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



## Mocha (Jul 7, 2006)

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 first point. 

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



> ...according to biblical record, circumcision signified specific promises and blessings that baptism does not signify, and has never signified. God made many promises to Abraham in the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17, which confirmed the covenant of Genesis 15), and circumcision signified the promises of that covenant. For instance: "I will make you very fruitful" (physical descendants as many as the stars in the sky) - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "you will be a father of many nations" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "kings will come from you" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "the whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. *Thus, the meaning of circumcision and baptism are not interchangeable.* Here there has clearly been a change in meaning: the specific, earthly, generational promises are no longer signified.



He goes on to say:



> Since paedobaptists already accept...that there has in fact been a change in sign, meaning of sign, and recipients of sign, they will be very hard pressed indeed to insist that fundamental continuity ensures infant recipients of sign.



Further down he says:



> ...even if OT circumcision signified spiritual needs and spiritual realities, it also has been abolished because its prophetic significance was fulfilled in Christ.
> 
> ...Calvin continually presses the critic to acknowledge that circumcision signifies spiritual realities also signified in baptism, inferring that if this overlap of meaning is really there, then we ought to apply baptism to infants. *But one might as well argue that since OT sacrifices signified spiritual realities, we have warrant for continuing their use today. Clearly, we do not.* In each case, it was the typological, forward-looking nature of the OT statute that prophesied its own obsolescence when the fullness of time drew near in the New Covenant.



I find these points very convincing. I would be very interested in seeing how the paedobaptist deals with them.


----------



## MW (Jul 7, 2006)

I offer the following remarks, not to enter into a debate on the subject, but to provide a basic answer as to how a paedobaptist might respond to the paper quoted.



> ...according to biblical record, circumcision signified specific promises and blessings that baptism does not signify, and has never signified. God made many promises to Abraham in the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17, which confirmed the covenant of Genesis 15), and circumcision signified the promises of that covenant. For instance: "I will make you very fruitful" (physical descendants as many as the stars in the sky) - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "you will be a father of many nations" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "kings will come from you" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "the whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. *Thus, the meaning of circumcision and baptism are not interchangeable.* Here there has clearly been a change in meaning: the specific, earthly, generational promises are no longer signified.



This is a reductionist argument. No covenant theologian denies that there are temporal promises signified in the covenant made with Abraham; but it is maintained,
(1.) These have an eschatological fulfilment in Christ who is the true Seed of Abraham. Hence to come to Christ is to find that rest which was signified in the land of Canaan, Heb. 4.
(2.) Besides these temporal benefits, there were bona fide spiritual blessings bestowed upon Abraham and his seed, as the apostle notes in Romans, both in chapters 4 and 9.
Now neither of these facts provide any rationale for creating a disjunction between the significance of circumcision and baptism so far as the spiritual benefits of the covenant of grace are concerned.



> Since paedobaptists already accept...that there has in fact been a change in sign, meaning of sign, and recipients of sign, they will be very hard pressed indeed to insist that fundamental continuity ensures infant recipients of sign.



The Lord of the covenant was quite within His rights to change the sign, as He also did in the case of Passover/Lord's supper. Paedobatpists do not acknowledge a change in the meaning of the sign, except with respect to (1.) above, in terms of eschatological fulfilment. As for the recipients of the sign, it is a petitio principii. The premise he assumes to arrive at his conclusion, is the very point in debate.



> ...even if OT circumcision signified spiritual needs and spiritual realities, it also has been abolished because its prophetic significance was fulfilled in Christ.



This is an irrelevant conclusion. Where has he established that fulfilment in Christ leads to abolition? Christ fulfilled the moral law, "honour thy father and thy mother," yet the apostle insists that this commandment is still very much in force, Eph. 6.

To establish that fulfilment infers abolition he would have to prove that the inclusion of infants in the covenant of grace under the OT was ceremonial as opposed to moral. This is the prick that antipaedobaptists have been kicking against for centuries now, and it is still as sharp as ever.


----------



## Philip A (Jul 7, 2006)

Let me preface my comments by letting you know that over the last few months I´ve come around to the paedobaptist position from what I would previously have called a "œReformed" and "œCovenantal" Baptist position. I had first learned Covenant Theology from Richard Barcellos, and had read through his writings on the subject, as well as those by Welty, Malone, Tombes, Coxe, etc., and every Reformed Baptist Theological Review to date. I say that to make it clear that I am at this point arguing against my former self just as much as I am against Welty.

Welty does a good job of identifying circumcision as one of the central elements in the debate, but he falls short in that he misconstrues the meaning of circumcision. If you take a wrong turn at the very start, then whatever you do subsequent to that is of no consequence.

He does the same thing that I did when he deals with the paedobaptist argument regarding the meaning of circumcision "“ he acknowledges it, and then promptly ignores it. He cites a hypothetical response from a paedobaptist on page 7:


> circumcision points to inward cleansing (Deut 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4, 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7; Rom 2:28-29)


and follows it up by admitting that this "œcalls for an examination of these other texts", but then proceeds to hand waving to dismiss them without the called for examination. Welty says, as you quoted,


> But one might as well argue that since OT sacrifices signified spiritual realities, we have warrant for continuing their use today. Clearly, we do not.


This completely ignores the fact that we have _explicit_ NT texts abolishing the OT sacrifices, which is not the case for applying the covenant signs to children. But not only is the reason for his dismissal of the texts terribly flawed, but in place of them he goes rooting around in Genesis 17 and elsewhere making bad inferences, and then bases much of his subsequent reasoning on that misidentification of the meaning of circumcision.

Also, his argument on page 6 about the "œhistorical-redemptive significance of Abraham´s circumcision" being prophetical of the inclusion of the gentiles is rather far-fetched; I was surprised to see him try and make this argument. Again, he ignores the explicit reason given in scripture for Abraham´s circumcision "“ "œit shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you" (Gen 17:11) and tries to back out from Romans 4 a wrongly inferred meaning. Paul is not at all saying "œthis is what circumcision _means_", he is making an argument from the _circumstances_ of Abraham´s circumcision to prove his point that possessing the sign of the covenant is not necessary in order to possess the substance of the covenant, and that is exactly what the Judaizers were arguing "“ no circumcision, no salvation (see WCF 28:5).

On page 8 he says:


> It is quite plausible to hold that circumcision was specifically applied to the seed of the OT people of God in virtue of this prophetic significance of the sign itself.


Again, he is arguing on the basis of "œit is plausible for us to hold that circumcision means this", over and against the texts of scripture that say "œcircumcision means this". This was my favorite trump card, the argument from "œprophetic significance" or "œtypology", which at the end of the day is speculative at best. I could use it to dismiss any argument from the Old Testament that I didn´t like, but in reality it´s just an _ipse dixit_.

Welty also makes a few faux pas that take away from the credibility of his arguments. For instance, he accuses paedobaptists of using "œabbreviated or paraphrased "˜citations´" (footnote 3, page 4), but he then proceeds to do the same thing on page 10, where he throws out his own abbreviated citations of "œcircumcision is nothing" (1 Cor 7:19), and "œneither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything" Gal 5:6), without addressing the context or the sense in which Paul meant those statements to be taken, or reconciling them to other places where Paul says "œcircumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law" (Rom 2:25) or "œThen what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way"¦" (Rom 3:1-2). When I quote snippets of these texts the way he does with the others, I can make them appear to say the exact opposite of what Welty tries to make the others say.

To sum up, Welty dismisses explicit biblical texts on the meaning of circumcision in favor of his own misconstrued meaning of it, and bases his reasoning on that. His error was the same as mine was; I was ignorant of the spiritual meaning of circumcision, and hence made up my own meaning of it to fit with my theology. Any subsequent arguments based on that premise are all invalid.

[Edited on 7-7-2006 by Philip A]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 7, 2006)

In regards to what Phillip has said: I didn't get past the 4th paragraph before I saw him shooting himself in the foot. As I had previously mentioned to van Vos (Jonathan) earlier today: If the covenant can be equated with a chess board and the pieces the parts that make up the bible, Welty did not even see the pawns he had on the board. Missing the foundational elements that anchor the covenant and paedo theology will always lead one into credobaptism. I can't blame Welty; if he saw the pawns, he would be by default paedobaptist.

I still need to finish the paper.


----------



## Mocha (Jul 8, 2006)

Rev. Matthew,

You said:



> I offer the following remarks, not to enter into a debate on the subject, but to provide a basic answer as to how a paedobaptist might respond to the paper quoted.



Thank you for responding. Actually, I'm not looking for a debate either. I have been struggling with this subject for quite a while and when I read Greg Welty's paper, it made a lot of sense to me. So, I thought I would get it onto the Puritan board, so that those who are more informed on the subject can comment on it, and hopefully I can learn by it.

Welty said:



> ...according to biblical record, circumcision signified specific promises and blessings that baptism does not signify, and has never signified. God made many promises to Abraham in the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17, which confirmed the covenant of Genesis 15), and circumcision signified the promises of that covenant. For instance: "I will make you very fruitful" (physical descendants as many as the stars in the sky) - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "you will be a father of many nations" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "kings will come from you" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "the whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Thus, the meaning of circumcision and baptism are not interchangeable. Here there has clearly been a change in meaning: the specific, earthly, generational promises are no longer signified.



You responded by saying:



> This is a reductionist argument. No covenant theologian denies that there are temporal promises signified in the covenant made with Abraham; but it is maintained,
> (1.) These have an eschatological fulfilment in Christ who is the true Seed of Abraham. Hence to come to Christ is to find that rest which was signified in the land of Canaan, Heb. 4.
> (2.) Besides these temporal benefits, there were bona fide spiritual blessings bestowed upon Abraham and his seed, as the apostle notes in Romans, both in chapters 4 and 9.
> Now neither of these facts provide any rationale for creating a disjunction between the significance of circumcision and baptism so far as the spiritual benefits of the covenant of grace are concerned.



I don't think you really answered Welty's main point in that quote. He said:



> ...according to biblical record, circumcision signified specific promises and blessings that baptism does not signify, and has never signified.



Would you agree with that quote or not?

Welty said:



> Since paedobaptists already accept...that there has in fact been a change in sign, meaning of sign, and recipients of sign, they will be very hard pressed indeed to insist that fundamental continuity ensures infant recipients of sign.



You responded by saying:



> The Lord of the covenant was quite within His rights to change the sign, as He also did in the case of Passover/Lord's supper. Paedobatpists do not acknowledge a change in the meaning of the sign, except with respect to (1.) above, in terms of eschatological fulfilment. As for the recipients of the sign, it is a petitio principii. The premise he assumes to arrive at his conclusion, is the very point in debate.



Paedo's believe there has been a change from the rite of circumcision to the rite of baptism in three ways:

1) Change in recipients 
- from males only (circumcision) to males and females (baptism)

2) Change in the sign
- from circumcision to baptism

3) Change in the meaning of the sign
- circumcision signified *specific promises and blessings* that baptism does not signify, and has never signified.

Can any paedo deny these three points?

In case you think that Welty is saying that there is no continuity between the signs, let me quote him, where he says:



> The disagreement is over degree, not over the fact, of continuity and discontinuity



Is there anything that he has said here that is debatable? I would think that both paedo's and credo's would be in full agreement on what he has said on this point. If not, please point it out.

Welty said:



> ...even if OT circumcision signified spiritual needs and spiritual realities, it also has been abolished because its prophetic significance was fulfilled in Christ.



You responded by saying:



> This is an irrelevant conclusion. Where has he established that fulfilment in Christ leads to abolition? Christ fulfilled the moral law, "honour thy father and thy mother," yet the apostle insists that this commandment is still very much in force, Eph. 6.
> 
> To establish that fulfilment infers abolition he would have to prove that the inclusion of infants in the covenant of grace under the OT was ceremonial as opposed to moral. This is the prick that antipaedobaptists have been kicking against for centuries now, and it is still as sharp as ever.



I should have typed out more from his paper to give more context to his explanation. Perhaps the following quote will be better in explaining his point. He says:



> It is quite easy to diagnose what has gone wrong in the paedobaptist inference from infant circumcision to infant baptism. The fact that circumcision may signify redemptive needs and realities (such as forgiveness and cleansing) does not by itself exhaust the meaning of circumcision. In addition, circumcision had a prophetic significance, pointing to and signifying the promised Seed to come. Every OT believer was well aware that the promised Messiah, the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15), was to come from their loins, from the seed of Abraham, through whom would come blessing for the nations. It is quite plausible to hold that circumcision was specifically applied to the seed of the OT people in virtue of this prophetic significance being fulfilled in Christ, that the sign was abolished. The Seed to whom the Abrahamic promises referred had come. On this view, there is no need to perpetuate within the New Covenant some baptismal practice analogous to circumcision and applicable to infants. Not because there is no over lap of meaning between circumcision and baptism (perhaps there is), but because the typology of infant circumcision has been fulfilled.



And further down he says:



> It would be as obtuse to reimpose circumcision on infants today (by way of infant baptism), on the grounds that OT circumcision signified the unchanging human need for cleansing and forgiveness, as it would be to reimpose some new set of sacrifices today, on the grounds that the OT sacrifices signified the unchanging human need for forgiveness. The fact of the matter is that although the OT sacrifices signified spiritual needs and spiritual realities, they were abolished because their prophetic significance was fulfilled in Christ.



Again, thanks for the feedback!

Mike

[Edited on 7-8-2006 by Mocha]


----------



## Mocha (Jul 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> In regards to what Phillip has said: I didn't get past the 4th paragraph before I saw him shooting himself in the foot. As I had previously mentioned to van Vos (Jonathan) earlier today: If the covenant can be equated with a chess board and the pieces the parts that make up the bible, Welty did not even see the pawns he had on the board. Missing the foundational elements that anchor the covenant and paedo theology will always lead one into credobaptism. I can't blame Welty; if he saw the pawns, he would be by default paedobaptist.
> 
> I still need to finish the paper.



How did he shoot himself in the foot specifically? It's hard to respond to such general comments. Show me what part of his argument is wrong. If you can, please type out the specific argument you are disagreeing with.


----------



## Mocha (Jul 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> Let me preface my comments by letting you know that over the last few months I´ve come around to the paedobaptist position from what I would previously have called a "œReformed" and "œCovenantal" Baptist position. I had first learned Covenant Theology from Richard Barcellos, and had read through his writings on the subject, as well as those by Welty, Malone, Tombes, Coxe, etc., and every Reformed Baptist Theological Review to date. I say that to make it clear that I am at this point arguing against my former self just as much as I am against Welty.
> 
> Welty does a good job of identifying circumcision as one of the central elements in the debate, but he falls short in that he misconstrues the meaning of circumcision. If you take a wrong turn at the very start, then whatever you do subsequent to that is of no consequence.
> ...



Philip,

Thank you for your response! I appreciate the time and effort you put into it. It deserves a response but today I'm not going to be able to get to it. On Monday I'll take a stab at responding to it.

Mike


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Mike,
I thought I was clear above; It is his hermeneutic. He does not rightly divide the subject he is dealing with because he doesn't understand the covenant. He has the cart in front of the horse. The issue is not baptism or circumcision; it is _the_ covenant.

[Edited on 7-8-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## MW (Jul 9, 2006)

> I don't think you really answered Welty's main point in that quote.



I showed that paedobaptists maintain Welty's point under subpoint 1, eschatological fulfilment in Christ. What I also said is that this is a reductionist argument. Under subpoint 2, I maintain that there were spiritual benefits which were signified by circumcision which the OT saints partook of, and which are the same with the benefits that NT saints partake of, and are signified by baptism, Rom. 4 and 9. In other words, the author's mention of benefits in circumcision which are not to be found in baptism does not negate the fact that there are still covenant-benefits which both signify. By reducing his argument to deal with subpoint 1, he has not negated subpoint 2.



> Paedo's believe there has been a change from the rite of circumcision to the rite of baptism in three ways:
> 
> 1) Change in recipients
> - from males only (circumcision) to males and females (baptism)
> ...



1) There is no change in recipients; as the males represented their households, the households were included under the blessing. There is only an addition of female baptism to represent that in Christ there is neither male or female. The same applies to nationality. It is not restricted to Israelites and strangers dwelling with them.

2) There is a change in the sign. But by so saying there is an implicit acceptance of the fact that the thing signified is the same in both Testaments.

3) If the implicit acceptance of point 2 is agreed upon, then there is no change in the meaning of the sign per se.



> In case you think that Welty is saying that there is no continuity between the signs, let me quote him, where he says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is no problem here. The difference between the benefits of the Old and New Testament is one of degree, not kind. If this is the case, there is a contradiction with what was said under subpoint 3) above.



> Welty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I read the paper when it was first brought to the attention of the Puritan boards. I will repeat here what I said there. He does not deal with THE fundamental argument of paedobaptism, namely, that when God takes a man into covenant with Him, He takes all that a man is and has, body and soul; and in Scripture a man's seed is as much a part of a man as his body is. It is this *moral* obligation which Dr. Welty's paper does not deal with. Simply alluding to the ceremonial aspects of circumcision does not suffice. Yes circumcision itself is abolished as a ceremonial requirement. But what it stood for with regards to covenant inclusion of infants is moral. And Christ did not come to abolish but to reinforce moral requirements.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> I read the paper when it was first brought to the attention of the Puritan boards. I will repeat here what I said there. He does not deal with THE fundamental argument of paedobaptism, namely, that when God takes a man into covenant with Him, He takes all that a man is and has, body and soul; and in Scripture a man's seed is as much a part of a man as his body is. It is this *moral* obligation which Dr. Welty's paper does not deal with. Simply alluding to the ceremonial aspects of circumcision does not suffice. Yes circumcision itself is abolished as a ceremonial requirement. But what it stood for with regards to covenant inclusion of infants is moral. And Christ did not come to abolish but to reinforce moral requirements.


Extremely well put. You have a very elegant manner of presenation that gets right to the point.

I think so much time is spent by Reformed Baptists on trying to differentiate baptism from circumcision that they miss this very obvious feature of the Covenant since God began to choose Abel (and then Seth) over Cain.

I remember critiquing a point made by a Reformed Baptist writer some months back that pointed out that, before Abraham, there was no circumcision and "What about those Saints after all...?" The implication was somehow to show that this undercut the baptism-circumcision parallel because there was once a time that men neither circumcised nor baptized.

The point is, however, is that paedobaptists see the substance of the Covenant remaining the same throughout Scripture. Noah finds Grace and his entire family is delivered. It matters not that there was no circumcision, God still Covenanted with a man, showed him Grace, and his family was brought into Covenant with the man. There is no Scriptural warrant that transforms the Covenant into some sort of atomistic application of Grace.

Referring to the issue as moral is a very beneficial way of looking at it. The repeated focus by Baptists is to show discontinuity between Old and New but the very basic point of broken solidarity within the household is completely ignored even as they argue that the Covenant was supposedly "improved". 

Improvement, to the Reformed Baptist, is that the New Covenant only contains the elect and can never be broken. This is fine in theory but impossible to administer in practice as even those who make visible profession sometimes become apostate. Thus, even less "improvement", nobody knows who they're in Covenant with. They may have assurance of their own salvation but cannot be certain that another's profession is true and only know of their own participation in the New Covenant.

Thus, this view is defective in that it breaks the principle of family solidarity that has existed since Adam, it conflates profession with baptism with election, and it makes the New Covenant completely invisible to all men.

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 10, 2006)

Judging only by the quoted material provided it seems that Welty ignores a basic distinction, that is, the distinction between Moses and Abraham. 

Circumcision was instituted as part of the Abrahamic covenant, as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. It was not instituted under Moses. Though typological and to be fulfilled by Christ and replaced by a more perfect sign and seal, and though enforced under Moses, circumcision is not Mosaic in origin. 

By conflating circumcision with the Mosaic economy Welty creates the false impression that circumcision, being Mosaic, passed away with the fulfillment of the "old covenant," (2 Cor 3; Heb 4-7).

It is a common Baptist mistake to conflate Moses and Abraham. Paul does not do this, however. They are both precursors and both belong to the time of types and shadows, but they are not identical administrations. Abraham is treated consistently in the NT as a, essentially, a proto-NT believer (See John 8 and Rom 3-4).

Not everything that occurred before the incarnation belongs to the "old covenant" strictly defined as "Mosaic," (which is how Paul and the writer to the Hebrews define it).

Second, it's true that baptism and circumcision are not identical. Circumcision was a type and shadow and, such, bears the marks of incompleteness. It's the difference, if you will between a Model A and BMW Z3 roadster. Both are autos but one is rather more complete than the other.

Both are, however, signs and seals of initiation into the covenant community. Paul links them conceptually as such in Col 2. 

I deal with these questions at more length here:

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/baptism.php

Blessings,

rsc


----------



## Mocha (Jul 10, 2006)

Philip,

You said:



> Let me preface my comments by letting you know that over the last few months I´ve come around to the paedobaptist position from what I would previously have called a "œReformed" and "œCovenantal" Baptist position. I had first learned Covenant Theology from Richard Barcellos, and had read through his writings on the subject, as well as those by Welty, Malone, Tombes, Coxe, etc., and every Reformed Baptist Theological Review to date. I say that to make it clear that I am at this point arguing against my former self just as much as I am against Welty.


 
Wow! I'm very interested in finding out exactly what it was that made you change your view. Since you already have a clear idea of the credo position, I especially covet your opinion and hope that you might help walk me through it.

You said:



> Welty does a good job of identifying circumcision as one of the central elements in the debate, but he falls short in that he misconstrues the meaning of circumcision. If you take a wrong turn at the very start, then whatever you do subsequent to that is of no consequence.


 
Can you show me exactly where he misconstrues the meaning of circumcision? I want to interact with your observation, but I can't do it if you don't show me where to look. Let's go through it together, step by step.

You said:



> He does the same thing that I did when he deals with the paedobaptist argument regarding the meaning of circumcision "“ he acknowledges it, and then promptly ignores it.


 
Does Welty actually ignore the meaning of circumcision? Consider the quote that I used before:



> ...according to biblical record, circumcision signified specific promises and blessings that baptism does not signify, and has never signified. God made many promises to Abraham in the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17, which confirmed the covenant of Genesis 15), and circumcision signified the promises of that covenant. For instance: "I will make you very fruitful" (physical descendants as many as the stars in the sky) - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "you will be a father of many nations" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "kings will come from you" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "the whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. *Thus, the meaning of circumcision and baptism are not interchangeable.* Here there has clearly been a change in meaning: the specific, earthly, generational promises are no longer signified.


 
Welty's main purpose in this paper is not to show what circumcision is, but instead, it is to show that there is a degree of discontinuity between circumcision and baptism. He says:



> ...the Baptist position is quite compatible with a confession of essential continuity with respect to the Abrahamic Covenant. The disagreement is over degree, not over the fact, of continuity and discontinuity.



AND



> Overlap and continuity can be recognized, as well as relevant difference and discontinuity.



Philip, Welty is not ingoring the meaning of circumcision. It's just that at this point of the argument he wants to show that there is some discontinuity between circumcision and baptism. Actually if you read further on down the article it looks like he concedes that there is a part of circumcision that overlaps baptism. He says:



> The fact that circumcision may signify redemptive needs and realities (such as forgiveness and cleansing) does not by itself exhaust the meaning of circumcision.



AND



> Not because there is no overlap of meaning between circumcision and baptism (perhaps there is)...



I think we can all agree (both credo and paedo) that there is an overlap of meaning between circumcison and baptism (at least I'm willing to concede that). But the point that I think Welty is trying to make is, there are also things that circumcison signified that baptism does not. He is trying to emphasize a degree of discontinuity, while at the same time, trying not to discount the continuity.

Can you at least acknowledge his point?

You said:



> He cites a hypothetical response from a paedobaptist on page 7:
> 
> Quote:
> circumcision points to inward cleansing (Deut 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4, 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7; Rom 2:28-29)
> ...



I was disappointed with his response to these verses as well.

You said:



> Welty says, as you quoted,
> 
> Quote:
> But one might as well argue that since OT sacrifices signified spiritual realities, we have warrant for continuing their use today. Clearly, we do not.
> ...



Is there anything wrong with his following statement?:



> ...circumcision had a prophetic significance, pointing to and signifying the promised Seed to come...The Seed to whom the Abrahamic promises referred had come. On this view, there is no need to perpetuate within the New Covenant some baptismal practice anagolous to circumcision and applicable to infants. Not because there is no overlap of meaning between circumcision and baptism (perhaps there is), but because the typology of infant circumcision has been fulfilled.



Again, Welty's main concern is to show that there is some degree of discontinuity betweeen circumcision and baptism. He is not saying that there isn't any overlap!

You said:



> Also, his argument on page 6 about the "œhistorical-redemptive significance of Abraham´s circumcision" being prophetical of the inclusion of the gentiles is rather far-fetched; I was surprised to see him try and make this argument. Again, he ignores the explicit reason given in scripture for Abraham´s circumcision "“ "œit shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you" (Gen 17:11) and tries to back out from Romans 4 a wrongly inferred meaning. Paul is not at all saying "œthis is what circumcision means", he is making an argument from the circumstances of Abraham´s circumcision to prove his point that possessing the sign of the covenant is not necessary in order to possess the substance of the covenant, and that is exactly what the Judaizers were arguing "“ no circumcision, no salvation (see WCF 28:5).



I haven't come to a conclusion on that yet. He might be wrong. I don't know.

You said:



> On page 8 he says:
> 
> Quote:
> It is quite plausible to hold that circumcision was specifically applied to the seed of the OT people of God in virtue of this prophetic significance of the sign itself.
> ...



Again, I don't know. But I think Welty's main point is that there is some "prophetic significance" related to circumcision that has nothing to do with baptism. He's just bringing out the fact that there is more discontinuity (between circumcison and baptism) that the paedo's just aren't willing to recognize.

You said:



> Welty also makes a few faux pas that take away from the credibility of his arguments. For instance, he accuses paedobaptists of using "œabbreviated or paraphrased "˜citations´" (footnote 3, page 4), but he then proceeds to do the same thing on page 10, where he throws out his own abbreviated citations of "œcircumcision is nothing" (1 Cor 7:19), and "œneither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything" Gal 5:6), without addressing the context or the sense in which Paul meant those statements to be taken, or reconciling them to other places where Paul says "œcircumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law" (Rom 2:25) or "œThen what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way"¦" (Rom 3:1-2). When I quote snippets of these texts the way he does with the others, I can make them appear to say the exact opposite of what Welty tries to make the others say.
> 
> To sum up, Welty dismisses explicit biblical texts on the meaning of circumcision in favor of his own misconstrued meaning of it, and bases his reasoning on that. His error was the same as mine was; I was ignorant of the spiritual meaning of circumcision, and hence made up my own meaning of it to fit with my theology. Any subsequent arguments based on that premise are all invalid.



Philip, I think you are missing Welty's point. He is not focusing on what circumcision means in relationship to baptism. He is focusing on the degree of discontinuity between circumcision and baptism. If you miss that, then you miss the emphasis of his first point!

Mike


----------



## Mocha (Jul 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Mocha_
> ...



Like Philip, I feel you are missing Welty's point. Paedo's want to say that infants should be baptized because baptism has the same meaning as circumcision. All Welty wants to do is show that there is enough degree of discontinuity between circumcision and baptism, that the discontinuity needs to be taken into consideration before jumping to any conclusions.

I think Welty does a good job of bringing this out. Whether he understand the continuity between circumcison and baptism doesn't really matter to this discussion. All that matters is that he understands that there is a degree of discontinuity between circumcision and baptism, and that's what we are dealing with.

Mike


----------



## Mocha (Jul 10, 2006)

Rev. Matthew,

I had said:



> I don't think you really answered Welty's main point in that quote.



You responded with:



> I showed that paedobaptists maintain Welty's point under subpoint 1, eschatological fulfilment in Christ. What I also said is that this is a reductionist argument. Under subpoint 2, I maintain that there were spiritual benefits which were signified by circumcision which the OT saints partook of, and which are the same with the benefits that NT saints partake of, and are signified by baptism, Rom. 4 and 9. In other words, the author's mention of benefits in circumcision which are not to be found in baptism does not negate the fact that there are still covenant-benefits which both signify. By reducing his argument to deal with subpoint 1, he has not negated subpoint 2.



Both you and Welty believe that there is overlap. No problem. But my question to you is, do you at least recognize that there is a degree of discontinuity between circumcision and baptism. Welty is dealing with Calvin's first assumption, which is:



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



All Welty is trying to do is prove that Calvin's first assumption is a false one. I believe he succeeds. Welty does a good job at showing that there are promises and blessing related to circumcision that are not related to baptism. The result is that we see that baptism does not signify all the same promises that circumcision did. The only conclusion we can come to is that baptism and circumcision are not interchangeable in all their meaning. There is a degree of discontinuity between circumcision and baptism. I believe that that's all that Welty is really trying to prove (on this first point).

I had said:



> Paedo's believe there has been a change from the rite of circumcision to the rite of baptism in three ways:
> 
> 1) Change in recipients
> - from males only (circumcision) to males and females (baptism)
> ...



You responded with:



> 1) There is no change in recipients; as the males represented their households, the households were included under the blessing. There is only an addition of female baptism to represent that in Christ there is neither male or female. The same applies to nationality. It is not restricted to Israelites and strangers dwelling with them.
> 
> 2) There is a change in the sign. But by so saying there is an implicit acceptance of the fact that the thing signified is the same in both Testaments.
> 
> 3) If the implicit acceptance of point 2 is agreed upon, then there is no change in the meaning of the sign per se.



1) No change in recipients??? 
2) If the signs signified the same thing, why not keep the same one?
3) Do you not accept that circumcision signified something that baptism does not signify?

You said:



> I read the paper when it was first brought to the attention of the Puritan boards. I will repeat here what I said there. He does not deal with THE fundamental argument of paedobaptism, namely, that when God takes a man into covenant with Him, He takes all that a man is and has, body and soul; and in Scripture a man's seed is as much a part of a man as his body is. It is this moral obligation which Dr. Welty's paper does not deal with. Simply alluding to the ceremonial aspects of circumcision does not suffice. Yes circumcision itself is abolished as a ceremonial requirement. But what it stood for with regards to covenant inclusion of infants is moral. And Christ did not come to abolish but to reinforce moral requirements.



You're absolutely right! Welty does not deal with THE fundamental argument of paedobaptism. That's because he is not trying to. His objective is to refute the first assumption of Calvin, which is:

Baptism and Circumcision:
i) are interchangeable in their meaning
ii) signify the same promises

I believe that Welty has shown (and proven to me) that there is enough evidence from Scripture to show that the degree of discontinuity is enough to prove that Calvin's first assumption is false!

Can you honestly say that Baptism and Circumcision are interchangeable in their meaning without recognizing that there are some meanings associated with circumcision that are not interchangeable with baptism?

Can you honestly say that Baptism and Circumcision are interchangeable in their meaning without recognizing that there are some promises associated with circumcision that are not interchangeable with baptism?

Mike


----------



## Mocha (Jul 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Judging only by the quoted material provided it seems that Welty ignores a basic distinction, that is, the distinction between Moses and Abraham.
> 
> Circumcision was instituted as part of the Abrahamic covenant, as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. It was not instituted under Moses. Though typological and to be fulfilled by Christ and replaced by a more perfect sign and seal, and though enforced under Moses, circumcision is not Mosaic in origin.
> ...



I would encourage you to read Greg Welty's new paper. Look at the subject headings and you will see where I have posted the link to read the paper.

Mike


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 10, 2006)

Welty thinks he can show that Calvin's assumption is false.

I'm going to offer an analogical comparison, to show why Calvin (and paedos generally) disagree.

I have two bolts, 3/8". They are the same, but different.
1) Both are 3/8" bolts, the same.
2) One has a depth of 1", the other a depth of 2"--different. But the same nut fits on both; they both do the same job in their respective (or occasionally the very same) places.
3) One has a hex head, the other a square head--different.

This comment by Calvin:


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


is perfectly within the propriety of speaking about the signs of initiation, OT & NT. Arguing that Calvin is wrong, because one 3/8" bolt is a little shorter than the other, or has a head with two more faces on it, or is made of steel instead of aluminum, completely evades the essential point of union between the sacraments.


----------



## Philip A (Jul 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Wow! I'm very interested in finding out exactly what it was that made you change your view. Since you already have a clear idea of the credo position, I especially covet your opinion and hope that you might help walk me through it.



Scott (Bushey) makes a good point about the order in which the topic should be studied. There are two parallel lines of thought that finally overcame my arguments. The first is, as Scott pointed out, the nature of the covenant. Our understanding of the covenant should drive our understanding of baptism and circumcision, not the other way around. As a Baptist, I was defining baptism first (i.e., start with the default assumption that credobaptism must be true), and then trying to redefine the covenant to fit my view of baptism. The second important line of thought is first of all the nature - and particularly the efficacy - of the means of grace in general, and then more particularly the nature of the sacraments, the sacramental union and the sign/signified relationship, and the issue of administration vs. substance. Dr. Clark´s lecture on the latter subject was a turning point for me, although there was a great deal of study that set up the dominoes behind it. Also, spending some time working through his Theses on Covenant Theology would be very fruitful if you wish to pursue the subject.



> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was saying that Welty ignores _the Paedobaptist argument_ regarding the meaning of circumcision. Before I get any further, let me acknowledge that yes, there is a degree of discontinuity between circumcision and baptism; just see Dr. Clark´s posting above. The change of the sign is enough to prove this. But the degree of discontinuity is minuscule in comparison to the degree of continuity between them, particularly with respect to the spiritual realities represented in them, namely the covenant and the spiritual realities thereof. There´s a huge elephant in the room, and Welty is making a big deal out of the color of the carpet. Go back and look at the verses referenced. Really look at them. What do they say circumcision represents? The Baptist argument is that because baptism signifies certain spiritual realities, the church should only administer the sign of baptism to those who possess those realities. But if you read those passages, you will see that circumcision signifies those same spiritual realities. That is the point Westminster is driving at, in 27:5:


> V. The sacraments of the Old Testament _in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited_, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.


This is *HUGE*! This is the elephant that Welty is ignoring. Once you come to understand the truth of this statement, then the Baptist argument collapses, because under the Abrahamic (_not_ Mosaic) Covenant, the sign was given to infants, whether or not they possessed the spiritual things signified by it, and that by divine command. Go back to Dr. Clark´s Covenant theses, 8.25:


> Every objection made against covenant (infant) baptism which can be made against covenant (infant) circumcision as practiced under Abraham the father of New Covenant believers is for that reason invalid.


If theological arguments were military hardware, this one is a nuclear warhead. The only way to dodge it is to take the focus off of the primary, explicit, biblical meaning of circumcision, and focus on extraneous details. My claim is that Welty is doing just that.



> Welty's main purpose in this paper is not to show what circumcision is, but instead, it is to show that there is a degree of discontinuity between circumcision and baptism.



Agreed. But what does that prove? In light of the Paedobaptist argument, nothing. His logic appears to be this: since there are _some_ discontinuities between circumcision and baptism, therefore infant inclusion _must_ be one of those discontinuities. _Non sequitur_. He has given no argument how the presence of some discontinuity proves the presence of this particular discontinuity. I know he is trying to disarm Calvin´s argument, but his approach is something like walking through a minefield with his fingers stuck in his ears.

Again, this is an argument that I used a great deal of the time. It worked well, because I already presupposed the correctness of my position. "œThere are some discontinuities, so therefore, this (infant inclusion) is one too". But I always had this nagging thought in the back of my head "œyes, but what basis do I have for saying that that in particular is one of the discontinuities?" And when I was honest with myself, the answer came back "œnothing, my tradition tells me that it is so". Remember, the burden of proof is on the Baptist to make the case for discontinuing the practice. Welty doesn´t address this, but other authors, like Barcellos, do. At least they recognize that the burden is on them, and attempt to prove a repeal of infant inclusion.



> Actually if you read further on down the article it looks like he concedes that there is a part of circumcision that overlaps baptism. He says:
> 
> 
> 
> > The fact that circumcision may signify redemptive needs and realities (such as forgiveness and cleansing) does not by itself exhaust the meaning of circumcision.



Granted. But what does this prove? Especially in light of the ridiculously large elephant in the room?



> I think we can all agree (both credo and paedo) that there is an overlap of meaning between circumcison and baptism (at least I'm willing to concede that). But the point that I think Welty is trying to make is, there are also things that circumcison signified that baptism does not. He is trying to emphasize a degree of discontinuity, while at the same time, trying not to discount the continuity.
> 
> Can you at least acknowledge his point?



I hope that in what I have written so far, you can see that I do acknowledge it.



> Philip, I think you are missing Welty's point. He is not focusing on what circumcision means in relationship to baptism. He is focusing on the degree of discontinuity between circumcision and baptism. If you miss that, then you miss the emphasis of his first point!



Hopefully I have clarified my critique a bit. I know he is not focusing on what circumcision means in relationship to baptism. My assertion is that this is his whole problem, and why he fails to make his case. I do understand his point, because this was at the heart of my Baptist argument as well. To his credit, he doesn´t take the typical dispensationalist approach and just say, "œIt´s a New Covenant, and a new people of God, so everything is different"; he tries to go back to the Abrahamic covenant. This is what was so compelling for me when I finally got a hold of Nehemiah Coxe´s work. He effectively divided up the Abrahamic covenant into two columns: civil elements and spiritual elements. He then assigns circumcision to the "œcivil" column, focusing on many of the same things that Welty does. But both Coxe and Welty, by focusing on the civil meaning of circumcision, fail to fully address it´s spiritual meaning. The latter is the dominant focus of scripture whenever it discusses circumcision; the former is drawn by inference. It´s just bad hermeneutics to take an inferred civil meaning over an explicitly stated spiritual meaning. Putting circumcision in the "œcivil" column, rather than the "œspiritual" column, is completely arbitrary, and fails to give due attention to the scriptural texts that deal with the spiritual meaning of circumcision.


----------



## Mocha (Jul 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Welty thinks he can show that Calvin's assumption is false.
> 
> I'm going to offer an analogical comparison, to show why Calvin (and paedos generally) disagree.
> ...



I like your analogy!


----------



## Mocha (Jul 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Mocha_
> ...



Excellent post!!! You got me thinking!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 10, 2006)

> Welty thinks he can show that Calvin's assumption is false.
> 
> I'm going to offer an analogical comparison, to show why Calvin (and paedos generally) disagree.
> 
> ...



Rev. Bruce,

Very good! You must have some mechanical background to have that kind of detail about bolts. My dad taught me a lot about cars and mechanics and the analogy makes much sense. Very good.

Larry


----------



## MW (Jul 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Both you and Welty believe that there is overlap. No problem. But my question to you is, do you at least recognize that there is a degree of discontinuity between circumcision and baptism. Welty is dealing with Calvin's first assumption, which is:
> 
> 
> ...



See Bruce's fitting analogy above. If we agree there is an overlap, then Calvin's statement applies to the overlap.

Please take note of the continual swapping between the sign and the thing signified in Welty's paper. One moment he is saying there is discontinuity between the signs of circumcision and baptism. The next moment we find him alluding to the things that these signified. We all agree there is discontinuity between the signs as positive ceremonial rites. The point the paedobaptist makes is that there is no discontinuity between the substance of the covenant, which circumcision and baptism signify and seal.



> 1) No change in recipients???
> 2) If the signs signified the same thing, why not keep the same one?
> 3) Do you not accept that circumcision signified something that baptism does not signify?



1) That is correct. The feminine and Gentile element were included in masculine and Jewish representation. Hence it was just a matter of course that baptism included them.
2) We do not keep the same sign because the Lord was pleased to change it, as with Passover/Lord's supper. Such is His prerogative; and it is quite fitting too, in order to show more clearly that in Him all fulness dwells.
3) We have already discussed this above. Yes, there was something eschatological in OT promises (Heb. 11:40). This does not negate the fact that there was also something substantial which is the same with what NT believers enjoy, as the rest of Hebrews 11 indicates.



> You're absolutely right! Welty does not deal with THE fundamental argument of paedobaptism. That's because he is not trying to. His objective is to refute the first assumption of Calvin, which is:
> 
> Baptism and Circumcision:
> i) are interchangeable in their meaning
> ...



An atheist could argue against the divinity of Christ, but it is a futile argument since he doesn't accept the reality of a divinity in the first place. Welty seeks to undermine Calvin's argument without dealing with THE fundamental premise of that argument.


----------



## panicbird (Nov 30, 2006)

Philip A said:


> Dr. Clark's lecture on the latter subject was a turning point for me



Where might one find this lecture?


----------



## Philip A (Nov 30, 2006)

panicbird said:


> Where might one find this lecture?



It was the lecture "What is Baptism and What Does it Do?" from the Westminster Seminary California 2006 Faculty Conference, which can be found HERE.

It also can be found in it's expanded form as the article "Baptism and the Benefits of Christ" in volume two of _The Confessional Presbyterian_, found HERE.


----------

