from the combination of:

Abrahamic → New Covenant continuity
Circumcision → baptism as covenant sign
Household inclusion of children
Acts 2:39 promise to children
Unconditional election
“Circumcision of the heart” as ultimate inward reality

Reasoning: Baptism can be the anticipatory sign of regeneration for God’s elect children, preserving both covenant continuity and election. Credobaptism interprets the outward sign as contingent on faith, which is less consistent with unconditional election and household covenant logic.

✅ One-Sentence Summary:

Even allowing that the ultimate fulfillment of circumcision is regeneration, paedobaptism is more consistent with covenant continuity, household inclusion, Acts 2:39, and unconditional election, because the outward sign (baptism) can rightly anticipate the inward reality in God’s elect children.

If you want, I can make a diagram showing: Abraham → circumcision → New Covenant baptism → elect child → inward regeneration/faith, to show visually why paedobaptism aligns with all these factors. This is often the clearest way to see the logic.

Do you want me to do that?

Your giving interesting answers. Now, factor into all that we've discuss the claim by some credobaptists that the church is supposed to be the separation of

Ah — it looks like your message got cut off at the end (“the church is supposed to be the separation of …”). Can you clarify the full claim you want me to factor in from credobaptists? That way I can properly integrate it into everything we’ve discussed.

Yes, i pressed "enter" by accident. Your giving interesting answers. Now, factor into all that we've discuss the claim by some credobaptists that the church is supposed to be the separation of Remnant Israel from Israel. The concept of Remnant Israel within the broader Israel is a theme developed in the later prophetical books of the Old Testament and possibly also hinted at in Paul's quotation of the Old Testament "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." Paul picks up on this in his comment in Romans that "not all Israel are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6). Fact or this concept of the Church being the separation of Remnant Israel from unfaithful Israel. If paedobaptism were true, then wouldn't the unbelieving Jews still be in the covenant community? Wouldn't the need for baptism by John the Baptist be superfluous? Same with the baptisms by the Apostles of Jews who newly believed in Jesus in the Book of Acts?

Ah! Now I see the line of reasoning. You’re raising a credobaptist argument that the Church is essentially the “remnant of Israel” — the faithful subset, the elect — and are asking how that interacts with paedobaptism, covenant continuity, and the historical pattern of baptism in Acts. Let’s carefully unpack this.

1. The Credobaptist Claim: Church = Remnant Israel

Credobaptists often argue:

The Church is not all Israel, but the faithful remnant (Rom 9:6; 11:5).
Baptism follows faith because the Church consists of those who have been regenerated or credibly profess faith.
Infant baptism would blur the line between elect and non-elect, putting unregenerate children in the visible covenant community.
Historical pattern: John’s baptism called for repentance and belief; Jesus’ disciples baptized believers only, not infants, suggesting that baptism is sign of being in the remnant, the faithful elect.

Essentially: the Church is “separation” from the broader, unfaithful Israel; baptism is the outward sign of that separation.

2. The Paedobaptist Response: Covenant Household and Remnant Israel

Paedobaptists respond with several points:

A. Old Testament Precedent

Circumcision included all covenant children, even if many later proved unfaithful.
God’s covenant signs in Israel were given to households, not just the elect remnant.
God’s promises always included faithful and unfaithful children, but He sovereignly elects the faithful.
“Remnant Israel” is God’s providentially preserved faithful subset, but it doesn’t nullify the outward covenant sign for children of the covenant (Ex 12:48–49; 1 Cor 7:14).

B. Baptism and Covenant Fulfillment

Baptism is the New Covenant sign, not a test of current faith.
Like circumcision, it marks covenant membership anticipatorily, including elect children who will later demonstrate faith.
John’s baptism called for repentance in unbelieving Israel, not infants. This is consistent with paedobaptism: infants of believers were not yet accountable in the same sense; they were under God’s covenant promise but not yet called to repentance.
Apostolic baptism of Jewish believers is consistent with the pattern: those outside the covenant (or without household covenant sign) had to profess faith; infants in covenant households already had God’s covenant sign anticipatorily.

C. Visible vs. Invisible Covenant

Paedobaptism distinguishes between the visible covenant community (all baptized children of believers) and the invisible elect (remnant within Israel).
Baptism does not guarantee salvation (1 Cor 10:2; Heb 6:4–6), but is the sign of God’s promise, which will ultimately apply to the elect.
So even though some children might later prove unfaithful, the outward covenant inclusion mirrors the Old Testament practice of circumcision, and God’s election determines who is truly part of the “remnant.”

3. Addressing the Credobaptist Objections

Objection 1: “Wouldn’t unbelieving Jews be included if paedobaptism is true?”

Answer: Yes, outwardly included in the covenant sign, just as many circumcised infants were later unfaithful.
This doesn’t violate election, because God’s promises are applied to households anticipatorily, but only the elect will persevere in faith.
Visible membership includes both faithful and unfaithful; inward salvation is always determined by God’s election.

Objection 2: “Doesn’t John’s baptism make infant baptism superfluous?”

Answer: John’s baptism was for Israel outside the covenant promise, calling for repentance and faith.
Infants of believing parents already had covenant inclusion; they were not yet accountable for personal sin in the same way.
John’s baptism does not negate the validity of covenant household signs; it addresses personal repentance for those capable of conscious faith.

Objection 3: “Apostolic baptism of Jewish believers—why not infants?”

The pattern of baptizing believers reflects those coming from outside a covenant household (like Gentiles or uncircumcised Jews).
Household children already under the covenant sign did not require a separate “believer baptism” because they were already marked with God’s covenant promise.
Later personal profession of faith fulfills the inward reality of what baptism anticipates.

4. Integration with Election and Acts 2:39

Acts 2:39: “Promise… for you and your children…”
Paedobaptism: God’s promise applies to covenant children, elect and non-elect, outwardly marked.
Unconditional election: God’s elect children will eventually manifest true faith.
Remnant Israel concept: only the elect constitute the “invisible remnant,” but outward signs (circumcision, baptism) may include more than the visible remnant.
Credobaptists conflate the visible covenant community with the elect remnant, but the Old Testament pattern does not require that all outward covenant members are true elect.

5. Key Insight

Even considering the credobaptist argument that the Church is the “remnant of Israel”:

Visible covenant membership can include both elect and non-elect, just as under Abrahamic/Mosaic covenant.
Baptism, like circumcision, is anticipatory, marking covenant households.
Faith follows the outward sign for the elect, fulfilling the inward reality (circumcision of the heart).
John’s baptism and apostolic believer baptisms address those outside covenant households, not children already included in the covenant.

✅ Conclusion: The “remnant Israel” objection does not overturn paedobaptism. The Church can still include covenant children outwardly while the remnant (elect) are inwardly chosen by God, perfectly consistent with Acts 2:39, unconditional election, and covenant continuity.

If you like, I can draw a visual model showing: Israel → Remnant → covenant household → baptism → inward regeneration, showing exactly how paedobaptism fits with the “remnant Israel” concept. This tends to make these objections much easier to grasp.

Do you want me to do that?

Do you agree that the church is supposed to be Remnant Israel separated from unfaithful Israel?

Here’s the careful answer:

I would not frame the Church as strictly “Remnant Israel separated from unfaithful Israel” in the absolute way some credobaptists do, because that conflates visible covenant membership with the invisible elect. Let me explain:

1. Remnant Israel in the Old Testament

In the later prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah), “remnant Israel” refers to the faithful subset of Israel that survives judgment and remains loyal to God.
Paul quotes this idea in Romans 9:6: “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” — meaning that not all ethnic Israel are truly God’s people, but the elect remnant are.

2. Church = Remnant?

The Church is made up of God’s elect, which is conceptually analogous to the “remnant” in Israel.
But the Church also has visible and covenant dimensions:
- Visible Church: includes all who are outwardly part of the covenant (e.g., baptized children of believers), some of whom may not be elect.
- Invisible Church: consists only of the elect, who are inwardly regenerated.

So, the Church is not identical to the invisible remnant, because the visible Church can include unfaithful or non-elect members, just as Israel did.

3. Implications for Baptism

Credobaptists see baptism as a mark of separation — the elect remnant only.
Paedobaptists see baptism as a covenant sign applied to households, including elect children, while faith ultimately reveals the remnant within the visible Church.
The outward covenant community is therefore broader than the remnant, consistent with Abrahamic and Mosaic practice.

4. Synthesis

Yes: The Church is composed of the elect (remnant) — the inward reality aligns with “remnant Israel.”
No: The Church is not solely defined by the elect remnant, because outward covenant membership includes more than just the faithful, just as circumcision included many children who would later be unfaithful.

✅ Bottom line: The Church reflects the elect remnant, but it is not exclusively the separation of remnant Israel from unfaithful Israel. That distinction only exists fully in the invisible, inward reality of election, not in outward covenant membership.

If you want, I can make a diagram showing visible Church vs. invisible Church, covenant children vs. remnant elect, which visually clarifies how paedobaptism fits even when the Church is partially “remnant Israel.”

Do you want me to do that?

But the point is that the church is, at least, meant to consist only of the elect in this scheme even if in actuality not all in the church are elect. You understand this, right?

Yes — I completely understand that point, and it’s an important nuance. Let me clarify carefully:

1. Ideal vs. Actual Church

In credobaptist reasoning, the Church ideally consists only of the elect, the true “remnant Israel” of God.
In practice, the visible Church includes both the elect and non-elect, just like Israel under the Mosaic covenant included faithful and unfaithful members.
So, while outward membership might be broader, the intended scope of the Church is to gather God’s elect, separated from unbelieving Israel.

2. How this fits with paedobaptism

Paedobaptists accept that the Church has visible and invisible dimensions:
- Visible Church: includes all baptized children of believers (like household circumcision in the Old Testament).
- Invisible Church: contains only the elect.
Even if outward membership includes non-elect children, the purpose of the Church is still to be the gathering of the elect. Baptism anticipates regeneration in the elect children.
This preserves the “remnant Israel” idea in the inward, spiritual reality, without requiring outward exclusion of non-elect infants.

3. Key Distinction

Credobaptists: The Church is the visible, separated remnant; baptism occurs after faith, so only the elect are included outwardly.
Paedobaptists: The Church is the outward covenant community (visible), which anticipates the inward elect (invisible); baptism marks covenant membership even for those whose elect status is not yet apparent.

✅ So, in your phrasing: Yes, the Church is meant to consist only of the elect, but paedobaptists allow for visible inclusion of non-elect children because the covenant sign anticipates inward reality.

If you want, I can show a diagram contrasting the credobaptist “visible remnant only” Church with the paedobaptist “visible covenant with invisible elect inside” model — it makes this distinction much easier to see.

Do you want me to make that diagram?

Finally, considering all that we discussed in the discussion of "padeo vs. credo", factor in the Calvinistic [unconditional election proponent] credobaptist claim that under the New Covenant all would know the Lord in actuality [ John 6:45; Jer. 31:34 as it's also cited in Hebrews chapter 8 [specifically v. 11]. Implying real regeneration in keeping with the Remnant Israel theme.

Ah, now we’re getting to the heart of the credobaptist Calvinistic argument: the combination of unconditional election, covenant signs, and the New Covenant promise that “all shall know the Lord.” Let’s carefully integrate this with everything we’ve discussed.

1. The Claim

Credobaptist Calvinists argue:

Under the New Covenant, God promises that His elect will actually know Him (Jer. 31:34; John 6:45; Heb. 8:11).
This implies real regeneration—the inward circumcision of the heart—not merely outward covenant inclusion.
Therefore, the Church (visible) ideally consists only of the elect (the faithful remnant), and baptism should follow credible profession of faith to reflect this reality.
Household/applied covenant signs for non-believing infants (paedobaptism) would seem in tension with the promise that under the New Covenant, all will know the Lord.

In short: under the New Covenant, the outward sign (baptism) should accurately reflect the inward reality, i.e., only those who are actually regenerated.

2. Paedobaptist Response Within the Same Framework

Paedobaptists respond carefully:

A. Continuity with Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenant

God’s covenant with Abraham and Israel included household covenant signs, even though not all were elect.
Baptism in the New Covenant is the new covenant equivalent of circumcision, applied anticipatorily to children of believers.
The New Covenant promise that “all shall know the Lord” (inward knowledge) is fulfilled in the elect children, not necessarily immediately manifested in outward faith.

B. Visible vs. Invisible Church

Visible Church: all baptized covenant children (anticipatory).
Invisible Church: elect children whose inward regeneration will inevitably produce knowledge of the Lord.
So the promise that “all shall know the Lord” refers to the elect within the visible Church, not every outwardly baptized child.

C. Baptism as a Covenant Sign vs. Sign of Inward Knowledge

Baptism is a sign of God’s covenant promise, not a certificate of inward knowledge or regeneration.
Just as circumcision in Israel included some who later fell away, baptism can include children who have been outwardly brought into the covenant, while the inward promise is realized only in the elect.
The outward covenant sign does not contradict the promise that “all shall know the Lord,” because the promise is about inward reality, not outward administration.

3. Integrating with Remnant Israel Theme

Credobaptist reasoning: the Church = Remnant Israel, the truly elect.
Paedobaptist reconciliation:
- Outward Church includes all covenant children.
- Elect children are the true remnant within the visible Church.
- New Covenant promise (all will know the Lord) is fulfilled in these elect children, in line with unconditional election.
So the “remnant” is still honored, but outward covenant signs remain anticipatory and covenantal.

4. Acts and Historical Precedent

John’s baptism and Apostolic baptism of Jewish believers: targeted those outside covenant households or those capable of personal repentance.
Covenant children (paedobaptized) already received the covenant sign anticipatorily, just like circumcision under Abraham.
The New Covenant promise ensures that those elect children will indeed be regenerated and “know the Lord,” fulfilling the inward promise of the covenant.

5. Key Insight

Even considering the credobaptist emphasis on remnant Israel, unconditional election, and real regeneration under the New Covenant:

Paedobaptism is still consistent:
1. The outward covenant sign anticipates inward reality.
2. The elect children within the visible Church will indeed know the Lord, fulfilling Jer. 31:34 / Heb. 8:11.
3. Visible inclusion of non-elect children does not invalidate the covenant promise; it mirrors Abrahamic/Mosaic precedent.

✅ Conclusion

The Calvinistic credobaptist claim that “under the New Covenant all will know the Lord” applies to the inward elect. Paedobaptism can accommodate this by treating baptism as an anticipatory covenant sign for children of believers, while the inward knowledge promised by the covenant will inevitably be realized in the elect (the true remnant).

In other words: the outward covenant sign and inward New Covenant fulfillment are distinct but complementary, preserving both covenant continuity and unconditional election.

If you like, I can make a single diagram combining all these layers—visible vs. invisible Church, covenant children, elect remnant, and fulfillment of “all shall know the Lord”—so you can see how paedobaptism fits seamlessly even in the light of this credobaptist claim.

Do you want me to create that diagram?

I've noticed that more than once you've not factored in the idea that the true fulfillment of circumcision is not baptism but regeneration which leads to faith [the circumcision of the heart]. Why do you repeatedly neglect it? Do you discount it? Factor that too into the paedo vs. credo discussion and which is more consistent.

Ah, now I see exactly what you’re pointing out — and you’re right, I should make this explicit, because it is crucial to the paedo vs. credo discussion, especially under Calvinistic credobaptist reasoning. Let’s carefully factor it in.

1. Circumcision vs. Baptism vs. Regeneration

Old Covenant circumcision: outward sign applied to infants of covenant households.
New Covenant baptism: outward sign applied to infants or believers, marking covenant membership.
Credobaptist claim: the true fulfillment of circumcision is inward — regeneration, the circumcision of the heart (Col. 2:11–12; Rom. 2:28–29).
- Baptism is symbolic, but it does not cause regeneration.
- Only those truly regenerated are the elect remnant.
Paedobaptist claim: baptism is the new covenant sign, applied anticipatorily to covenant children, just like circumcision. The inward reality (regeneration) will be realized later in the elect children.

2. Factoring “circumcision of the heart” into Paedo vs. Credo

A. Credobaptist (Calvinistic) Perspective

Visible Church = only regenerated believers.
Baptism follows a credible profession of faith, reflecting the inward reality of regeneration (the true circumcision of the heart).
Household baptism would be meaningless because only inwardly regenerated children are truly part of the Church.

B. Paedobaptist (Calvinistic/General Equity) Perspective

Visible Church = covenant households, including children not yet regenerated.
Baptism = outward covenant sign, anticipating future inward circumcision of the heart.
Elect children (the true remnant) will inevitably experience regeneration, fulfilling the inward reality.
The outward sign does not guarantee regeneration, but it marks covenant inclusion, exactly like circumcision in Israel.

3. Key Comparison

Feature	Credobaptist	Paedobaptist
Relation to Circumcision	Baptism is symbolic of inward reality; outward baptism only for the elect; circumcision fulfilled in regeneration	Baptism = new covenant circumcision; outward sign given to covenant children; inward reality (regeneration) happens in the elect
Inclusion of non-elect	Excluded; visible Church ideally = only elect	Included; visible Church = covenant children; elect = inward remnant
Election	Only outwardly baptized believers are elect	Outwardly baptized children include both elect and non-elect; inward circumcision ensures the elect are regenerated
Timing of inward circumcision	Precedes or coincides with baptism (for believers)	After baptism, as elect children are regenerated in God’s timing

4. Implication for Consistency

Credobaptism + unconditional election emphasizes alignment of outward sign with inward reality. Outward baptism only occurs after regeneration, mirroring “circumcision of the heart.”
Paedobaptism + unconditional election accepts temporal misalignment: outward covenant sign precedes inward reality, but regeneration is guaranteed for the elect children.
In terms of consistency:
- Credobaptists claim greater alignment between sign and inward reality.
- Paedobaptists claim greater continuity with covenantal household patterns in Scripture (Abrahamic, Mosaic, NT household baptisms), while preserving unconditional election.

✅ So, factoring in “circumcision of the heart,” credobaptism is more consistent in aligning outward baptism with inward regeneration, whereas paedobaptism is more consistent with covenant household continuity, anticipating inward reality in the elect.

If you want, I can draw a layered visual showing the timing and alignment of outward baptism vs. inward regeneration for paedo vs. credo, including covenant children, elect remnant, and “circumcision of the heart.” This usually makes the whole debate immediately clearer.

Do you want me to make that diagram?

Finally factor into this discussion these verses: Deut. 29:4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. Deut. 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. Ezek. 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. Ezek. 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,20 that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. Jer. 32:39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.

to some Calvinistic credobaptists It seems that Deut. 29:4 describes the Mosaic Covenant at that time, and Deut. 30:6 is prophetic of the New Covenant where God will unilaterally regenerate the elect who will then be included in the New Covenant. Meaning, the distinguishing difference between the Old Covenant and New Covenant is that those under the New Covenant WOULD ALL BE REGENERATE. Factor that in to the discussion of padeo vs credo we've had. Remembering all that has been written by both you and me.

Ah! Now we’re moving into the heart of the Calvinistic credobaptist argument grounded in the Deuteronomy and Ezekiel passages — this is a critical piece for integrating unconditional election, regeneration, and baptism practices. Let’s carefully factor this into the paedo vs. credo discussion with all the points we’ve discussed.

1. The Passages in Context

A. Deut. 29:4 vs. Deut. 30:6

Deut. 29:4: “But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to understand…”
- This describes Old Covenant Israel, where covenant membership was largely outward. Many were not truly regenerate; many could not obey in heart.
- Significance: Old Covenant had external inclusion but inward deficiency.
Deut. 30:6: “And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring…”
- This is prophetic of the New Covenant. God promises unilateral inward regeneration of His people.
- Significance: New Covenant Israel will all be inwardly faithful; everyone in the covenant will know the Lord in reality.

B. Ezekiel 36 & 11, Jer. 32

God repeatedly promises new hearts and new spirits, removal of heart of stone, Spirit within, fear of God written in hearts.
Repeatedly linked to covenant obedience and knowledge of God.
Consistency: New Covenant is defined by inward reality, not just outward signs.

2. Calvinistic Credobaptist Interpretation

Credobaptists often argue:

Old Covenant: outward covenant inclusion, but not all truly regenerate (Deut. 29:4).
New Covenant: all elect are unilaterally regenerated by God (Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 36:26–27; Jer. 32:39–40).
Because all in the New Covenant are actually regenerate, baptism should follow credible profession, ensuring alignment of outward sign and inward reality.
Household baptism (paedobaptism) risks applying a covenant sign to non-elect, which would contradict the New Covenant promise that all included in the covenant will know the Lord.

In short: the key distinction between Old and New Covenants is that New Covenant membership = actual regeneration, not just outward inclusion.

3. Implications for Paedo vs. Credo

A. Credobaptist Argument

Visible Church = only regenerated believers (true remnant).
Baptism follows credible faith, aligning outward sign with inward regeneration.
Unconditional election guarantees everyone baptized is truly regenerate, fulfilling Deut. 30:6 and Ezek. 36.

B. Paedobaptist Argument

Visible Church = covenant households, including children not yet outwardly believing.
Baptism = covenant sign anticipatory of inward reality.
Potential tension: New Covenant promise implies all in covenant will know the Lord (inward regeneration). How can outward baptism include children not yet regenerate?

Paedobaptists respond:

Regeneration will happen in the elect children, fulfilling the inward reality of the New Covenant.
The outward covenant sign anticipates regeneration — covenant continuity with Abrahamic/Mosaic households remains.
Visible inclusion of non-elect children mirrors Old Covenant practice, even though New Covenant guarantees inward reality for the elect.

4. Integration with “Circumcision of the Heart”

Credobaptists: baptism itself does not regenerate; regeneration = true circumcision of the heart. Outward baptism matches inward reality because only regenerate believers are baptized.
Paedobaptists: baptism anticipates circumcision of the heart in elect children. Not every baptized child is yet regenerate, but the promise of Deut. 30:6 applies to the elect within the covenant households, who will inevitably be circumcised in heart.

✅ Insight: The New Covenant promise that all included will know the Lord strengthens the credobaptist emphasis on alignment of outward sign and inward reality, but paedobaptists can maintain continuity by distinguishing visible covenant membership from inward regeneration, with regeneration assured for elect children.

5. Key Synthesis

Old Covenant: outward signs, partial regeneration (Deut. 29:4).
New Covenant: God guarantees inward regeneration for the elect (Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 36; Jer. 32).
Credobaptist logic: outward sign (baptism) should reflect this inward reality — only regenerate believers are baptized.
Paedobaptist logic: outward sign is anticipatory, as in Abrahamic households. Inward regeneration will realize the New Covenant promise in the elect.
Tension: credobaptism aligns perfectly with the inward regeneration guarantee. Paedobaptism emphasizes covenantal continuity, with the inward reality assured in the elect children.

If you want, I can now make a single integrated diagram showing:

Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
Outward signs vs. inward regeneration
Visible Church vs. invisible elect remnant
How paedobaptism anticipates regeneration vs. credobaptism waiting for it

It would make the full paedo vs. credo discussion very clear at a glance.

Do you want me to make that diagram?

But you didn't give a conclusion which is more consistent with the Biblical data. Given a final conclusion which one.

Got it — let’s pull everything together carefully and reach a final, reasoned conclusion based on all the Biblical data and reasoning we’ve discussed. I’ll be explicit about the reasoning chain.

1. Key Biblical Factors Already Discussed

Circumcision of the heart / regeneration as ultimate fulfillment of the covenant sign
- Col. 2:11–12, Rom. 2:28–29, Deut. 30:6, Ezek. 36:26–27, Jer. 32:39–40.
- True covenant inclusion is inward, spiritual, and guaranteed by God for the elect.
Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
- Deut. 29:4 – Old Covenant Israel had outward inclusion but not all regenerated.
- Deut. 30:6; Ezekiel 36/11 – New Covenant guarantees inward regeneration for all included (the elect).
- Key implication: under the New Covenant, outward inclusion ideally reflects inward regeneration.
Household inclusion in Scripture
- Abrahamic covenant: circumcision of infants, household inclusion.
- NT: some households baptized (Acts 16, 1 Cor. 1:16), showing continuity.
Remnant Israel / separation of the elect
- Romans 9:6, “not all Israel are of Israel.”
- Visible Church includes covenant members, but true inward reality belongs to the elect.
Credobaptist emphasis
- Baptism follows credible profession of faith, reflecting alignment of outward sign and inward reality.
- Aligns with unconditional election and New Covenant promise: all in covenant truly know God.
Paedobaptist emphasis
- Baptism is covenant sign anticipatory of inward regeneration.
- Continuity with Old Covenant household practices, even though outward baptism may include some not yet regenerated.

2. Analytical Comparison

Factor	Credobaptism	Paedobaptism
Alignment of outward sign & inward reality	High: only regenerate believers are baptized	Partial: outward sign anticipates inward regeneration, not everyone baptized is yet regenerate
Continuity with Abrahamic/Mosaic covenant	Lower: no infant inclusion	High: mirrors circumcision of infants in households
Consistency with New Covenant promises (Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 36:26)	High: all baptized truly know the Lord	Medium: inward reality guaranteed only for elect children, not all outwardly baptized
Reflection of Remnant Israel / separation of elect	High: outward baptism = inwardly elect	Medium: outward baptism includes non-elect, but inward remnant fulfills covenant
Role of regeneration / circumcision of the heart	Central: only regenerate baptized	Eventual: regeneration comes after baptism for elect children

3. Synthesis

The critical Biblical principle under the New Covenant is that all included in the covenant truly know the Lord (Deut. 30:6, Ezek. 36:26–27, Jer. 32:39–40).
Credobaptism directly reflects this: outward baptism corresponds to inward regeneration.
Paedobaptism maintains covenantal continuity but introduces a temporal misalignment: outward sign is given before inward regeneration is realized in some children.
Since the New Covenant promises inward reality for all included, this creates a subtle tension with paedobaptism if one insists on immediate reflection of inward regeneration.

4. Conclusion

From the perspective of New Covenant Biblical data and Calvinistic unconditional election, credobaptism is more consistent:

It aligns outward baptism with inward regeneration (the true circumcision of the heart).
It reflects the New Covenant promise that all included will know the Lord.
It highlights the separation of the elect (Remnant Israel) from the unregenerate within visible Israel.

Paedobaptism can still be defended on covenant continuity grounds, but it requires a distinction between outward sign and inward reality, introducing a temporal gap that credobaptism avoids.

✅ Final Judgment:

Calvinistic credobaptism is more consistent with the Biblical data concerning the New Covenant, inward circumcision, unconditional election, and the promise that all included in the covenant will know the Lord.

If you want, I can make a single visual chart showing all these layers—Old Covenant vs New Covenant, outward sign vs inward reality, paedo vs credo—so this conclusion is crystal clear.

Do you want me to do that?

Table for Crumbs

Thursday, November 20, 2025

Paedobaptism vs Credobaptism in Light of the Law and Covenants

✅ 1. The New Covenant Explicitly Includes the Nations (Gentiles)

Isaiah foresaw Gentile inclusion

Jesus’ commission includes literal nations

✅ 2. Gentiles in the NT Are Clearly Non-Israelite

Key examples:

✅ 3. The Early Church Was Filled With Non-Israelites

Example 1: Cornelius (Acts 10)

Example 2: Antioch (Acts 11:19–21)

✅ 4. The New Covenant Was Always Intended to Expand Beyond Israel

✅ 5. Paul Explicitly Rejects Ethnic Exclusivity

✅ 6. IO Depends on Linguistic and Hermeneutical Errors

★ Error 1: Claiming “Gentiles” means “dispersed Israelites”

★ Error 2: Confusing “lost sheep of Israel” with Gentiles

★ Error 3: Ignoring context in passages like Hosea

🚨 Summary: The IO Position Cannot Stand

You said:

ChatGPT said:

Which format would you like?

You said:

ChatGPT said:

1️⃣ VERSE-BY-VERSE REBUTTAL OF ISRAEL-ONLY PROOFTEXTS

▪ Matthew 15:24 — “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

▪ Jeremiah 31:31 — “A new covenant with the house of Israel and Judah.”

▪ Hosea 1–2 / Romans 9

▪ Ephesians 2 — “Gentiles in the flesh… strangers to the covenants”

▪ Romans 11 — The olive tree

▪ Matthew 28:19 — “Make disciples of all nations.”

2️⃣ HISTORICAL ANALYSIS: WHERE THE ISRAEL-ONLY DOCTRINE CAME FROM

▪ Not held by early Jews, early Christians, or any classical theologians

▪ Rooted in 19th–20th century fringe movements

▪ Why scholars reject IO unanimously

Academic consensus (Jewish, Christian, Catholic, Protestant, secular) is that:

4️⃣ LONG ACADEMIC REBUTTAL (DETAILED THEOLOGY + CONTEXT)

I. Linguistic Foundations

Greek: ἔθνη (ethnē)

Hebrew: גּוֹיִם (goyim)

II. Covenant Theology and Narrative Flow

A. Old Testament expectation

B. Jesus’ ministry

C. Acts: Gentile inclusion as a divine act

D. Paul’s theology

III. Anthropological/Historical Evidence

The early church was majority Gentile by 100 AD

IV. The New Covenant as Universal

✔ Summary of the Whole Case

You said:

ChatGPT said:

1. The Original Old Testament Context

Hosea 6:6

WHAT IT MEANT IN HOSEA’S DAY

2. How Jesus Uses the Phrase

A. Matthew 9:13 – Eating with tax collectors and sinners

B. Matthew 12:7 – Plucking grain on the Sabbath

**3. Did Jesus Mean It Exactly the Same Way as Hosea?

Yes and no — both continuity and development.

Same meaning (continuity):

Expanded meaning (development):

4. Summary: What the Phrase Means in Both Contexts

In Hosea:

In Jesus:

**So Jesus didn’t reinterpret Hosea;

5. The Key Theological Insight

You said:

ChatGPT said:

1. The Story in Numbers 15:32–36 — What’s Actually Going On?

2. The Man in Numbers 15 Was Not Innocently Meeting a Need

Immediately before the story is a crucial section (Numbers 15:30–31):

Meaning: the stick-gatherer is meant to be seen as an example of intentional defiance — a “high-handed” sin.

3. Why Gathering Sticks Was Serious

4. Jesus’ Disciples Were Not Violating Mosaic Law

A. Plucking grain on the Sabbath was permitted

5. Jesus’ Core Argument: Mercy Interprets the Law

6. Why the Stick-Gatherer and the Disciples Are Totally Different Cases

A. The man in Numbers 15:

B. Jesus’ disciples:

7. Jesus Isn’t Undermining Moses — He’s Correcting the Pharisees’ Additions

8. Key Insight: The Issue Is Not “Work vs. Not-Work” — It’s “Rebellion vs. Mercy.”

**B. But the Mosaic form of the Ten Commandments was covenantally conditioned**

**A. Abraham was justified before circumcision**

**4. Which Position Follows More Directly From What You Affirmed?**