# Turmeric Takes the Plunge, so to speak...



## turmeric (Oct 3, 2006)

At risk of activating the mosh pit, I have some questions. Feel free to point out threads that answer them, if I'm missing them.

I came from a Dispie background, which may explain some confusion.

Here's my question;
If the other parts of ceremonial law (e.g.the Day of Atonement, the kosher laws) which were signs pointing to Christ, have been abrogated; and if we don't circumcize male children for religious reasons anymore, why must baptism represent circumcision? 

I'm trying to finish the transition to Presbyterian...

Forgot to mention, I'm primarily looking for Presbyterian responses, Dutch counts too!

(turmeric ducks quickly)

[Edited on 10-3-2006 by turmeric]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 4, 2006)

Some Presbyterian and Dutch Answers (I actually like to go back and refer to these because they are very well written).

If you go to http://www.temeculaopc.org/wcf.htm then you'll be able to look up the actual Scripture proofs that the WCF uses.


> Chapter XXVII
> Of the Sacraments
> 
> I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,1 immediately instituted by God,2 to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him:3 *as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world;4 and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.*5
> ...





> Chapter XXVIII
> Of Baptism
> 
> *I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,1 not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;2 but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,3 of his ingrafting into Christ,4 of regeneration,5 of remission of sins,6 and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.7Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.8*
> ...


Westminster Larger Cathecism


> Q. 34. How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
> A. The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises,126 prophecies,127 sacrifices,128 circumcision,129 the passover,130 and other types and ordinances, which did all fore-signify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,131 by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.132
> 
> 
> ...


Notice the repeated use of the terms _sign_ and _seal_ and the repeated motif of admitting into the Church and setting apart from the World.

From the Belgic Confession:


> Article 33: Of the Sacraments.
> We believe, that our gracious God, on account of our weakness and infirmities hath ordained the sacraments for us, thereby to seal unto us his promises, and to be pledges of the good will and grace of God toward us, and also to nourish and strengthen our faith; which he hath joined to the Word of the gospel, the better to present to our senses, both that which he signifies to us by his Word, and that which he works inwardly in our hearts, thereby assuring and confirming in us the salvation which he imparts to us. For they are visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, by means whereof God worketh in us by the power of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the signs are not in vain or insignificant, so as to deceive us. For Jesus Christ is the true object presented by them, without whom they would be of no moment. Moreover, we are satisfied with the number of sacraments which Christ our Lord hath instituted, which are two only, namely, the sacrament of baptism, and the holy supper of our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> Article 34: Of Holy Baptism.
> We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law, hath made an end, by the shedding of his blood, of all other sheddings of blood which men could or would make as a propitiation or satisfaction for sin: and that he, having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, hath instituted the sacrament of baptism, instead thereof; by which we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange religions, that we may wholly belong to him, whose ensign and banner we bear: and which serves as a testimony to us, that he will forever be our gracious God and Father. Therefore he has commanded all those, who are his, to be baptized with pure water, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost": thereby signifying to us, that as water washeth away the filth of the body, when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized, when sprinkled upon him; so doth the blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost, internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath, unto children of God. Not that this is effected by the external water, but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God; who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass, to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, that is, the devil, and to enter into the spiritual land of Canaan. Therefore the ministers, on their part, administer the sacrament, and that which is visible, but our Lord giveth that which is signified by the sacrament, namely, the gifts and invisible grace; washing, cleansing and purging our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts, and filling them with all comfort; giving unto us a true assurance of his fatherly goodness; putting on us the new man, and putting off the old man with all his deeds. Therefore we believe, that every man, who is earnestly studious of obtaining life eternal, ought to be but once baptized with this only baptism, without ever repeating the same: since we cannot be born twice. Neither doth this baptism only avail us, at the time when the water is poured upon us, and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life; therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, whom we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised, upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that, which Christ hath done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law, that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death, shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, that baptism is for our children. And for this reason Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ.



From the Heidelberg Catechism


> Question 66. What are the sacraments?
> 
> Answer: The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof, he may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel, viz., that he grants us freely the remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross. (a)
> 
> ...



I'd like to thank the followin for helping me with this:


----------



## Robin (Oct 4, 2006)

Think "covenant" Meg....

To all of Rich's posts  

Galations 3:15--18

To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a *promise*. 



Robin


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Oct 4, 2006)

Meg,
Im glad you brought this up lately Ive thinking more about switching form reformed baptist to reformed presbyterian. The covenant breakers thread and R. Scott. Clark chatting on here about a true church versus a rebelious church has got me thinking alot about this.

In Christ,
Blade


----------



## Robin (Oct 4, 2006)

This is highly applicable to thoughts about the sacraments of a true church -- in light of coming-out of the land of evanjellyfishness.

http://www.christreformed.org/resources/sermons_lectures/00000058.shtml?main



r.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 4, 2006)

We often let the Sinai covenant confuse the Abrahamic covenant.

The sign and the seal is not Sinaitic like the ceremonial and judicial laws but Abrahamic.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 4, 2006)

That's a very good point Christopher. This aspect of confusing the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants was discussed on the White Horse Inn podcast 2 weeks ago. Those with a dispensational mindset see the church as the parenthesis in history, when in fact, the Mosaic covenant is the parenthesis.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 4, 2006)

Exactly.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2006)

Meg, Ditto's to what everyone said above.

Now I am going to give you some strange advice. 

Strange coming from me that is. I am the type of person who enjoys a good debate and I spend my (spare) time trying to wrestle with some theological fine point or the other. I have taught on the topic of baptism for probably over a hundred hours in several churches. I have seen dozens of people convinced & become 'reformed' over the years of doing this. I tell you all of this so you will realise that I am not a "touchy-feely" kind of guy who responds to every thological challenge with " I feel in my spirit" type of response.

Stop worring about being convinced of evey fine point of argument about this doctrine!

Trust God that the fathers who wrote the WCF know more than we do and simply accept it. Make your attitude one of humbly saying "I believe that this is a faithful summery of what the scriptures teach, and even the parts I don't understand fully I trust God will make clear to me in time".

If you do this you will find that arguments that have been chasing each other around in your head for months will one day line themselves up and make perfect sense.

Remember that beleaving is prior to understanding.

Be willing to submit to the authority of holy men of God who have served the chuch well. Don't be guilty of saying "I will submit AFTER I am convinced". For that is no true submission.

I try to make this my philosophy when faced with an issue I don't understand or am inclined to reject. I can honestly say that I find issues easier to understand after I admit that I am going to agree with the confession even if I don't "get it" yet.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 4, 2006)

The following is from _Some Common Objections to Paedobaptism Answered in Outline._
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/Objections_to_Paedobaptism_Answered.htm



> CIRCUMCISION WAS A SPIRITUAL SACRAMENT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WITH A CORRESPONDING SPIRITUAL SACRAMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT (VIZ. BAPTISM).
> 
> Circumcision does not belong specifically to the Mosaic institutions, but is the token of the Abrahamic covenant of promise.
> 
> ...


----------



## turmeric (Oct 4, 2006)

These are helpful responses so far, especially distinguishing the Abrahamic covenant from Siani.


----------



## non dignus (Oct 4, 2006)

Circumcision was a blood rite. There is no more shedding of blood.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kevin_
> Meg, Ditto's to what everyone said above.
> 
> Now I am going to give you some strange advice.
> ...



Very well said Kevin. Ironically I had just added a quote to my signature this morning which touches on the same thought - a thought that resonates very closely with me:




> "I have had but one object in my professional career and as a writer, and that is to state and to vindicate the doctrines of the Reformed Church. I have never advanced a new idea, and have never aimed to improve upon the doctrines of our fathers. Having become satisfied that the system of doctrines taught in the symbols of the Reformed Church is taught in the Bible, *I have endeavored to sustain it, and am willing to believe even where I cannot understand*." --Charles Hodge (1797-1878) Princeton Theologian



The writers of the reformed confessions were required to know all views of doctrines to the point where during there education they were to prepare to win a debate on any particular theological topic while not knowing a) the position they were to take or b) the language they were to deliver their position with, until the very time of the scheduled debate. I don’t think I am that versed on any of the doctrines I hold to!

But as Hodge said, I am satisfied the system of doctrines taught in the symbols of the Reformed Church is taught in the Bible. I have yet to see or hear a better alternative.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> At risk of activating the mosh pit, I have some questions. Feel free to point out threads that answer them, if I'm missing them.
> 
> I came from a Dispie background, which may explain some confusion.
> ...



and 



> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Circumcision was a blood rite. There is no more shedding of blood.



So the answer to "why must baptism represent circumcision" is that it does not.

Christ spoke of his death as the "circumcision" that he must undergo. Like the other bloody rites of the OT, circumcision is a shadow that has been fulfilled and to repeat it now would be a denial of the sufficiency and finality of the work of Christ.

There were baptisms in the OT as well, but now the non-bloody rite of baptism is brought to the forefront. So we have to admit that there is a change. The question is, what is the nature of that change? Is it a change from anticipatory to a completed atonement in the covenant situation? Or is it a change in who is in the covenant, and therefore who gets the sign?

Raised baptist, baptism for us symbolized the conversion experience, and wasn't a covenant sign at all. Just as you decided to get saved (under the pressure of a lot of psychological manipulation) and then were united in the death, burial and resurection of Christ via a conversion experience, so at a certain age the pressure came on to "follow the Lord in obedience" by deciding to get baptized and undergoing a symbolic burial and resurrection. Of course, such baptists forget that Christ was not buried six feet under but into a tomb in the side of some hill. So if they really wanted to symbolize this right, they should build torpedo tubes into the sides of the baptistries and shoot the people out into the water.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> That's a very good point Christopher. This aspect of confusing the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants was discussed on the White Horse Inn podcast 2 weeks ago. Those with a dispensational mindset see the church as the parenthesis in history, when in fact, the Mosaic covenant is the parenthesis.



I would be interested in listening to these broadcasts. Do you have a link to these specific ones?


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp

Has God Rejected His People is the name of the podcast. It's part of their series called, The Roman Revolution.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 4, 2006)

Thanks Bob


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 4, 2006)

> "He came to save all through Himself - all I say, who through Him are reborn in God-infants, and children, and youth, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; a young man for youths, becoming an example for youths and sanctifying them for the Lord."
> *Irenaeus (AD 120-202)*
> 
> "For what is sin? Could a child who has only just been born commit a sin? And yet he has sin for which it is commanded to offer a sacrifice, as Job 14:4ff and Psalm 51:5-7 show. For this reason the Church received from the Apostles the tradition to administer baptism to the children also. For the men to whom the secrets of divine mysteries had been entrusted knew that in everyone there were genuine sinful defilements, which had to be washed away with water and the Spirit."
> ...


----------



## Philip A (Oct 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> If the other parts of ceremonial law (e.g.the Day of Atonement, the kosher laws) which were signs pointing to Christ, have been abrogated; and if we don't circumcize male children for religious reasons anymore, why must baptism represent circumcision?



Perhaps a more accurate way to put it is not "baptism represents circumcision", but rather that baptism and circumcision represent _substantially_ the same thing.

A helpful study would be to study what the _Old_ Testament says about what the meaning of circumcision is. The reason I say this is that a lot of baptists base their view of circumcision on a faulty reading of the New Testament, in which they assume that the Pharisees and the Judaizers were fundamentally _correct_ in their understanding or circumcision, and that Paul was arguing that that had all changed, and no longer applied. A more correct way to understand it is that the Pharisees and Judaizers were fundamentally _in error_ in their understanding of circumcision, and that Paul is rather correcting their wrong understanding, rather than arguing against their right understanding. So to see which one is the case, do an OT study on what circumcision was intended to represent in the mind of God, and whether or not the Pharisees got it right or got it wrong.



> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> These are helpful responses so far, especially distinguishing the Abrahamic covenant from Sinai.



This is absolutely essential! And it is Paul's whole point in Galatians 3:15-29, against the Judaizers' _mirepresentation_ of the meaning of circumcision.

Also, have you read this article? I know of at least two people for whom this settled the issue:

http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/den_johnson/TH.Johnson.Baptism.html

[Edited on 10-4-2006 by Philip A]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 4, 2006)

I have moved the discussion on submission to Church authority to a new thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=21177

I think that discussion is worthy of consideration but it began to distract from the main question regarding the relationship between baptism and circumcision.


----------



## turmeric (Oct 4, 2006)

Philip,

Thanks for the article, it's an interesting read.


----------



## Ravens (Oct 6, 2006)

Meg,

Just a small thought.

It might be helpful if you took your perspective on this issue and turned it on its head. Instead of thinking, "If it can be proven that baptism replaces circumcision, then paedobaptism is correct", try thinking along the lines of the principal involved.

To loosely quote Warfield, "God has always placed children in the church, and we see nowhere that he has taken them out." And if children have always been involved in God's covenantal workings, then we should see no reason to banish them from the new covenant. And it is in this context that Acts 2:38-39 and the household baptisms are to be seen. Therefore, once the principal is established, you can move on to baptism replacing circumcision as the iniatory sign, instead of looking at it the other way around.

Is that helpful at all?

Not to turn it into a baptism thread, but that issue, along with the fact that

A: Infant baptism was pretty much universally accepted in the church by at least the beginning of the 3rd century, and probably before, and that there aren't really any extant, wide-spread apologetics "against" it (which we would expect were it an intrusion)... and

B: That there were so many adult baptisms in the New Testament because it was an age of missionary expansion...

Those are the things that initially helped me to get a handle on paedobaptism.

Also... I just now thought of this, so if this is off, someone correct me... it would seem rather odd for a covenantal "heresy" or malpractice to be instituted in the church (i.e. paedobaptism) in the first hundred years after the church had made a pretty clean break with Judaism, being kicked out of the synagogues, expanding into Gentile territory, etc. I mean if it is a heretical practice, I find it hard to believe that it would have been introduced by Jews (as the church had broken from Judaism) or the Gnostic or Greek mystery cults (as they placed a high level of stress on individual salvation).

Take care.


----------



## turmeric (Oct 6, 2006)

Actually, I am less bothered by baptizing babies than I am by the notion of continuing circumcision in some form. Of course, children are in the New Covenant. I guess it's really the circumcision thing that bothers me. If I don't think about it, I won't be worried about baptizing babies.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 6, 2006)

Meg, you asked this initially:


> If the other parts of ceremonial law (e.g.the Day of Atonement, the kosher laws) which were signs pointing to Christ, have been abrogated; and if we don't circumcize male children for religious reasons anymore, why must baptism represent circumcision?


and then you said most recently:


> Actually, I am less bothered by baptizing babies than I am by the notion of continuing circumcision in some form. Of course, children are in the New Covenant. I guess it's really the circumcision thing that bothers me. If I don't think about it, I won't be worried about baptizing babies.



In case it has not been clearly stated: the rite baptism does NOT represent the rite of circumcision. From the WCF again:


> 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.


Baptism circumcision signify and exhibit the same spiritual thing: ingrafting into Christ for all who believe. They also seal the same promise. It's not as if Baptism is sign that points back to 4000 BC and Abraham. Rather, circumcision points to Christ and baptism points to Christ.


----------



## turmeric (Oct 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> In case it has not been clearly stated: the rite baptism does NOT represent the rite of circumcision. From the WCF again:
> 
> 
> ...



Now, that DOES help! I really may have been misunderstanding this all along. Trying to rationalize what appears to be an anachronism to people who are confused about the Law and the New Covenant anyway is daunting. So they both point to a spiritual reality. Ahhh...where's the lightbulb smiley?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


Here you go: :lightbulb: (That's a good one to have here)

[Edited on 10-7-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## AdamM (Oct 6, 2006)

Rich, I think for the most part that the web is a vast wasteland full of lots of unhelpful stuff, but your posts here at PB are one of the reasons why this board is an oasis of sorts for folks who are working through really signifcant issues. PB gets bashed in some quarters (mainly for bogus reasons, but I'm sure some of the reasons are legit), but I can't think of another place on the web where this sort of thread could happen.

Thanks!


----------



## turmeric (Oct 6, 2006)

I really appreciate all who have contributed and maintained a helpful disposition. I was really afraid to broach this as I didn't want to be accused of NCT or something worse. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 7, 2006)

Thanks.

By the way, I was running yesterday after I posted this and realized I had typed 4000 BC, which implies that Circumcision began with Adam. I meant to type 2000 BC (for Abraham).

Of course, I think we can view the making of animal skins for Adam and Eve, by the LORD, as foresignifying the same thing (in substance). Covenant theology is beautiful.


----------

