# 1 Peter 3:21 and Infant Baptism



## satz

This is a sincere question I have been wondering about for sometime.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

How is infant baptism consistent with this verse since the verse seems to be saying that baptism is the 'answer of a good conscience toward God', which would seem to me to support the believers baptism position, since only believers can comprehend enough of the gospel to answer God specifically though baptism?

Any thoughts?


----------



## AV1611

That baptism is the answer of a good conscience towards God does not rule out the baptism of infants.


----------



## satz

But can infants answer God with a good conscience?


----------



## BertMulder

The context is here also certainly of import. And how can we, as adults, answer God with a good conscience? The same as infants (although they are probably not able to express it), by the blood of Christ. That does not take away the fact that God is certainly able to work in the heart of infants with his quickening Spirit. As concerning infants hearing the Word, having had 7 children, it is amazing at what age understanding (in general now) children have of what they hear. Under 1 year of age they certainly know what NO means! So my thesis there is that the understanding is far greater than the ability to express their understanding.



> 18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
> 
> 19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
> 
> 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
> 
> 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
> 
> 22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.


----------



## reformedman

repent and be baptized.

similary

good conscience and be baptized.

Repentance(given or revealed by God), is the recognition of our not doing the will of God, turning from our way and desiring God's way.

Infants can't recognize their sinfulness, therefore they cannot repent and be baptized.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Well, you know I think that infant faith is demonstrable from Scripture. No need to rehash that. Don't bring it in; its not germane to the question.

My argument here is much simpler. You apply the text according to its intent. This is not a text that is speaking particularly of infants, but of the "us" vv 18 & 21. Peter is speaking to his readers. So, figure out who his readers are, and apply the text. Case closed. You aren't going to learn anything positive or negative from this text about infant baptism per se.

Calvin:


> Peter here did not mean to teach that Christ's institution is vain an ineffecatious, but only to exclude hypocrites from the hope of salvation, since, as far as they can, they deprave and corrupt baptism. Moreover, when we speak of sacraments, two things are to be considered, the sign and the thing itself. In baptism the sign is water, but the thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ, and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. The fact that the sign often appears ineffecatious and fruitless happens through the abuse of men, but it does not take away the nature of the sacrament. Let us learn then to not to divorce the thing signified from the sign....
> 
> ... Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he gives sufficient indication that baptism to some is only the literal act, and the outward sign of itself avails nothing.


Since we do not even tie baptism's efficacy to the moment of water baptism, we would apply this verse to the believer with a good conscience, whenever he was baptized. The verse has nothing to say to me regarding the timing of placing the sign.


----------



## BertMulder

Contra_Mundum said:


> Well, you know I think that infant faith is demonstrable from Scripture. No need to rehash that. Don't bring it in; its not germane to the question.
> 
> My argument here is much simpler. You apply the text according to its intent. This is not a text that is speaking particularly of infants, but of the "us" vv 18 & 21. Peter is speaking to his readers. So, figure out who his readers are, and apply the text. Case closed. You aren't going to learn anything positive or negative from this text about infant baptism per se.
> 
> Calvin: _quote/unquote_
> 
> Since we do not even tie baptism's efficacy to the moment of water baptism, we would apply this verse to the believer with a good conscience, whenever he was baptized. The verse has nothing to say to me regarding the timing of placing the sign.


----------



## reformedman

Contramundum said:


> Well, you know I think that infant faith is demonstrable from Scripture. No need to rehash that. Don't bring it in; its not germane to the question



It is germane to the question because that *was* his question. Did you instead mean, it wasn't germane to the verse?



Contramundum said:


> ]This is not a text that is speaking particularly of infants, but of the "us" vv 18 & 21



He implies he knows this but his question was "How is infant baptism consistent with this verse"
Although the verse is not referring to infants directly, you are right, regardless he wants to know how it would be consistent *if* applied to infants. Similarly, this verse does not point specifically to 90 year olds, but 'how is elder baptism consistent with this verse' would also be a legitamate question, and I believe he is being sincere.

Now to answer I would say look specifically at the words:


Acts said:


> but the *answer* of a good conscience



the answer, the response, the result, because of, etc...

You are saved (or converted) first, and then you are baptized in *answer* or result of that conversion (good conscience).


----------



## satz

Thank you for the replies so far.

To clarify what I was asking: When I read 1 Peter 3:21 and ask myself 'What is this verse telling me about baptism?' the answer seems to be that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. Now it seems as well to me that only a believer (and a believer can be a very young child) can truely have a good conscience of the type referred to in this verse, that is a conscience that has been made clean by knowledge of what Christ has done to put away his or her sins.



> My argument here is much simpler. You apply the text according to its intent. This is not a text that is speaking particularly of infants, but of the "us" vv 18 & 21. Peter is speaking to his readers. So, figure out who his readers are, and apply the text. Case closed. You aren't going to learn anything positive or negative from this text about infant baptism per se.



Pastor Bruce,

I think I know what you are saying and I agree that infant baptism is not what is under consideration in the verse. I guess where I am coming from is that this verse implies to me that baptism requires a response toward God that would require at least a certain amount of understanding and knowledge. And yes, this does seem to me inconsistent with infant baptism.

This verse was one of the primary ones that convinced me of believer's baptism, so I was just curious what was the paedo interpretation of it.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Mark,

Are there any passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that indicate that circumcision requires a "response toward God that would require at least a certain amount of understanding and knowledge"? If so, then it doesn't follow that if circ. can be said to require a "response toward God that would require at least a certain amount of understanding and knowledge" that therefore it cannot ever be applied to children since we know that is contrary to fact. If that reasoning doesn't work in re circ. then why should we think that it works in re baptism?

rsc


----------



## reformedman

Seems like two different ideas there in your illustration. 

1. The first is circumcision of which Abraham was told to do to his children and that all his lineage were told to do to their children and so onregardless of their response.

2. The second is baptism, of which *we* are told to believe and be baptized.

Two different commands should not be mixed.

So yes, circumcision does not require a response.
but baptism does. look at acts 3:21, and others.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Frank,

The argument seems to be: 

1. x requires a response
2. x presupposes cognitive/affective/voluntative faculties
3. these faculties are insufficiently developed in infants 
4. ergo x cannot be applied to infants.

As a paedobaptist I think one can supply either circ or baptism for x. I understand that Baptists can't won't do this. Okay.

The problem with this argument is that it excludes infant circumcision and any argument that excludes infant circumcision is contrary to God's revealed will.

Therefore this argument works ONLY on the assumption, which has yet to be demonstrated, that baptism and circumcision are utterly unrelated, but it doesn't work in the way in which it was being used.

It would seem not to be a promising argument by which to exclude infants from initiation into the visible covenant community. 

One has to argue that God initiated infants into the visible covenant community for 2000 years from Abraham to Christ but then he stopped doing that due to the _radically _different nature of the New Covenant. Now infants bear no relation to the covenant of grace until they exercise their faculties and are eligible to be admitted visibly to the covenant of grace.

In that case we're back to square one and at logger heads again.

Any NT text, however, that calls for the exercise of faculties prior to baptism can be answered on the basis that I've supplied. The same was true under the administration of types and shadows and that fact did not prevent God from ordaining the initiation of covenant children.

It does not follow therefore that if God ever requires the exercise of faculties in connection with the administration of sacrament x that such a requirement excludes the administration of that sacrament to infants. 

So Baptists need a different argument because this one proves too much.

rsc

rsc



reformedman said:


> Seems like two different ideas there in your illustration.
> 
> 1. The first is circumcision of which Abraham was told to do to his children and that all his lineage were told to do to their children and so onregardless of their response.
> 
> 2. The second is baptism, of which *we* are told to believe and be baptized.
> 
> Two different commands should not be mixed.
> 
> So yes, circumcision does not require a response.
> but baptism does. look at acts 3:21, and others.


----------



## Poimen

Two thoughts here:

1) To branch off what Dr. Clark has been saying one must consider the fact that circumcision, to believing Abraham, was a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith (Romans 4:11) and yet he was commanded to apply that same sign to those who did not. (Genesis 17:10-13) So to say that baptism is an answer of a good conscience to God does not exclude infants _per se_.

2) It is interesting to think about the fact that Peter is using the analogy of Noah's Flood to relate to baptism. The only person we ever read about having believed is Noah (Genesis 6:8). And yet God makes covenant with Noah and his family (Genesis 6:18). 

Now perhaps for some this will not hold water (pun intended!) but it seems clear that: i. Noah was a believer ii. on the basis of his faith God saved ('baptized') his family (even though all were old enough to make a profession of faith) iii. Peter compares this flood to the baptism of today. iv. baptism is not given based upon anything we have done but because of God's promise as the rest of the Bible teaches.

Anyways, you may find holes in my logic and proceeding but this is intended to provoke thought and debate...


----------



## reformedman

R. Scott Clark said:


> Frank,
> 
> The argument seems to be:
> 
> 1. x requires a response
> 2. x presupposes cognitive/affective/voluntative faculties
> 3. these faculties are insufficiently developed in infants
> 4. ergo x cannot be applied to infants.



More specifically, the argument seems to be:

* sacrament(ordinance) of baptism
 saved
[r] repentance
-> leads to

1. the sacrament  applies to a group  :  -> 
2. [r] is a required need before  : [r] = 
3. group  is not defined
4. the poster would like to know if infants are part of group  while  -> 
5.  has only been revealed so far as being adults, never as infants.
6.  has only been applied to adults, never as infants.
6.  is defined as people able to repent
7.  is defined as people "answering" or performing(or desiring to perform)  because of a concious reaction.





The problem with this argument is that it excludes infant circumcision and any argument that excludes infant circumcision is contrary to God's revealed will.

Click to expand...

Only if you presuppose that circumcision is directly correlated to baptism. 




Therefore this argument works ONLY on the assumption, which has yet to be demonstrated, that baptism and circumcision are utterly unrelated...

Click to expand...

The burden of proof would be on the person claiming that it ever changed.




Any NT text, however, that calls for the exercise of faculties prior to baptism can be answered on the basis that I've supplied. The same was true under the administration of types and shadows and that fact did not prevent God from ordaining the initiation of covenant children.

It does not follow therefore that if God ever requires the exercise of faculties in connection with the administration of sacrament x that such a requirement excludes the administration of that sacrament to infants.

Click to expand...

This seems just a rewording of the above, of which I remain on my initial 2 cents.




So Baptists need a different argument because this one proves too much.

Click to expand...


As a baptist, I won't use a different argument, I'll stand instead on the word of God:



not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Me Died Blue

Poimen said:


> Two thoughts here:
> 
> 1) To branch off what Dr. Clark has been saying one must consider the fact that circumcision, to believing Abraham, was a sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith (Romans 4:11) and yet he was commanded to apply that same sign to those who did not. (Genesis 17:10-13) So to say that baptism is an answer of a good conscience to God does not exclude infants _per se_.



This is a key point, indeed. Often all of the Old Covenant spiritual ties to, and meanings of, circumcision seem to be ignored. Circumcision signified the inward reality of repentance (Deut. 10:16; Lev. 26:41; Jer. 4:4; 9:25-26). It signified the inward reality of the cleansing of the heart (Deutt 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Is. 52:1). It signified the inward reality of mortification of the flesh (Col. 2:11-13; Jer. 4:4 cf. Ex. 6:12, 30; Acts 7:51).

-Exodus 6:12 "But Moses said to the LORD, 'Behold, the people of Israel have not listened to me. How then shall Pharaoh listen to me, for I am of uncircumcised lips?'" (see also verse 30)

-Leviticus 26:40-42 (emphasis mine) "But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies—if then _their uncircumcised heart_ is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land."

-Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn."

-Deuteronomy 30:6 "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."

-Isaiah 52:1 "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion; put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for there shall no more come into you the uncircumcised and the unclean."

-Jeremiah 4:3-4 (emphasis mine) "For thus says the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem: 'Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. _Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts_, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.'"

-Jeremiah 9:25-26 (emphasis mine) "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when _I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh_—Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, _for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart._"

-Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you."

-Romans 2:25-29 "For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."

-Colossians 2:11-13 "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses."


----------



## Contra_Mundum

See this post:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?p=220192#post220192
for my new insights into the difference between a CB and a PB understanding of covenant-perception as explained to me from a couple different sources. I've tried to break it down in parallel. It has taken me some time to acquire this understanding. But now JW makes perfect sense to me. I could not have comprehended him previously nearly so well. I think he's mistaken, obviously.

So, Chris, until he makes one basic CoG, with an external administration out of the Old Testament, the CB will not read the above references as expressive of one reality. In the CB view, the prophets are only making sermon illustrations, they are trying to get the Israelites into the other covenant by utilizing providential/coincidental analogies between the two covenants (or parts). He doesn't acknowlege that those in the _second part_ are claiming the first part and are apostates from it, not possessing the promise by faith. He says they have ZERO relation to the spiritual covenant. They could apostatize from the _external_ covenant, but they were fully enmeshed in their own covenant, CBs believe.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

reformedman said:


> but the *answer* of a good conscience



Okay, but didn't circumcision require this too?

rsc


----------



## reformedman

R. Scott Clark said:


> Okay, but didn't circumcision require this too?
> 
> rsc



No, the servant didn't want to be circumcised. The male servants and the slaves didn't want circumcision unless they were converted. Physical or spiritual they didn't want it. And I'm quite sure the infants didn't want it either since they couldn't comprehend why they needed to suffer so much even with all the theological explaining you could give them. 

No one wanted circumcision unless they wanted God's will in his life. Abraham circumcised them because he was told to. I'm sure Abraham being the believer that he was, in love with God, would gladly do it and feel its the least he could do. He probably did it in answer of a good conscience toward God. Anyone who did it rightly did it as we today do believers baptism=with a good conscience.

In short to be direct to an answer for you; no infant has ever (as a result of good conscience) desired to either be circumcised nor baptized. The verse speaks of people who "do it" with a good conscience. In other words they take the action upon themselves and request it done on themselves.

A question to you:
Would you be circumcised if God wanted you to be? 
Would you be baptized if God wanted you to be?

I have no doubt you would in both cases. It is your answer with a good conscience toward God.
An infant can't.


----------



## Scott Bushey

reformedman said:


> No, the servant didn't want to be circumcised. The male servants and the slaves didn't want circumcision. Physical or spiritual they didn't want it. And I'm quite sure the children didn't want it either since they couldn't comprehend why they needed to suffer so much even with all the theological explaining you could give them.
> 
> No one wanted circumcision unless they wanted God's will in his life. Abraham circumcised them because he was told to. I'm sure Abraham being the believer that he was, in love with God, would gladly do it and feel its the least he could do. He probably did it in answer of a good concious toward God.
> 
> In short to be direct to an answer for you; no infant has ever (as a result of good concious) desired to either be circumcised nor baptized. The verse speaks of people who "do it" with a good conscience.
> 
> A question to you:
> Would you be circumcised if God wanted you to be?
> Would you be baptized if God wanted you to be?
> 
> I have no doubt you would. It is your answer with a good conscience toward God.
> An infant can't.



Those whom are able to mentally exercise the conscience in baptism should. This does not exclude infants. This rationale would exclude all imbeciles.


----------



## reformedman

Scott,

Please define the word *answer* in:
"not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God"

Would you say like me, that it means; 'in active response to' ?


----------



## satz

Again, thanks for all the replies.

Some of the stuff posted is pretty deep and I'll need some time to think it over. However, I think Dr Clark is spot on in saying that this controversy has its roots to a large extent in your understanding of how baptism and circumcision are related.

However, even if we were to grant that baptism and circumcision are related, that does not mean they must be similar in their specifics. The outward acts of getting wet in water or cutting of a part of your body are totally meaningless spiritually. They only have as much meaning as God gives them, so he is the one who sets the specifics for the acts. As an example female israelites were not circumcised, but female christians are. So there is an obvious sense in which the specifics of the ordinance have changed. And since baptism only appears in the new testament, we should look primarily to the new testament for what are God's new 'rules' regarding it. 

Also, I am not sure it necessarily follows that if infants are not baptised then they are outside of Gods community. As I mentioned above, female israelites were not circumcised, yet they were no less a part of the covenant community of israel. Why wouldn't the same apply to the children of believers?


----------



## Scott Bushey

reformedman said:


> Scott,
> 
> Please define the word *answer* in:
> "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God"
> 
> Would you say like me, that it means; 'in active response to' ?



Yes; If an adult believer that comes to faith, 'actively respond'. But that has no relevance on the eternal covenantal command of Gen 17. The _good conscience_ response is the same as it was since Genesis. 

Calvin writes:


> Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. This was added, because it might be that the greatest part of men would profess the name of Christ; and so it is with us, almost all are introduced into the church by baptism. Thus, what he had said before would not be appropriate, that few at this day are saved by baptism, as God saved only eight by the ark. This objection Peter anticipates, when he testifies that he speaks not of the naked sign, but that the effect must also be connected with it, as though he had said, that what happened in the age of Noah would always be the case, that mankind would rush on to their own destruction, but that the Lord would in a wonderful way deliver His very small flock.
> 
> We now see what this connection means; for some one might object and say, "Our baptism is widely different from that of Noah, for it happens that most are at this day baptized." To this he replies, that the external symbol is not sufficient, except baptism be received really and effectually: and the reality of it will be found only in a few. It hence follows that we ought carefully to see how men commonly act when we rely on examples, and that we ought not to fear though we may be few in number.
> 
> But the fanatics, such as Schuencfeldius, absurdly pervert this testimony, while they seek to take away from sacraments all their power and effect. For Peter did not mean here to teach that Christ's institution is vain and inefficacious, but only to exclude hypocrites from the hope of salvation, who, as far as they can, deprave and corrupt baptism. Moreover, when we speak of sacraments, two things are to be considered, the sign and the thing itself. In baptism the sign is water, but the thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. Now that the sign appears often inefficacious and fruitless, this happens through the abuse of men, which does not take away the nature of the sacrament. Let us then learn not to tear away the thing signified from the sign. We must at the same time beware of another evil, such as prevails among the Papists; for as they distinguish not as they ought between the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element, and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit. They do not regard Christ as the only author of all the blessings therein offered to us; they transfer the glory of his death to the water, they tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign.
> 
> What then ought we to do? Not to separate what has been joined together by the Lord. We ought to acknowledge in baptism a spiritual washing, we ought to embrace therein the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation, and yet so as to leave to Christ his own honor, and also to the Holy Spirit; so that no part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign. Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he sufficiently shewed that baptism to some is only the outward act, and that the outward sign of itself avails nothing.
> 
> But the answer of a good conscience. The word question, or questioning, is to be taken here for "answer," or testimony. Now Peter briefly defines the efficacy and use of baptism, when he calls attention to conscience, and expressly requires that confidence which can sustain the sight of God and can stand before his tribunal. For in these words he teaches us that baptism in its main part is spiritual, and then that it includes the remission of sins and renovation of the old man; for how can there be a good and pure conscience until our old man is reformed, and we be renewed in the righteousness of God? and how can we answer before God, unless we rely on and are sustained by a gratuitous pardon of our sins? In short, Peter intended to set forth the effect of baptism, that no one might glory in a naked and dead sign, as hypocrites are wont to do.
> 
> But we must notice what follows, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. By these words he teaches us that we are not to cleave to the element of water, and that what is thereby typified flows from Christ alone, and is to be sought from him. Moreover, by referring to the resurrection, he has regard to the doctrine which he had taught before, that Christ was vivified by the Spirit; for the resurrection was victory over death and the completion of our salvation. We hence learn that the death of Christ is not excluded, but is included in his resurrection. We then cannot otherwise derive benefit from baptism, than by having all our thoughts fixed on the death and the resurrection of Christ.
> 
> 22. Who is on the right hand of God. He recommends to us the ascension of Christ unto heaven, lest our eyes should seek him in the world; and this belongs especially to faith. He commends to our notice his session on the Father's right hand, lest we should doubt his power to save us. And what his sitting at the right hand of the Father means, we have elsewhere explained, that is, that Christ exercises supreme power everywhere as God's representative. And an explanation of this is what follows, angels being made subject to him; and he adds powers and authorities only for the sake of amplification, for angels are usually designated by such words. It was then Peter's object to set forth by these high titles the sovereignty of Christ.



Seems like Calvin agrees w/ you. Did he forget his paedo beliefs?


----------



## Scott Bushey

satz said:


> Again, thanks for all the replies.
> 
> Some of the stuff posted is pretty deep and I'll need some time to think it over. However, I think Dr Clark is spot on in saying that this controversy has its roots to a large extent in your understanding of how baptism and circumcision are related.
> 
> However, even if we were to grant that baptism and circumcision are related, that does not mean they must be similar in their specifics. The outward acts of getting wet in water or cutting of a part of your body are totally meaningless spiritually. They only have as much meaning as God gives them, so he is the one who sets the specifics for the acts. As an example female israelites were not circumcised, but female christians are. So there is an obvious sense in which the specifics of the ordinance have changed. And since baptism only appears in the new testament, we should look primarily to the new testament for what are God's new 'rules' regarding it.
> 
> Also, I am not sure it necessarily follows that if infants are not baptised then they are outside of Gods community. As I mentioned above, female israelites were not circumcised, yet they were no less a part of the covenant community of israel. Why wouldn't the same apply to the children of believers?



Mark,
Have you read Nigel lee's paper, *From Circumcision to baptism*?


----------



## Scott Bushey

satz said:


> The outward acts of getting wet in water or cutting of a part of your body are totally meaningless spiritually.



Not necessarily: 

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 newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20




> They only have as much meaning as God gives them



True. See gen 17



> so he is the one who sets the specifics for the acts.



These specifics originate in Genesis and come to fruition @ Calvary.




> As an example female israelites were not circumcised



Not true! They were through the federal headship of their father.



> but female christians are


.

Like in the OT. In the NT, they are more actively involved.



> So there is an obvious sense in which the specifics of the ordinance have changed. And since baptism only appears in the new testament, we should look primarily to the new testament for what are God's new 'rules' regarding it.



It's the same rules in the OT.



> Also, I am not sure it necessarily follows that if infants are not baptised then they are outside of Gods community.



Here we go again: 



> Genesis 17:1-14 Genesis 17:1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. 2 "And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly." 3 Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: 4 "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. 5 "No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 "I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. 7 "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 8 "Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." 9 And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 "This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 "and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 "He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 "And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, *that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant*."





> As I mentioned above, female israelites were not circumcised, yet they were no less a part of the covenant community of israel. Why wouldn't the same apply to the children of believers?



They were, thats the point. Thats why they were not cut off.


----------



## reformedman

Scott, I agree with your last post but you were out of the subject. The question was referring to acts 3. I agree with everything you said in reference there but disagree when you went back to gen 17. 

I feel that the debate with paedobaptists and baptists would have so much more better communication if each are specific with disecting the question at hand. I interpret the question to be paraphrased as:
Using only acts 3:21, can we say that infants can normally and possibly be included in the group being addressed to by the apostle Peter?

That's as specific as I could interpret satz's question.

Here's the answer as I see it:
The word in the verse, "answer", is not a audible answer, nor a spiritual answer. It refers to a physical-active-verbtype-movement-of-the-feet type of response. It is the wanting desire of a believer to do the will of God for the right reasons. Therefore, the answer is no, an infant is excluded in this verse.

Now by that, I am not saying it can't be found elsewhere in scripture, don't misunderstand me, what I am saying though is that *this* verse can't.

This atleast is my 2 cents on it.
PS, I don't see it elsewhere in scripture but that is not what this thread is about.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Scott Bushey said:


> Yes; If an adult believer that comes to faith, 'actively respond'. But that has no relevance on the eternal covenantal command of Gen 17. The _good conscience_ response is the same as it was since Genesis.
> 
> Calvin writes:
> _(etc.)_
> 
> Seems like Calvin agrees w/ you. Did he forget his paedo beliefs?


Scott,
ALL Calvin does is take the verse in its proper sense, and for the express purpose defined by the context. That it is improper to deduce all manner of things from the text in reference to infant baptism should be obvious. Calvin certainly believes in infant baptism, and has no problem with the verse, and in the portion I quoted above (middle of third para in your excerpt) he removes the anabaptist objection by pointing out what they forget, before moving on to guard against RC errors on the other side.

We cannot make any verse say more than it does say. It is enough to show in this place (as Calvin does) that this verse does not say anything contrary to infant baptism, or prejudicial to the principles upon which it is built. There are no categorical statements in this verse (such as "all" or "none"), therefore nothing final can be taught from this verse beyond the some to whom he writes--namely, any believer reading or being taught this passage.

Prove that a child may have a good conscience and you can directly apply this verse to him. Prove that a child has a bad conscience, and you can deny him the blessing. If you cannot prove anything regarding any specific child's conscience, then you can't make the verse say anything about him positively or negatively.



Finally, this verse is teaching something objective: that baptism teaches something, teaches it to the conscience. Now it teaches whatever it is teaching to a person _not simply before his baptism,_ (which is what the Baptist insists upon), but to all reading Christians, most of whom are long since baptized. So the pincipal direction of the *TEACHING* is _retrospective._ This really is too simple.

Therefore, since the teaching of this verse is _retrospective_ for everyone involved (except for maybe a handful of unbaptized prostelytes being taught the passage at any given moment?), on what basis does this verse inveigh against the person, baptized as an infant, who is looking back further than anyone in the room at his baptism???

Answer: It doesn't. Because its not a text talking about or to people preparing for the ordinance of baptism. Its a text calling on all of us (practically everyone long-since being baptized) to consider _what God does in regeneration._ End of argument.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Contra_Mundum said:


> Scott,
> ALL Calvin does is take the verse in its proper sense, and for the express purpose defined by the context. That it is improper to deduce all manner of things from the text in reference to infant baptism should be obvious. Calvin certainly believes in infant baptism, and has no problem with the verse, and in the portion I quoted above (middle of third para in your excerpt) he removes the anabaptist objection by pointing out what they forget, before moving on to guard against RC errors on the other side.
> 
> We cannot make any verse say more than it does say. It is enough to show in this place (as Calvin does) that this verse does not say anything contrary to infant baptism, or prejudicial to the principles upon which it is built. There are no categorical statements in this verse (such as "all" or "none"), therefore nothing final can be taught from this verse beyond the some to whom he writes--namely, any believer reading or being taught this passage.
> 
> Prove that a child may have a good conscience and you can directly apply this verse to him. Prove that a child has a bad conscience, and you can deny him the blessing. If you cannot prove anything regarding any specific child's conscience, then you can't make the verse say anything about him positively or negatively.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, this verse is teaching something objective: that baptism teaches something, teaches it to the conscience. Now it teaches whatever it is teaching to a person _not simply before his baptism,_ (which is what the Baptist insists upon), but to all reading Christians, most of whom are long since baptized. So the pincipal direction of the *TEACHING* is _retrospective._ This really is too simple.
> 
> Therefore, since the teaching of this verse is _retrospective_ for everyone involved (except for maybe a handful of unbaptized prostelytes being taught the passage at any given moment?), on what basis does this verse inveigh against the person, baptized as an infant, who is looking back further than anyone in the room at his baptism???
> 
> Answer: It doesn't. Because its not a text talking about or to people preparing for the ordinance of baptism. Its a text calling on all of us (practically everyone long-since being baptized) to consider _what God does in regeneration._ End of argument.



Bruce,
Sorry; I was being factitious. The point is, Calvin did not forget his paedo beliefs even though he doesn't mention it here when dealing with this verse because this verse really has nothing to do with infants.


----------



## reformedman

Scott, I've agreed with you that this verse neither talks directly about infant nor elder baptism. But it does say that it is done *after* the person desires it. I can only assume that infants don't desire baptism per se but I will grant you that no one knows if they do or don't desire after God's will. This has been the crux of this conversation that I've hoped to show.



Contramundum said:


> Finally, this verse is teaching something objective: that baptism teaches something, teaches it to the conscience. Now it teaches whatever it is teaching to a person not simply before his baptism, (which is what the Baptist insists upon), but to all reading Christians, most of whom are long since baptized. So the pincipal direction of the TEACHING is retrospective. This really is too simple.


I don't think he is saying that Baptism teaches anything to the conscience. I believe the verse clearly says that Baptism is done as a *result* of a good conscience.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Grammar will be helpful here.

1) "Answer" is a noun, which is not a temporal part of speech.

2) The verb in the sentence is swzei (from swzw), Present Active Indicative 3rd Singular, "it is saving" us.

3) The word immediately preceding the verb is nun, (thank you Peter for an additional temporal indicator), meaning "now". Right now.

So the force of the sentence is immediate, it has to do with the people with whom Peter is writing, as well as himself, at that moment. They all have the answer of a good conscience toward God *right this moment*. And the referent in their thinking is their baptism--the one that saved them.

No matter what one thinks about when its appropriate to do baptism, this verse will not provide any ammunition whatsoever for deciding that question.

One can say, "Well, what applies afterward _ought to_ apply beforehand also." OK. That conclusion is a theological inference from the verse, plus other passages of Scripture, a decision made about when to baptise long before one got to this verse. I'm sorry, but that's just the grammar of the verse.

And since it is retrospective, it can't be leveled against a person baptized in infancy, because he's also looking back at his baptism the same as an adult baptized. This verse has UNIVERSAL application to all believers, already baptized.


----------



## reformedman

I think the reason this verse doesn't help is because this verse speaks actually about spirit-baptism not water-baptism.
This is what I referred to in post #26.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

reformedman said:


> I think the reason this verse doesn't help is because this verse speaks actually about spirit-baptism not water-baptism.



Curious distinction.  Where do we see in Scripture, or in this verse in particular, this distinction?


----------



## reformedman

> The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:



paraphrase:
Baptism does save us, not the one with water which cleanse the outside, but the internal one--the repentance toward God, initiated by the work of Christ.

This verse is definitely talking about Baptism, which baptism is what is defined. It was the reason for the verse, it's an explanation of effective baptism.

If it isn't spirit baptism, then what other baptism can save? This verse says that it is able to save.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

WrittenFromUtopia said:


> Curious distinction.  Where do we see in Scripture, or in this verse in particular, this distinction?





reformedman said:


> paraphrase:
> Baptism does save us, not the one with water which cleanse the outside, but the internal one--the repentance toward God, initiated by the work of Christ.
> 
> This verse is definitely talking about Baptism, which baptism is what is defined. It was the reason for the verse, it's an explanation of effective baptism.
> 
> If it isn't spirit baptism, then what other baptism can save? This verse says that it is able to save.


I do think Peter is dividing the sign and reality in this particular verse, in terms of which he draws attention to the Spirit's _actual_ work, as opposed to the church's sacramental work in his name.

Of course, Peter also makes the sacramental connection through the use of the term "antitypon" that is "figure" or "correspondence" due to the "water" of verse 20.

But certainly saving power does not reside in the waters of baptism, but in the Spirit of God. Peter is clearly saying "Don't think of the water itself as salvific; rather, look past the water to the Spirit. The same Spirit that saved Noah and 7 other souls. The ark didn't save them, but GOD."


----------



## R. Scott Clark

reformedman said:


> paraphrase:
> Baptism does save us, not the one with water which cleanse the outside, but the internal one--the repentance toward God, initiated by the work of Christ.
> 
> This verse is definitely talking about Baptism, which baptism is what is defined. It was the reason for the verse, it's an explanation of effective baptism.
> 
> If it isn't spirit baptism, then what other baptism can save? This verse says that it is able to save.



Baptism doesn't save any more than the flood waters saved Noah. Peter says in 1 Pet 3:20 that Noah was saved "_dia hydatos_." The flood water was potentially deadly and something through which Noah needed to be saved. The water was a judgment. It was a sort of ritual death. 

So it is with baptism and circumcision. They are both forms of ritual initiation into death. Circumcision is a sort of ritual death inasmuch as men are never so vulnerable as during circumcision! It also typifies and illustrates the forthcoming and promised death of Christ. Baptism is retrospective of Christ's death/baptism/circumcision. This is the of Col 2:11-12. Christ was baptized/circumcised/put to death on the cross. We are ritually identified with his circumcision/baptism/death in our baptism. We come into possession of all that act signifies and seals _sola gratia_, _sola fide_.

rsc


----------



## satz

Scott Bushey said:


> Mark,
> Have you read Nigel lee's paper, *From Circumcision to baptism*?



Scott,

Yes, I have, though I must confess it wasn't a very thorough read.


----------



## satz

Scott, 

Thanks for your post #25. You raise some interesting points. 



> These specifics originate in Genesis and come to fruition @ Calvary.





> So there is an obvious sense in which the specifics of the ordinance have changed. And since baptism only appears in the new testament, we should look primarily to the new testament for what are God's new 'rules' regarding it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same rules in the OT.
Click to expand...


Why would you say there must necessarily be the same rules as in the OT? Galatians 5:6 seems to say that circumcision doesn’t mean anything either way as far as Jesus Christ’s religion goes. I think that shows us at the very least that we cannot take Genesis 17 and apply it directly to new testament baptism. We need to look at what the new testament says about baptism.




> As an example female israelites were not circumcised
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true! They were through the federal headship of their father.
Click to expand...


I do not deny the federal headship of the father, but could you elaborate on where you get the idea of the female Israelite being circumcised through their father? Why not take the simpler route and say God never asked for female children to be circumcised so there was no need?


----------



## Scott Bushey

satz said:


> Why would you say there must necessarily be the same rules as in the OT? Galatians 5:6 seems to say that circumcision doesn’t mean anything either way as far as Jesus Christ’s religion goes.



*Galatians 5:1-6 NAS Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.*

No. What Gal's is saying is that it's either justification by faith alone or else you are holding again to the covenant of works and you will perish. *"you who are seeking to be justified by law"*



> I think that shows us at the very least that we cannot take Genesis 17 and apply it directly to new testament baptism. We need to look at what the new testament says about baptism.



Is the concept of _covenant_ a new concept? No! In fact, the idea originates in the garden. For this reason we should utilize both to come to a conclusion. This is exactly what James W. did not do w/ Shisko. In fact, this is not the way Shisko went either. Proper hermeneutics demands that you use the whole of Gods word. Do not rip Gods word in half.



> I do not deny the federal headship of the father, but could you elaborate on where you get the idea of the female Israelite being circumcised through their father?



Dr. McMahon explains this here:



> Were females circumcised in the OT? Of course – they were virtually circumcised. Here is how Covenant Theologians think this through: First question: Were Israelite women able to partake of the Passover? Answer: I do not know of anyone who would disagree. The entire family was obligated by God to do so. Problem: Exodus 12:48 describes the proselyte males who shall be circumcised in order to eat of the Passover. He says, “And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land.” Then the problem arises, God says – “For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.” Females are not formally circumcised. God says that no uncircumcised person having a “foreskin” can eat of the Passover. Women actually have this (but I am not going to get into the medical aspects of it – you can look it up on your own.) If females, then, are not circumcised, how does God allow them to eat of the Passover? Answer: They are circumcised through Federal Headship – the father of the family, otherwise they would remain unclean and cutoff (that which symbols the cutting of the flesh of the foreskin and discarding it).  Second Question: How do we know they are “virtually” circumcised, or they are seen as circumcised in order to be acceptable in this regard, and partake of the Passover, for instance? Answer: The ratification of the covenant is where we find the answer. The Scriptures give us an example of covenant faithfulness where God, and everyone bound by the covenant, must be solemnly set forth. Genesis 15:17 says, “And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. 18 On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram…” We know that to “covenant” means to “cut.” The ratification of this “cutting” is done through an ontological adherence to the cut pieces of the covenant. God himself passes through the pieces of the covenant animals and sacrifice. He says, without saying it, but through action, “Whatever is done to these animals, let it be done to me if I do not uphold my side of the covenant.” In the same manner, any person who “covenants” with God can be “cut off”. They are cast out of the covenant if they are found unfaithful. This is likened to the foreskin of the male organ being “cut off and cast away.” The “sin” is purged from the camp. Blood must be spilt, as the foreskin cut had spilt blood. Not only is the covenant sign given in the flesh, but it also acts as the ratification of the covenant. The seed passes through the covenant cutting, just as God passes through the covenant cutting. The sign of this passing was circumcision so that the male, the head of the family, continually carried around the ratification of the covenant in his flesh, and hopefully, in his heart as well (Deut. 10:16 and Jeremiah 4:4). Each time the lineage of the faithful (the children of Abraham) pass through the cutting of the covenant sign in the flesh of the foreskin, one of two things will happen – 1) God would regenerate them and they would continue to uphold the physical and spiritual aspects of the covenant, or 2) God would not regenerate them and they would ultimately be “cut off” and “cast away.” (Achan, Dathan, Korah, AND THEIR FAMILIES – women and children included based on federal headship). If the female did not symbolically partake of this ratification, of which the covenant stands or falls in blessing or curse upon them, they would not be able to be part of the “clean” people of God. They would remain as covenant breakers who do not believe the promises of God, as the proselyte was until he was circumcised willingly, and baptized with his entire family as Maimonedies sets forth concerning Jewish history. The females would also not be able to partake of the Passover if they there not considered being clean, or circumcised, by oath. The seed passing through the cutting of the covenant is the same as God passing through the cutting of the covenant. In this way they ratify the oath made. And it also expresses the monergistic aspect of salvation in that the seed, not being sentient, is bound by the covenant stipulations. When a male passes through this same ratification, he not only binds himself to the covenant, but also is given the role of carrying around that covenant in his flesh to continue its outward, and visible administration of a spiritual truth (Genesis 17).






> Why not take the simpler route and say God never asked for female children to be circumcised so there was no need?



See above


----------



## satz

> No. What Gal's is saying is that it's either justification by faith alone or else you are holding again to the covenant of works and you will perish. "you who are seeking to be justified by law"



Scott, I’ am sorry but I don’t quite get what you are saying here. Circumcision no longer has any meaning for the Christian. Would you disagree with that? The act of physical circumcision was very important for Abraham and Israel, but it is of no meaning for Christians today. Even if we make the assumption that baptism and circumcision are connected, there is no way we can figure that out just by reading Genesis. We need the new testament to tell us that. My point was we cannot take passages from Genesis and apply them directly to the church today. I believe God does operate by progressive revelation. And the final and greatest revelation is in the gospels and epistles. If we were to read Genesis 17 by itself we might think that circumcision is still required today. But the New Testament tells us that is not so. So we do need the new testament to determine our practice as the church.



> Is the concept of covenant a new concept? No! In fact, the idea originates in the garden. For this reason we should utilize both to come to a conclusion. This is exactly what James W. did not do w/ Shisko. In fact, this is not the way Shisko went either. Proper hermeneutics demands that you use the whole of Gods word. Do not rip Gods word in half.



I agree completely we should not rip God’s word in half. But that doesn’t mean that very portion of God’s word speaks in equal force on every subject. Should we look at Romans 9 to learn about church discipline? Or 1 Corinthians 11 to learn about predestination? There are passages in scripture that are more relevant than others on particular subjects. No matter the connection between baptism and circumcision, no one got baptized in the old testament, to my knowledge. Hence I do not see how it is dispensational to say we ought to draw primarily from the new testament to form our doctrine of baptism.



> Dr. McMahon explains this here:



Thanks for that. I’ll chew over it.


----------



## Scott Bushey

satz said:


> Scott, I’ am sorry but I don’t quite get what you are saying here. Circumcision no longer has any meaning for the Christian. Would you disagree with that? The act of physical circumcision was very important for Abraham and Israel, but it is of no meaning for Christians today. Even if we make the assumption that baptism and circumcision are connected, there is no way we can figure that out just by reading Genesis. We need the new testament to tell us that. My point was we cannot take passages from Genesis and apply them directly to the church today. I believe God does operate by progressive revelation. And the final and greatest revelation is in the gospels and epistles. If we were to read Genesis 17 by itself we might think that circumcision is still required today. But the New Testament tells us that is not so. So we do need the new testament to determine our practice as the church.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree completely we should not rip God’s word in half. But that doesn’t mean that very portion of God’s word speaks in equal force on every subject. Should we look at Romans 9 to learn about church discipline? Or 1 Corinthians 11 to learn about predestination? There are passages in scripture that are more relevant than others on particular subjects. No matter the connection between baptism and circumcision, no one got baptized in the old testament, to my knowledge. Hence I do not see how it is dispensational to say we ought to draw primarily from the new testament to form our doctrine of baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. I’ll chew over it.



Mark,
Lets slow down a bit: You presented a passage from Galatians. 
3 initial questions:
1) What does Paul mean when he says, "you who are seeking to be justified by law" ? 
2) How is this statement related to the previous statement about circumcision? 
3) What covenant is related to being 'justified by the law'?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I agree with Dr. Bacon on women's participation in the _memorial and sacramental_ Passover (that they were not expected to participate, and may not have even been invited). The Jewish doctors distinguished between the original meal and its celebration. The "bar mitzvah" was the original mark of transition after which a young boy would be required to accompany his father and the rest of the males to Jerusalem, where God commanded (again, only the males) to go up thrice annually. This would not preclude women accompanying their menfolk (Lk. 2:41), but God did not require it.

It is certain that a minimum of 1/4 of the females in any given year were unable to participate in the basis of their ceremonial uncleanness (the same batch would also have been unclean on the following month's "substitute passover"). A certain number of others would not have been free to make the trip due to recoveries from birth and further ceremonial uncleanness.

Furthermore, large young families would not have been able to make such a long slow trek. Imagine! one round trip might take a month walking with all those small children, plus the week spent staying and the costs involved.

Now add two more manditory feasts. Again, the argument is not that they could not come, but that they were not required to come as were the men. And if they came, they may not have been invited into participation in the sacrament (since in fact they were not circumcised).

I can still agree that women in Israel participated in the cleanness (or uncleanness) of the nation through circumcision, that there was an "ethereal" or "virtual" circumcision--but I don't subscribe to the material connection described in Matt's article above. Women certainly were ceremonially cleansed, they were federally clean through their families, their fathers, their husbands. The whole people was sprinkled with the blood of the covenant. But the truth is that women were not religiously responsible for certain activities under the old covenant. The broadening of general religious participation in the _sacraments_ of the church is an improvement of the New Covenant over the Old.

I encourage reading Dr. Bacon's article against paedo-communion for his full insights. I believe Chris Coldwell (NaphtaliPress here on the PB) has linked to it in the past.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Contra_Mundum said:


> I agree with Dr. Bacon on women's participation in the _memorial and sacramental_ Passover (that they were not expected to participate, and may not have even been invited). The Jewish doctors distinguished between the original meal and its celebration. The "bar mitzvah" was the original mark of transition after which a young boy would be required to accompany his father and the rest of the males to Jerusalem, where God commanded (again, only the males) to go up thrice annually. This would not preclude women accompanying their menfolk (Lk. 2:41), but God did not require it.



Bruce,
Ceremonially, yes. 



> It is certain that a minimum of 1/4 of the females in any given year were unable to participate in the basis of their ceremonial uncleanness (the same batch would also have been unclean on the following month's "substitute passover"). A certain number of others would not have been free to make the trip due to recoveries from birth and further ceremonial uncleanness.



I am certain that this could be considered as providential hindrances.



> Furthermore, large young families would not have been able to make such a long slow trek. Imagine! one round trip might take a month walking with all those small children, plus the week spent staying and the costs involved.



This is speculation.



> Now add two more manditory feasts. Again, the argument is not that they could not come, but that they were not required to come as were the men. And if they came, they may not have been invited into participation in the sacrament (since in fact they were not circumcised).



Again, speculation.



> I can still agree that women in Israel participated in the cleanness (or uncleanness) of the nation through circumcision, that there was an "ethereal" or "virtual" circumcision--but I don't subscribe to the material connection described in Matt's article above.



So then you agree that they are recipients of a circumcision; above you seem to be saying they are'nt circumcised?



> Women certainly were ceremonially cleansed, they were federally clean through their families, their fathers, their husbands.



Correct. And how was this accomplished? As you have said above. I just want to keep the discussion clear for Mark.



> The whole people was sprinkled with the blood of the covenant. But the truth is that women were not religiously responsible for certain activities under the old covenant.



How was the blood spilled upon them if not by their federal heads circumcision? Right; some of the ceremonial stuff.....



> The broadening of general religious participation in the _sacraments_ of the church is an improvement of the New Covenant over the Old.



I agree.


----------



## JohnV

R. Scott Clark said:


> Okay, but didn't circumcision require this too?
> 
> rsc



This *is* the key question. 

See Daniel's (Poiman) post. 

A good conscience is a response of faith, a response to covenant inclusion. It is not a requirement in order to receive either the OT or NT covenant, but a requirement of the covenant upon receiving the sign, whether OT or NT. Even if circumcisioin and baptism are deemed unrelated, yet this certainly remains quite intact. 

But surely there must be some relation of circumcision to baptism, since all the OT signifies and points to the NT. Christ's coming and work of salvation revealed to us the mysteries of faith concealed in the OT. The OT saints longed to know what we now commonly know through the NT. Surely it is not a stretch to believe that OT circumcision be related to baptism, since both are God's signs to us that He has called un into His covenant. Neither of these signify our accepting of His invitation, our response to God; they both signify God's inclusion of us into His covenant. Both are an obedience of faith; they require of us to have a clear conscience within that covenant, not in order to be received into it. We are received by grace, and that not by our own doing. This was as true for the OT sign as for the NT sign. How can circumcision and baptism not be related? These things are the things the OT covenant members longed to know about their membership in it.


----------



## reformedman

JohnV" said:


> How can circumcision and baptism not be related?



Physical Ordinance:
Scripturally, circumcision was done unbeknownst to the person receiving it.
Scripturally, baptism was done after the person repented.

Spiritual Ordinance:
Scripturally, God circumcised the heart of the elect sometime after the physical circumcision.
Scripturally, God caused a '_good conscience_' to be manifest in the elect before water-baptism. (1Pet 3:21)


----------



## Scott Bushey

reformedman said:


> Spiritual Ordinance:
> Scripturally, God circumcised the heart of the elect sometime after the physical circumcision.



What? How do you know this?



> Romans 4:11 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,


----------



## reformedman

> What? How do you know this?


Two ways;
Simple logic-- did God circumcise the heart before the 8th day of a person? A person can't know he is a sinner even on the 8th day. He has no knowledge. An infant is as an imbecile(yes, all speculation but atleast for me I *know* I was an imbecile about my sins even at 10 years old).

Conversion (ordo salutis-ly speaking) happens at the start of sanctification. Regeneration (or the new man) is the change that causes conversion. The new-man(change of desires from world-directed to God-directed) happens after the circumcision of the heart. What evidence of the new-man, or of conversion is there for a person who doesn't even know he's a sinner, God's will, the seperation of God and man, the gospel? All of these are required to rightly understand that a person desires the will of God only *after* God has converted them. You cannot desire the will of God until the circumcision of the heart. These are pretty much why I don't believe paedobaptism in the first place.


----------



## reformedman

I just noticed the romans 4:11 verse. I wasn't referring to adult circumcision, I was referring to the global understanding of circumcision which is the eigth day. Adult circumcision is so rare that it's probably less than a fraction of one percent of the people who's done that. Obviously you can be circumcised of the heart and then unknowingly disobey God's will by being physically circumcised in adulthood, which would be trying to be made right by the law. But even then, if God has truly regenerated a person and justified him, I very much doubt he will desire to be made right by circumcision. He obviously doesn't understand what Christ did for him then. So in any case, even after being circumcised of the heart, I doubt anyone would go and get circumcised.

I meant infant circumcision in the prior post.


----------



## satz

Hi Scott,



> What does Paul mean when he says, "you who are seeking to be justified by law"



I assume he is referring to those who are seeking their salvation (to be justified…) by the Law of Moses and the acts it requires.



> How is this statement related to the previous statement about circumcision?



The verse I quoted was Galatians 5:6. I think I see where you are coming from, though I could be wrong, and have been many times before. Still, I am not sure how the context of ‘those who seek to be justified by the law’ changes the meaning of verse 6. Circumcision (the act of removing the foreskin) now has zero significance to the Christian whether legally, practically or in any other sense (except perhaps hygiene). 



> What covenant is related to being 'justified by the law'?



The Old Covenant, I would assume.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> The verse I quoted was Galatians 5:6. I think I see where you are coming from, though I could be wrong, and have been many times before. Still, I am not sure how the context of ‘those who seek to be justified by the law’ changes the meaning of verse 6. Circumcision (the act of removing the foreskin) now has zero significance to the Christian whether legally, practically or in any other sense (except perhaps hygiene).



You're on the brink of gettin it. This person Paul was speaking of was looking to the circumcision for _justification_. This is the crux of this passage; circumcision never _justified_. In that, this passage has nothing to do with your original premise which was:



> Galatians 5:6 seems to say that circumcision doesn’t mean anything either way as far as Jesus Christ’s religion goes.



_The sign_ whether it be circumcision in the old or baptism in the new "_means something_"; they just don't justify!




> The Old Covenant, I would assume.



Specifically, the Covenant of Works; The covenant of works is still intact. If it were possible, like Adam, if he had kept the C of W's perfectly, he would have been justified by it. Thats why Paul says:



> .......Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Scott Bushey said:


> Bruce,
> Ceremonially, yes.


I assume you are refering to my reference to the bar mitzvah (son of the covenant). My point is that this ceremony placed him under the command of God, but that apart from this ordinance, there is no command. None. *The males are commanded to go, females are not.* Boys certainly didn't partake. "What do you mean by this service?" And you need a transition moment when boys become men, hence the "son of the covenant." This is most certianly related to the exam Jesus underwent at age 12. Thereafter he would go up to the feast.


> I am certain that this could be considered as providential hindrances.


First it must be demonstrated that the women were expected to participate in the _memorial_ Passover. There is no Scriptural example I know of, with the possible exception of the (non-memorial) initial Passover, where the whole house _appears to have_ (may have) eaten the meal. In Numbers 9, there is the first memorial Passover. Unclean men ask "what are we to do?" Moses receives allowance for them to keep it in the second month. Where is the question from the unclean women? No place.

Second, even if you assumed that women could partake if they were not unclean, there would be a huge number of Israelite women who NEVER partook of a Passover. Some women are as regular as Big Ben.


> {regarding travel by pregnant women, babies, large families with three-year olds walking up from Beer-Sheba or down from Dan} This is speculation.


No, its not speculation at all. Its one reason why women (and children) weren't required to attend the yearly feasts. What's _speculative_ is claiming that women, who weren't actually circumcised, participated in the Passover which demanded the rite.


> {regarding two more feasts}Again, speculation.


Just show me one single verse to support what I contend is _real_ speculation. I can show you the verses that command the males to appear 3X a year (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Deut. 16:16).


> So then you agree that they are recipients of a circumcision; above you seem to be saying they are'nt circumcised?


No, I'm simply saying they participated in the cleanness (or uncleanness) of the nation--something that in some cases was only expressed outwardly by the menfolk. Likewise, the men and women of the nation participated in the priesthood _vicariously;_ they were not therefore equally priests with the Levites through a "transmission" of sorts.


> {regarding federal cleansing}Correct. And how was this accomplished? As you have said above. I just want to keep the discussion clear for Mark.


How it was accomplished was BY FAITH. I think OT believing women thought of themselves as privileged to be Israelites and as clean as their fathers and husbands and sons and as the nation, and did desire and hold dear the regeneration (circumcision) of their own hearts. But I don't supposed that they considered themselves as though they were bodily circumcised, just "virtually". That strikes me as amounting to sexual confusion. They were acceptable because their representatives were acceptable, and they believed the federal principle.


> How was the blood spilled upon them if not by their federal heads circumcision? Right; some of the ceremonial stuff.....


Women stood in the congregation, Ex. 24:8, and were sprinkled with the cleansing blood of the covenant. Likewise, they were atoned for on Yom Kippur.


Look, my point is--I don't feel as though we need to add complication to the question. The issue of female's participation in various matters of Old Covenant administration is simply diversionary. The answer to that question is a simple: "God removed an additional mark of separation in the transition from Old to New." End of story! He's allowed to do that. We don't need to resort to contortions of the federal principle (which is alive and well in both the OT and the NT) in order to justify baptism replacing circumcision. It just does, and that's that.

The crux of confusion is the claim that God made two different covenant arrangements with Abraham. And the idea that regeneration is *itself* a "sign" of a spiritual covenant. Regeneration is part of the reality of God's promise, not some invisible sign that doesn't "point" to anything because it can't be seen.

Peace.


----------



## satz

Scott,

Sorry for my delayed response.

I think I see what you are getting at. Prehaps I was careless in my phrasing. I did not mean to say that the signs mean nothing. The point I was getting at was that circumcision in the OT meant something, but in the NT it means nothing. If I understand you correctly, you would say that that meaning has now been transferred to baptism. But circumcision, that surgical procedure, once meant something but does not anymore. My point was simply to demonstrate that between the old and the new there has been a change in the sign, hence we cannot take the OT passages on the sign and apply the directly without consulting the NT.


----------



## Scott Bushey

satz said:


> Scott,
> 
> Sorry for my delayed response.
> 
> I think I see what you are getting at. Prehaps I was careless in my phrasing. I did not mean to say that the signs mean nothing. The point I was getting at was that circumcision in the OT meant something, but in the NT it means nothing. If I understand you correctly, you would say that that meaning has now been transferred to baptism. But circumcision, that surgical procedure, once meant something but does not anymore. My point was simply to demonstrate that between the old and the new there has been a change in the sign, hence we cannot take the OT passages on the sign and apply the directly without consulting the NT.



Mark,
Why can't we? It's a OT command that is eternal.


----------



## satz

Scott, 

My point was, if we read Gen 17 alone it sounds like circumcision is an eternal ordinance. But when we read the NT, we see that circumcision (the surgical procedure) has ceased to be an ordinance of the church. Even if you say it is now replaced by baptism, there has still been a _change_ in the ordinance.


----------



## reformedman

Circumcision of the flesh has been cleared up as a forshadow of the circumcision of the heart.


----------

