Ron Stated: Maybe you might tell me what God meant by saying that an infant could break covenant if the parent did not have him circumcised.

Pilgrim States: Sure! There was a nationalistic aspect and a salvific aspect. As we both affirm, "not all Israel is of Israel".... yet ALL were of Israel in respect of being part of the nation of Israel. The breaking of the covenant was the breaking of the external relationship to which the person belonged. One who was part of the Covenant of Grace, (spiritual aspect) could never break the covenant. For that would mean that they could lose the salvation which was promised as part and parcel of that Covenant. One cannot be "in covenant" in the salvific sense and then break that covenant. This would be to deny the efficacy of the covenant and promise which God established with the "seed"; i.e., those in Christ.

Pilgrim,

This is extremely weak. In fact I’m rather surprised that you would employ such an argument. There was no national aspect to the Abrahamic covenant or the covenant of grace. The promise was a people, a land and redemption, which are fulfilled in the true church, heaven and Christ. Moreover, God commanded circumcision 430 years prior to the formation of the nation of Israel. Even if we were to consider the external people of God under Moses, for an infant to have broken covenant did not merely mean he was no longer part of the nation of Israel. It meant that he was no longer to be treated as part of the spiritual people of God. Given my initial question from above, your response would indicate that you believe that to break covenant under Abraham was to no longer be part of the nation under God – which wasn’t even in existence!

Blessings,

Ron