# Welty's Paper:Dealing with Calvin's second assumption



## Mocha (Jul 7, 2006)

*Welty\'s Paperealing with Calvin\'s second assumption*

In Greg Welty's paper "From Circumcision to Baptism: A Baptist Covenantal Rejoiner to John Calvin", he states in his introduction his purpose for writing it. He says:



> Calvin's argument for infant baptism (which has become the standard justification for the practice in Reformed paedobaptist churches) applies to the church God's command that Abraham circumcise his household, and appeals to the New Testament analogy between circumcision and baptism as a strong confirmation of this application. *In this paper I argue that Calvin (and his Reformed paedobaptist heirs) misapplies the command and miscontrues the analogy.*


 
Welty deals with the paedobaptist argument by looking at two assumptions by Calvin. They are:



> First, Calvin contends that baptism and circumcision are interchangable in their meaning, signifying the same promises and therefore the same redemptive realities.


 
AND



> Second, Calvin contends that God's command to Abraham to circumcise his household (Gen 17) is applicable to the church today by way of baptism, due to the fundamental continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant with the New Covenant.


 
In this post I want to only focus on the second point. 

In response to Calvin's second assumption, Welty says:



> According to Gal 3:17, the Abrahamic Covenant is not wholly invalidated, but rather continues in some form today, especially in terms of its promises.



But he goes on to say:



> What was the heresy of the Judaizers in the book of Galations? Fundamentally, their error was to contend that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings. Thus, according to them, Gentile converts were required to be circumcised in order to be members of the family of God. But in this they were greatly mistaken, for in the New Covenant order of things, "circumcision is nothing" (1 Cor 7:19), and "neither circumcision or uncircumcision means anything" (Gal 5:6; cf. Gal 6:15). What they took to be essential to this everlasting covenant was in fact nonessential, and therefore done away with.
> 
> While this error is ususally not as serious as that of the Judaizers, *the paedobaptist commits a similar error, by contending that the command to apply a covenant sign to one's children is essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, and its promises and blessings. But surely, if the Judaizers were in error on this score, then so are the paedobaptists.* For the only command in redemptive history, to the effect that a covenant sign should be applied to one's children, is precisely the command which Paul has said is completely abolished: the command to circumcise the members of one's household...Thus, if this command is of no authority to contemporary Christians, neither is the practice the paedobaptist infers from it: infant baptism.



Further down he says:



> Paedobaptists often appear offended at the notion that God would "kick babies out of the covenant". But the blunt reality is that babies were "kicked out" of the covenant when the only command that ever put them "in" the covenant was explicitly said by subsequent apostolic authority to be "nothing" (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6) and non-binding on Gentiles (Acts 15:5,28).



Again, like Welty's first point, I would like to know how the paedobaptist deals with this.

[Edited on 7-7-2006 by Mocha]


----------



## MW (Jul 7, 2006)

This post is written with the same proviso as the previous one.



> What was the heresy of the Judaizers in the book of Galations? Fundamentally, their error was to contend that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings. Thus, according to them, Gentile converts were required to be circumcised in order to be members of the family of God. But in this they were greatly mistaken, for in the New Covenant order of things, "circumcision is nothing" (1 Cor 7:19), and "neither circumcision or uncircumcision means anything" (Gal 5:6; cf. Gal 6:15). What they took to be essential to this everlasting covenant was in fact nonessential, and therefore done away with.



The error of the Judaizers was (1.) exclusivity, denying salvation by grace to Gentiles; and (2.) externalism, making the external mark to be the all in all, thereby confusing the sign and the thing signified.



> While this error is ususally not as serious as that of the Judaizers, *the paedobaptist commits a similar error, by contending that the command to apply a covenant sign to one's children is essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, and its promises and blessings. But surely, if the Judaizers were in error on this score, then so are the paedobaptists.* For the only command in redemptive history, to the effect that a covenant sign should be applied to one's children, is precisely the command which Paul has said is completely abolished: the command to circumcise the members of one's household...Thus, if this command is of no authority to contemporary Christians, neither is the practice the paedobaptist infers from it: infant baptism.



Another irrelevant conclusion. If his premise stands, the conclusion should be that there are no external signs at all, which would include baptism.

But that baptism has come in the place of circumcision is clear from vv. 27, 29. Those who are baptised into Christ have put on Christ, are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.



> Paedobaptists often appear offended at the notion that God would "kick babies out of the covenant". But the blunt reality is that babies were "kicked out" of the covenant when the only command that ever put them "in" the covenant was explicitly said by subsequent apostolic authority to be "nothing" (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6) and non-binding on Gentiles (Acts 15:5,28).



Now here the author commits the same error as the Judaisers, confusing the sign for the thing signified. The sign of circumcision under the OT and baptism under the NT is administered to children because they are in covenant. All the author has shown is that the sign is abolished, not the thing signified by the sign, which is covenant inclusion.


----------



## Mocha (Jul 10, 2006)

Rev. Matthew,

Welty said:



> What was the heresy of the Judaizers in the book of Galations? Fundamentally, their error was to contend that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings. Thus, according to them, Gentile converts were required to be circumcised in order to be members of the family of God. But in this they were greatly mistaken, for in the New Covenant order of things, "circumcision is nothing" (1 Cor 7:19), and "neither circumcision or uncircumcision means anything" (Gal 5:6; cf. Gal 6:15). What they took to be essential to this everlasting covenant was in fact nonessential, and therefore done away with.



You responded with:



> The error of the Judaizers was (1.) exclusivity, denying salvation by grace to Gentiles; and (2.) externalism, making the external mark to be the all in all, thereby confusing the sign and the thing signified.



Cannot you and Welty both be right regarding the Judaizers?

Welty said:



> While this error is ususally not as serious as that of the Judaizers, the paedobaptist commits a similar error, by contending that the command to apply a covenant sign to one's children is essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, and its promises and blessings. But surely, if the Judaizers were in error on this score, then so are the paedobaptists. For the only command in redemptive history, to the effect that a covenant sign should be applied to one's children, is precisely the command which Paul has said is completely abolished: the command to circumcise the members of one's household...Thus, if this command is of no authority to contemporary Christians, neither is the practice the paedobaptist infers from it: infant baptism.



You responded with:



> Another irrelevant conclusion. If his premise stands, the conclusion should be that there are no external signs at all, which would include baptism.
> 
> But that baptism has come in the place of circumcision is clear from vv. 27, 29. Those who are baptised into Christ have put on Christ, are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.



I think he means that there is no sign given in the New Covenant to perpetuate the Abrahamic Covenant. Instead there is a sign given that relates to the New Covenant.

Welty said:



> Paedobaptists often appear offended at the notion that God would "kick babies out of the covenant". But the blunt reality is that babies were "kicked out" of the covenant when the only command that ever put them "in" the covenant was explicitly said by subsequent apostolic authority to be "nothing" (1 Cor 7:19; Gal 5:6) and non-binding on Gentiles (Acts 15:5,28).



You responded with:



> Now here the author commits the same error as the Judaisers, confusing the sign for the thing signified. The sign of circumcision under the OT and baptism under the NT is administered to children because they are in covenant. All the author has shown is that the sign is abolished, not the thing signified by the sign, which is covenant inclusion.



Circumcision related to the Abrahamic Covenant administration of the CoG, whereas Baptism relates to the New Covenant administration of the CoG. Again we see a degree of discontinuity within continuity. If we fail to see that there is a degree of discontinuity, we'll all be paedobaptists. 



Mike


----------



## MW (Jul 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> I think he means that there is no sign given in the New Covenant to perpetuate the Abrahamic Covenant. Instead there is a sign given that relates to the New Covenant.



To a reformed paedobaptist there is no *substantial* difference between the two covenants, both being different administrations of the one covenant of grace; so that when baptism is initiated as a sign of the new covenant it stands also as a sign for the substance of the Abrahamic covenant. Let's begin with the apostle Paul in Gal. 3, where he speaks of those who are baptised into Christ putting on Christ, and at the same time says they are Abraham's seed, vv. 27, 29.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 11, 2006)

> What was the heresy of the Judaizers in the book of Galations? Fundamentally, their error was to contend that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings. Thus, according to them, Gentile converts were required to be circumcised in order to be members of the family of God. But in this they were greatly mistaken, for in the New Covenant order of things, "circumcision is nothing" (1 Cor 7:19), and "neither circumcision or uncircumcision means anything" (Gal 5:6; cf. Gal 6:15). What they took to be essential to this everlasting covenant was in fact nonessential, and therefore done away with.


Welty is just flat wrong about the error of the Judaizers in Galatians. Read Galatians 3-4 for yourself. Nowhere does Paul once condemn the Judaizers for their trust in the sign "...as essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant." He misses the "fundamental" problem of the Judaizers. In fact, as I'll show, the Judaizers aren't even preserving the Abrahamic Covenant in the least. Listen to Paul:


> Galations 3
> 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth,[a] before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: *Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain"”if indeed it was in vain?
> 5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?*


The error was trust in the Law. The error was a reliance upon the Law as a means of Justification. So who does Paul roll out as an example that the Judaizers' belief is all wet? Abraham!


> 6 just as Abraham "œbelieved God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."[c] 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "œIn you all the nations shall be blessed."[d] 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.


Paul then returns to the point that he repeatedly hammers regarding the Judaizing heresy. He says it so often that one cannot miss his repeated refrain: Justification by the Law only brings a curse. So much for your trust in the Law Judiazers.


> 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "œCursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."[e] 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "œthe just shall live by faith."[f] 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "œthe man who does them shall live by them."[g]
> 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "œCursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"[h]), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


"You knucklhead Judaizers! Circumcision isn't even _about_ keeping the Law!" is what Paul says here (Covenant Theology 101):


> 15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man´s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "œAnd to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "œAnd to your Seed,"_who is Christ. 17 *And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ,[j] that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.*_


_
Who do you think Paul is correcting here if not the Judaizers who think that Circumcision=Torah Keeping=Righteousness. This is the error that Paul is rebuking. Paul doesn't even have a problem with the physical act of circumcision, per se, but if you circumcise for the reason the Judaizers want you to then you've rejected the Gospel because you've rejected Grace.

Frankly, the problem with Welty's argument is that he needs to go back and read Galatians. This is frankly my biggest complaint as I've interacted with some other Baptists on these texts. Philip A alluded earlier to the way Welty wrests "circumcision is to no avail" snippets out of context and their meaning as Paul uses them. It's like Philip stated earlier, if you come to the text looking to justify Baptism and separate it from Circumcision then you run the danger of doing what Welty does by blowing by the basic error of the Judaizers. It turns the error on its head from Paul condemning the Judaizers for trusting in the Law (when it could only bring a curse) to an error of tying the sign to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Judiazers weren't even looking at the Abrahamic Covenant but were preserving their perversion of it!

Thus, the basic "error" here is Welty's exegesis of Galatians 3. Since he misses the point of Paul's condemnation of the Judaizers, he applies an erroneous conclusion to paedobaptism.

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by SemperFideles]_


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 11, 2006)

Rich and Rev Winzer are correct.

To achieve his goal of eliminating paedobaptism, Welty has errected two false spremises by revising the nature of problem in Galatians. If he can succeed in identifying paedobaptists with the Judaizers he wins.

Premise 1: The "covenant of grace" is not the new covenant. 

Here he begs the question in favor of the Baptist position, that the New Covenant is not consubstantial with the Abrahamic and covenant of grace.

Premise 2: The issue in Galatians the use of a sign and seal of initiation and not righteousness before God. Here he seems to be revising a bit of the New Perspective, making the question not righteousness justice before God but who is "in" and who is "out" relative to badges/signs of the covenant.

This premise is, of course, hotly disputed by a wide range of NT scholars and theologians from a number of traditions.

I wonder whether Welty, as a Baptist, would be willing to concede that "baptism is nothing?"

I guess not.

rsc


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...


Excellent point Paul. BTW, I was listening to the Unchained Radio podcast today. You were a pretty popular topic of discussion.

Gene asked one of your friends that called in: "Are you a baptist?" to which your friend replied he was a Presbyterian. Gene noted that you can be pretty tenacious in your discussions with him on paedobaptism. Keep up the good work. Gene's got a good show but he needs to be _thoroughly_ Reformed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Indeed, we see many OT promises to covenant children being applied to new covenant children (cf. Eph. 6, children honor your mother and father, this is the first commandment with a promise). etcetera....


Quite so, in fact in that passage Paul is _commanding children_ to do something. Reformed Christians should recognize that those outside the Covenant are not bound to perform any of the obligations of those within it. Of course Baptists treat their kids like they are bound to the obligations of the Covenant all the time by dragging them to Church along with them and making them full participants in the Covenant life of the Church.

All the demands of Covenant participation, that is, without the privilege of recognition that they are really a part of it. "Son, you may be among us but you're not _of_ us...."

[Edited on 7-14-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## bradofshaw (Jul 14, 2006)

> All the demands of Covenant participation, that is, without the privilege of recognition that they are really a part of it. "Son, you may be among us but you're not of us...."



I don't want to misrepresent any based on statements' I've come across in personal discussions, but has anyone else come across this sentiment? A credo baptists I've talked with really doesn't see the church (or what we would call the visable church) as the expression of the covenant. Rather, it is simply an association of believers, a club if you will, instituted by humans to encourage each other on their way to heaven. 

I can see that the credo reasoning leads straight to this conclusion. If the covenant of Grace is only made with the elect, and we cannot know who the elect are, at best the church is a club of self-professed elect who's membership may or may not reflect the "true" covenant community of the elect (what we would call the invisible church).


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 16, 2006)

Their system is logical in its own paradigm but completely illogical in a paedeo paradigm. Hence the constant points of frustration. 

It all hinges on bringing on "the not yet" factor of end times when it is boiled down. I've heard even Dr. Piper express that what infant baptizing churches "fail" to see is that "now", the NT church, is being constituted radically different than the OT church. When one confuses the "now" with the "not yet" side of eschat., when the "œnot yet" is "œbrought into THIS time and space (now) too much this is the result and the far far end logical extension is radical dispensationalism (this seems to be a point that Matthew has made well). 

But, faith itself is structured on this "now" and "not yet" both in the OT and NT, faith is eschat. (both Reformed and Lutherans affirm this) because it "sits" on a promise "not yet" realized.

In the OT they too confused and attempted to bring in the "œnot yet" portion of the church, this is the whole confusion surrounding Jesus during His 3 year ministry. They thought He was going to reign in the final glory, Israel (the church) in finality. So, they looked for a conquering Messiah and not a Suffering Servant beat upon a bloody Cross. This too lead them to all sorts of legal misconceptions of the covenant and confusing Moses with Abraham, etc"¦

In the NT church Rome attempted this same thing with ex opera operato, in reigning in a church of power in the "œnow" with its links to State government. As a former Jew now Christian once pointed out, forgot his name at the moment, the error that both Rome and Believers only make concerning baptism is this one-to-one relationship with it and conversion: Rome gives it to "œcause" conversion and Believers only give it to the best their tools allow them to discern conversion within the candidate. Babies have no reasoning ability so they cannot affirm faith. This puts reason above faith in reality.

Credo paradigms similarly view the NT church as "œbeing constituted radically different NOW". They bring in the "œnot yet" factor by posing that "œnow" the church should be fully regenerate. When this happens the problem with sin in the church is diagnosed as a lack of regenerate membership. To fix this we must "œratchet" down on detecting this so as to produce a "œregenerate" membership, a more pure population per se. When this is done the Law and Gospel distinction goes out the window at length and its law, law and more law. But not killing law but law appealing to the will of man.

However, when the "œnot yet" portion is eliminated or confused as in a radically different constituted church, faith becomes weaker in the church because the promissory portion is pretended to be "œrealized" and who can believe (trust for) in what he already has?

In a sense it goes back to what Luther once said if the baptism of infants were to be ceased, then baptism looses its Gospel witness "“ even unto the adults and becomes a legal baptism (rebaptisms and so forth).

Loosing this eschat. Edge or confusing it at length damages the faith of the believer both individually and corporately.

Blessing,

Larry


----------

