# Circumcision and Baptism revisited



## steadfast7

> Col 2:11 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, 12 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.



This is main go-to verse that links circumcision with baptism. Here's a thought (that's certainly been thought of and discussed before, so I don't expect this thread to run very long).

Circumcision in the OT was not only done to infants but to adults, namely, those adults who "converted" and identified themselves with Israel. The main audience of Paul's letter to the Colossians were adult converts who underwent believers' baptism. 

1. Circumcision was performed on adult proselytes
2. Baptism was done on adult converts, who are the hearers of Paul's letter

This is not to disregard the fact of infant circumcision, or infant-included household baptism (if that happened). But, does it not make sense that Paul may have been linking circumcision and baptism, only in as much as it pertained to adult converts? In other words, are we _required _ from this passage to think of circumcision _only _in terms of infants?

thanks.


----------



## Pergamum

I think you mean rererererererererererererererererererevisited.


----------



## steadfast7

Yeah, I can imagine it's been beaten to death ....

It just struck me that when we see circumcision, we immediately think of infants, and this leads us naturally into linking circumcision with baptism, and infant baptism is easily deduced.

But from this passage, isn't there some evidence suggesting that Paul may be thinking of adults? (proselyte circumcision makes more sense in his train of thought than covenant children, and his readers are adults as well). If this is so, wouldn't this change the "balance of power" from viewing circumcision/baptism of infants to that of adults? I'm not sure if I'm making sense.


----------



## Michael

Don't feel bad one bit about posting this. It gives a chance for new ppl to join the discussion where threads have been closed in the past. 

Just a couple practical thoughts....

You mention that Paul main audience was adults. A simple response would be, "well sure". It's not like Paul wrote letters whose main audience were infants. No, he wrote to the church...believers and their children. And in this particular passage he displays for the Colossians a connection between circumcision and baptism. But let's be clear: he was not merely showing a connection between proselyte circumcision and adult baptism. That would be either adding substance or removing meaning from the text (depending how you look at it), both of which are entirely unwarranted. It really should not be that complicated.

I think you are right, however, that there is a real connection between proselyte circumcision and adult baptism. But we should not sell the text short. Keep in mind too that by far most circumcisions were infant circumcisions. That makes it even more of a stretch suppose that they are to be left out of Paul's point here.

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------

One other [pretty obvious] point.

When God first commanded circumcision there was no doubt a period of time where the majority of people circumcised were adults. So, generally speaking, the prominence of adult baptisms in the early church should be blatantly expected, wouldn't you think? However, that fact does not stop Paul from explicitly connecting baptism with circumcision. It does not stop the recording of multiple household baptisms. It does not stop the preaching of the promise being "to you and your children". It does not stop the instruction of raising children in admonition of the Lord, just as any of God's covenant people. It does not stop the revelation that our children are viewed as holy in the sight of the Lord. etc. etc.

So if you are looking for the prominence of adult baptisms in the NT, you will not be disappointed. But one would seemingly have a lot of explaining to do if it is suggested that adult baptisms represent the whole picture and instruction of scripture here.


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks for your thoughts Michael. 

I would argue that the text does allow us to make the narrower assertion, if we were to take it more literally (but maybe this isn't always ideal). Those Colossians, as proselytes to Christianity, have more in common with adult proslytes to Judaism than they have with infant covenant children of Israelites. That's an easier interpretive leap to make, is all I'm saying. But let's put that aside for a sec...

I've always wondered about the reference "to you and your children". The full quotation is


> Acts 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children *and for all who are far off*, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.


 I don't mean to be nitpicky, but if our children are included in the covenant, then doesn't faithful exegesis suggest that "all who are far off" are included too? Wouldn't it be fallacious to interpret "children" specifically, and then "all who are far off" generally, or to set it aside completely? 

Also the allusion to children being considered "holy", that text tends to be cut short from its total context as well:


> 1 Cor7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 *For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife*, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.


 Does the use of the same word "holy" for both children and husband mean that unbelieving spouses are brought into the covenant in the same way as children? Again, consistent exegesis would suggest so. 

Help me understand what's happening here. These passages would suggests that "all who are far off" (whoever that is), and unbelieving spouses of believers are also included in the covenant. I don't know if this is ever affirmed in covenant theology (but I'd be eager to learn). 

thanks.


----------



## Michael

Regarding the "narrower assertion", I'm afraid that that angle is not taking the text more literally at all, but rather approaching Paul's teaching with a specific presupposition that amputates a significant amount of plain meaning from the text. Again, there is nothing wrong with making a connection between proselyte circumcision and adult baptism. But if one is to assert that children are somehow excluded from the entirety of Paul's example (which again is a stretch considering the normative practice of circumcision), it can't be done without scriptural support--and of that we have none.

Regarding "and for all who are far off", the simple response is that yes they should be baptized as well. The gospel calls sinners to Christ and we then baptize said sinners into the New Covenant.

Regarding "holy children", pay close attention to the wording in the text. The unbelieving spouse is "made holy", not that they are automatically saved, but rather their exposure to God's grace through a believing spouse becomes a precious benefit that God is often pleased to use as a means leading to adoption into the New Covenant (and in such case they would then be baptized). However when we approach the wording around children of a believing parent we find that God specifically says that they already "are holy" (and therefore we baptize).


----------



## steadfast7

I see the point you're making about the narrower assertion.


> Regarding "and for all who are far off", the simple response is that yes they should be baptized as well. The gospel calls sinners to Christ and we then baptize said sinners into the New Covenant.


I still note here a double standard. Why must "All who are far off" respond to the gospel call prior to their baptism, but the children of parents do not? If this verse is to be used as an affirmation of covenant membership, then I see an arbitrary bifurcation between how children and 'all who are far off' are treated vis a vis baptism. Isn't it a simpler interpretation that Peter, preaching to a Jewish audience, is simply asserting that the benefits of the gospel transcend generational and geographic boundaries? A general statement, nothing more, nothing less.

I see the invalid 'narrowing tendency' of assigning specificity where text does not call for it, happening in the covenantal interpretation of this text.

Regarding people being made holy... hmm. Does this mean that something that is "made holy" is not holy as things which are _already _holy. The idiom "made holy" seems to mean things which might normally be thought of as common and has been sanctified. In scripture it's used to speak of:
1. Sabbath (Gen 2:3)
2. Jerusalem (2Ch 36:14)
3. Things created by God and received with thanksgiving (1Tim 4:5)

Again, I'm suspicious of something being inferred to a text that might not be there - as you pointed out  But, then again, you may be right; I've not really studied this phraseology in detail.


----------



## Michael

I have a meeting to go to so I will have to revisit this later, but I think you are very close here.

If you understand the connection of circumcision and baptism as Paul outlined in 1Cor 7, then understanding Peter in Acts 2 becomes pretty clear. I think you are spot on that Peter preaches the gospel as transcending boundaries. However we can't neglect the specific covenantal language here. As you pointed out we are dealing with a Jewish audience. Do you really think that a Jew would leave Peter's teaching on baptism and about the promise being "for you and your children" and somehow think that they are not to baptize their children? They had been identifying God's promise in circumcising their infants for thousands of years to this point. The context is almost overwhelming. And as I attempted to ask in another thread, if indeed the Jews were instructed to withhold their children from visible entry into God's covenant there would no doubt have been an outpouring of questions as to why and subsequent instruction clarifying the matter.

That said, you may now readily compare "who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" to the proselytes of the OT, only now the gospel has reached it's fruition in Christ and is to be proclaimed throughout the world. Just as circumcision was used to set apart God's people (including their children), now baptism executes this as a NT reality and on a far greater scale.

All of this pretty much undergirds the fact that every paedobaptist is also a credobaptist when it comes to adult baptism. However the paedo simply believes more--namely that God's covenantal promises are indeed worked out, as they always have been, through the means of federal headship, thereby extending his grace to the children of believers.

Well I hope this makes some sense as I'm a little rushed but I've already typed more than time has allowed so please excuse me as I have to come back to the rest later (if is not addressed by someone else in the meantime).


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks for taking to time to process this with me with your busy schedule. 

Yes, that was an interesting point you made that Jews would have probably outcried the refusal to let their children visibly enter the covenant. But consider also, that the early Christians of Jewish stock were under intense temptation and pressure not to view baptism as the new covenant sign, but to revert back to the old pattern of circumcision itself! This suggests to me that baptism as the replacement sign was not a compelling motif in the apostles teaching. At least it wasn't very clear. Had it been, why did so many desire both baptism and circumcision? Hence Paul's colourful polemics against circumcision which put the issue to rest. He rendered circumcision (and uncircumcision) meaningless (1 Cor 7:18-19, Gal 5:6, 6:15, Col 3:11).

Maybe I am reading the bible "back to front" as some say, but it's hard for me to view circumcision in a positive light seeing that Paul has almost nothing good to say about it.

Looking forward to further interaction.


----------



## Michael

I am attempting to respond on my phone here so please forgive any typos. Its challenging enough just to respond from memory too as I cant view your post as Im typing this.

Regarding circumcision, we shouldnt let a false view of circumcision in light of Christs finished work undermine the apostles teaching around baptism. Of course circumcision profits nothing in the NC. But that does not negate the connection illustrated, the promise preached, or the example set. And it still does not address the silence of the Jews who were explictly taught that baptism expressed visible entry into the NC.

Regarding the language used around household members being holy or made holy, we cannot ignore that a real distinction is being made here by the Holy Spirit. While it is profitable to let scripture interpret scripture, we must take care to compare like terms. You mentioned a couple examples of similar terminology, but are the references cited in the context of contrasting "already" with "being made such"?

---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

I apparently have to split up my posts too as my phone allows only 1000 or so characters per text box. Obviously this technology is not designed for theological discussion. 

Anyhow, the apostle is most certainly contrasting terms when speaking of "holy" regarding different members of a household with unbelievers. This is readily apparent and speaks with resounding consistency to God's covenantal framework.


----------



## steadfast7

I wish I had a smartphone!

Re: being made holy, even if a distinction is being made, Paul does not spell it out. Therefore, the covenant typology cannot be positively asserted as an argument here. He might be referring to that, he might not be. But note the rest of the context of 1 Cor 7:


> 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?


 This is also true of covenant children. There is no certainty that they will come to faith as a product of being "holy" - unless you take the position of Dort that all covanant children are elect.

So if it's true that covenant children can be holy, but not come to faith, then it mirrors exactly what Paul says about unbelieving spouses. This makes the case stronger that a sharp distinction between the terms does not really exist.

---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 PM ----------

Regarding "all who are far off", do you agree that this needs to be viewed in exactly the same way as "you and your children"? Is there something in the text that sets it off as a separate item? 

If covenant inclusion is in view, what could Peter possibly mean? Is every nation necessarily a covenant member? Are those to whom the gospel is preached necessarily a covenant member? 

You see the problem with treating "all who are far off" the same as the children..

---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------

One more thought: That circumcision has no place in the NC is clear. Paul doesn't have good things to say about circumcision ... I'm curious, why is there no alarm or pause in the mind of paedos in making an argument for baptism based on circumcision? What makes a paedo feel confident in proceeding with circumcision as a basis for anything?


----------



## Michael

Since I am handicapped by phone at the moment I need to beg one topic at a time.

The reason Im insisting on the contrasting terms is because that is precisely what is being used here by the Holy Spirit. The tenses are unmistakeably different and therefore there are different consequences in application.

I will admit though that you are losing me a little here. Are you suggesting that to be consistent one would have to support baptizing unbelieving spouses in light of the idea that God may make them holy? If this is the counter argument it presupposes the relationship between spouses to be identical to the relationship between parents and their children. In which case I must ask why that would be assumed at all or on what basis?

Forgive me if I am misrepresenting your point...

---------- Post added at 04:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

Off now to pick up my kids and figure out dinner since Angela is working tonight. Will pick it back up later though. Its been a real pleasure discussing this with you. Your demeanor on this subject in particular is very refreshing.


----------



## steadfast7

I really appreciate your interaction as well - it has been great.

OK, so with regards to unbelieving spouses, Paul says they are "made holy." I take this to be synonymous with children of believing parents, whom Paul says "_are _holy." If the terms are synonymous, then yes, it seems that paedobaptists would be obligated to baptize both. However, as you have argued, the terms are not synonymous, by virtue of their presentation in different tense/aspects.

Now, Acts 2 helps.


> 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 *For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself*.”


 The addition of "all who are far off" by Peter places them in the same category as children _and _'everyone whom God calls to himself.' If the paedo argues that children are in the covenant category, then exegetically speaking, "all who are far off" are in the covenant category as well. We find here no evidence of a separate category for them. 

But when we read "all who are far off" we immediately interpret those who are called and respond to the gospel. Suddenly, they have been placed in a separate category. At least it seems that way to me. Does that make sense?

Enjoy your evening with the kids. Sigh ... marriage and family sure sounds awesome ...
catch ya later.


----------



## Michael

Ok, to your second point. You seem to suggest that consistent paedo theology must insist on baptizing "all who are far off" on the exact same grounds as the children of believers. But the message to "all who are far off" is precisely the same as to Peter's audience then and every unsaved person who received the message since: repent, be baptized, for the promise is for you and your children. Again, the covenantal language is very hard to miss. The Jews heard it for generations and it would seem almost impossible for them to understand it any other way.

Regarding Paul not having much good to say about circumcision, his admonitions are entirely based upon the finished work of Christ, whose sacrifice marked the end of ceremonial bloodshed.

---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

Fyi I was apparently writing my last post as you posted yours. Please bear with me here...

---------- Post added at 07:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

Alright let me try to put this another way.

Peter says the promise is 1. For you [who repent] 2. For your children and 3. For all who are far off whom the Lord calls to himself. 

Now what if you dont have children yet but plan to? What if you are pregnant/expecting? Do you baptize your children that have not been born yet? Of course not!  So we must obviously wait for God to call those far off to himself before we baptize them. 

But you are right in that baptism applies to all three subjects of Peter's message.


----------



## MW

Nova said:


> adult converts, who are the hearers of Paul's letter


 
Colossians 3:20, "Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord."


----------



## steadfast7

> Peter says the promise is 1. For you [who repent] 2. For your children and 3. For all who are far off whom the Lord calls to himself.... But you are right in that baptism applies to all three subjects of Peter's message.


Hi Michael,

I want to press your reasoning into the text, take it to its conclusion, and see where the paedo framework logically leads. Let's note how the paedo applies the label of covenant member. We know there are four types of persons in this text, and we agree that they should be treated the same way. Let's identify who they are and note the conditions/circumstances (from a paedo framework) that brings them into the covenant. Hope it's not too confusing.

The promise is ...

1. Person: "For you" 
Condition: repent, be baptized

2. Person: "your children"
Condition: no condition, just be baptized

3. Person: "those who are far off"
Condition: repent, be baptized

4. Person: "eveyone the Lord calls to himself"
Condition: repent, be baptized.

Do you see the discrepancy? In the paedo framework, the children need not repent, they are automatically in the covenant by virtue of having believing/repenting parents. How so? The paedo framework seems to have arbitrarily placed children in a different class, and this is not warranted from the text.

Here's the point: A double standard is occurring, some sort of dual treatment of these persons. One category needs to repent before entering the covenant; another category does not. This undermines our premise that the text places everyone in the same category without exception.


----------



## Michael

Though I don't necessarily agree with the conditions applied above to each particular person...it would probably be more profitable set that aside and deal with the bigger picture of what is to be considered warranted in the text.

The Bible, from Genesis to Maps (as they say), knows no treatment of God towards his people outside of a framework of federal headship. What is not warranted from the text is the abandonment of this consistent principle. "To/For you and your children" is an exhaustively redundant theme throughout scripture--not only of God's blessings but also of his curses. 

Now while there are many things in the NT that point to covenant children, the specific words of God in Acts 2 are far from accidental and who the audience is should remove all doubt (if there be any to begin with). Yet if the grounds of considering God's words here to be somehow disconnected to every previous mention of them, if these grounds are based upon the fact that our Lord calls others already of age to repentance and faith, then there should be no struggle at all. For that too shares in scriptural/historical precedent.

So I believe you may be looking for a problem that is not there. If one cannot make sense of what Peter is preaching here then one cannot likewise make sense of the Abrahamic Covenant.

It is difficult for me to present the following in such a way that my tone is not misrepresented, but respectfully...

If anyone has a problem with someone being born into God's covenant, well they simply have a problem with God. Likewise, if anyone has a problem with someone of age being brought into God's covenant by divine means of grace, then again they also have a problem with God. This is how God has dealt with his people by the pleasure of his good will--and also how he continues to do so. He alone sets the conditions.


----------



## Kaalvenist

I understand Acts 2:38, 39 to be a repetition of the Abrahamic Covenant. Verse 39 demonstrates that it concerns the same recipients as originally intended.

"For the promise is unto *you, and to your children*" -- "And I will establish my covenant between me and *thee and thy seed*" (Gen. 17:7)
"And to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" -- "And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3)

I would also say that one should note the context of the passages where Paul argues for the seemingly "absolute" worthlessness of circumcision... in Galatians (against Judaizers) and Colossians (against Jewish-Gnostic heretics). By contrast, he emphasizes the spiritual meaning behind circumcision to the Roman church (a primarily Gentile audience), 2:28, 29; 4:11.


----------



## steadfast7

Michael, I think you make a pretty good case for covenant inclusion of children and the carry-over of this principle from the OT to the New. And I think I concede that God does view children of believers (and spouses of believers) in a very different way as unbelievers'. I'd be willing to use the language of 'covenant inclusion' or 'sanctified'. But let's say a presbyterian couple, for whatever reason, did not baptize their infant. Or, in the case of baptists, who do not practice infant baptism at all. Does this mean that _in the eyes of God_, these children of believers are NOT included in the covenant? Would this not imply that covenant membership is conditional? In other words, does God view an individual in or out of the covenant on the basis of the ritual, or on the basis of the family relation? or, on what?

---------- Post added at 10:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 PM ----------




Kaalvenist said:


> I understand Acts 2:38, 39 to be a repetition of the Abrahamic Covenant. Verse 39 demonstrates that it concerns the same recipients as originally intended.
> 
> "For the promise is unto *you, and to your children*" -- "And I will establish my covenant between me and *thee and thy seed*" (Gen. 17:7)
> "And to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" -- "And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3)



Yes, the recipients are the same, but then that means that the _means _by which they enter the covenant ought also be the same. "all who are far off" must respond obediently to the gospel to be included, but infants are automatically in by virtue of their parents? I see a double standard (in the case of this particular passage). 



> I would also say that one should note the context of the passages where Paul argues for the seemingly "absolute" worthlessness of circumcision... in Galatians (against Judaizers) and Colossians (against Jewish-Gnostic heretics). By contrast, he emphasizes the spiritual meaning behind circumcision to the Roman church (a primarily Gentile audience), 2:28, 29; 4:11.


 
Yes, precisely, and I was suggesting that for a Gentile audience to hear of circumcision, they would most naturally have thought of adult circumcision as a Gentile proselyte. Adult circumcision, then, _might _point to adult baptism in Paul's thought. Again, I say "might"...


----------



## Michael

Nova said:


> Michael, I think you make a pretty good case for covenant inclusion of children and the carry-over of this principle from the OT to the New. And I think I concede that God does view children of believers (and spouses of believers) in a very different way as unbelievers'. I'd be willing to use the language of 'covenant inclusion' or 'sanctified'. But let's say a presbyterian couple, for whatever reason, did not baptize their infant. Or, in the case of baptists, who do not practice infant baptism at all. Does this mean that _in the eyes of God_, these children of believers are NOT included in the covenant? Would this not imply that covenant membership is conditional? In other words, does God view an individual in or out of the covenant on the basis of the ritual, or on the basis of the family relation? or, on what?


 
The visible representation of entrance into God's covenant is in essence an entrance into God's visible church. For both paedo and credo believers this does not necessarily define the _invisible_ church (although for all practical purposes it should as far as the credo is concerned). Members of the invisible church [the elect] who, under whatever circumstance, do not receive this visible representation of entrance into God's covenant are still part of God's covenant, for there is no salvation outside of God's covenant. Examples include elect infants or possibly the thief on the cross.

From a paedo perspective, the infants of credo believers are very much covenant children regardless of the delay in baptism. The matter becomes more of an issue of obedience or faithful application of God's word. From a credo perspective, the baptism of infants is no baptism at all and these children need to be baptized once they come of age and give a credible profession of faith.

Interestingly enough [for me anyway], most credo believers do indeed raise their children as if they are holy and set apart by God. In fact, it would be very difficult to discern who is and and who is not a visible church member by looking at paedo vs credo children. Many credos are pressed in their heart to go as far as to hold "baby dedication ceremonies" demonstrating their faithful intentions towards the Lord. I cannot personally find solid scriptural warrant for such, but I most certainly can understand their conscience on the matter. It is a most natural thing to expect the heart of a Godly parent to desire their child to be holy and set apart for the Lord. I would think that these affections have played out in the heart of every Godly parent. And this is as it should be since God himself has thoroughly demonstrated that his children be visibly included in his covenant and in his church. So while the intentions are scripturally valid, it is very curious as to why something like a baby dedication would be used as a substitute for the biblical precedent.

Just my


----------



## steadfast7

Kaalvenist said:


> "For the promise is unto *you, and to your children*" -- "And I will establish my covenant between me and *thee and thy seed*" (Gen. 17:7)
> "And to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" -- "And in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:3)



In terms of the Genesis 17 promise for Abraham and his seed, does not Paul reinterpret this in Galatians 3?
[BIBLE]Gal 3:15-18[/BIBLE] 

The promise to Abraham, as Paul sees it, does not refer to genealogy of persons, but to Christ alone. Implicitly here, as elsewhere in Paul, circumcision of the flesh only comes up in reference to the law, which is opposed to the promise. This verse, though it had one meaning in Genesis, must now be seen in light of Paul's interpretation in Galatians. This text can no longer be interpreted in the obsolete way, In my humble opinion. The covenant is with Christ, says Paul, and Abraham believed by faith and was circumcised. This to me, points to a believer's 'circumcision' which is a product of faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

That Christ is the one Seed, does not negate the reality that believers in Christ are also "Abraham's seed." Genesis 12, 15, 17, all point to *many *posterity, and 22:18 (after earlier speaking of many) points to One, a singular fulfillment.

One shouldn't suppose that Paul is pulling a new, unheard-of or extraordinary interpretation out of his hat, one that isn't already in Genesis--then attempt to pit a NT-interpretation against an OT reading.

Circumcision, sign of God's covenant, was never essentially about genetics. But about faith. Its not one whit different today from the days of Abraham. And if it isn't any different, then whom God commanded then to be marked, he no less (but more, actually) commands today.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I don't feel like arguing in this thread for the umpteenth time. But their is a lot not being said from the credo only position that answers all the others. So if you want to In Suk just message me or ask me what threads to reference in a PM.


----------



## steadfast7

> That Christ is the one Seed, does not negate the reality that believers in Christ are also "Abraham's seed." Genesis 12, 15, 17, all point to many posterity, and 22:18 (after earlier speaking of many) points to One, a singular fulfillment.



This might be a text-critical issue, but I think the negation of the plural "seeds" is exactly what Paul is doing. He makes it explicitly clear: "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." I'm not sure of the history of interpretation of this passage, and I do agree with you that posterity is assumed all over the Genesis text. Interestingly, Paul does not say that this is what he thinks it _means_, but what he think it actually _says_! 

I would need to research more, but I suspect that "seed" (heb. zera), like in English, is isomorphic for both plural and singular senses. Paul deliberately chooses the singular in the Gen reference to make his point. That he does is crucial and alarming, and I think it changes the way we ought to look at the Abrahamic covenant, no?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

No,
The question is: "Does the text in Genesis mean *multiple seeds* in each and every instance?"

Go back to all the aforementioned contexts, and read them. It is plain that to begin with, the promise is to make a great nation out of Abraham, and that "seed" in the earlier passages unquestionably refers to "many." And, Galatians 3 understands this to be so, since vv. 7 & 29 recognize the fact that believers ARE the seed of Abraham. They are so in their connection to Christ, the object of the faith of us all, including Abraham.

But the facts go further, and Genesis 22 is a vital chapter. It culminates the story of Abraham, and it focuses our attention on Isaac, Abraham's seed-of-promise. The final words of the exchange, v18, are the *specific text* that I think Paul has in mind in Gal.3:16. In Gen.22:18, God is AFFIRMING in the first place to Abraham, "In your seed (Issac, and none other) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;" and in the typological sense, that reference to Isaac is properly applied to the One Seed, that is the one that is to come. The point of the whole passage is that Isaac IS the seed that was promised, and Abraham must believe that despite the appearance that God is taking the seed away from him. "Stay here until WE return" states Abraham, v5.

So, God also says there to Abraham, "In your Seed, that is Christ preeminently, shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," that is, even more than the fact that there will be a "people" to whom these promises also belong, even an earthly nation from whom will derive the Savior.


What I'm disputing you on, is the suggestion that the Genesis passages NEVER pointed to ONE person. Well, in Gen.22:18 it does. Now, perhaps the Jews of Paul's day had missed that fact. I think Paul himself missed that fact until he was converted, and taught by Christ how to read the OT properly.


Therefore, no, the mistake is not that the OT was being properly read, and Paul is simply "spiritualizing" the text for a new age. No, the OT was being improperly read, and that's why the Pharisees and scribes kept missing Christ. So, no, the point is not to affirm the secularized, carnal method of reading the OT, but to see that Paul says his interpretation has been correct from the outset, and the sectarian Judaizers need to stop reading the OT as though Abraham was a good little legalist.


----------



## steadfast7

Fair enough. "Seed" can and does refer to Isaac, Abraham's descendants and ultimately and finally, Christ. But this much is clear (to me anyway), that Christ is not only the ultimate fulfillment of the "seed" typology, but he is the final fulfillment of it. That is, once Christ comes to be the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, all talk of "seed" and genetic lineage ought be done for once and for all.

But this is not the case with paedobaptistic CT. Because now, my own "seed" (ie. children, descendants following me) are viewed as continuing to carry the Messianic covenant promise, as if the fulfillment of Christ is not complete. This is what I see, anyway.

This probably doesn't make much sense, so I'll put it in another way. Circumcision pointed to the Messiah, ultimately. It was an Israelite thing, it was a national thing, it was a family thing, it was a male thing ... all these things are indicators that it pointed to the One promised Seed, Christ.

To carry on with the concept of circumcision, either by repeating the procedure, or by 'replacing it with baptism', makes the statement that we are still looking for the manifestation of the Messiah through our bloodlines. After, this was the what circumcision did. It was a sign that forgiveness was on its way through an Israelite seed. 

With the coming of Christ, the bloodline is obsolete and all who are of faith are directly children of God, we become the promised seed in Christ. Paedobaptism says to me that the bloodline continues, nothing has changed with the coming of Christ. This is where I stumble and get confused.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

In Suk,
We don't reduce the meaning of the sign of the covenant to a single, salient fact. There is more to it than that. What about the promise to be OUR God?

"I will be God to you, and to your _bloodline_ after you."
(no, but that word is "_*seed*_")

??

Is that how you read the text? Does God intend them (and us) to think of him as being just another "nationalistic" God, albeit the one true?

Wasn't God calling for true faith and repentance all along? He certainly wasn't going to be the God of Esau, circumcised and all that. Outwardly, he was. But God's promise to Abraham (and Issac) was comprehensive; it didn't originally exclude anyone. So was his promise to no effect? By no means, because the children of faith were the offspring being referenced, more than the mere family-God connection. Esau had Jehovah for his God, and he rejected him (because it was nothing more than an outward connection).

In other words (or in Peter's words, and Paul's ideas), "...as many as the Lord our God shall call" was implicit in God's promise to Abraham to be his God, and his children's God. It was always the case, that those not inwardly called would lose whatever connection they had to this God. "For him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."

Do parents have children of faith today? Of course we do, and as parents we rejoice when we see them confess it. That is, we rejoice when we see what we can see, and hope to die without seeing any of them apostatize. Because we are no different than believers in previous ages. We cannot see into the secret things.

God knew there were sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, destined to receive the sign of the covenant, who would never believe. In fact, he might have known the majority of them wouldn't believe. But he told Abraham to put his sign upon them all, for the sake of the elect.

So far as I can read the NT, God hasn't changed his directions: as to who ought to receive the sign of his covenant. So far as I can interpret history, because of the outpouring of the Spirit, there is more blessing in this NT age upon believers and the children of believers than there was in the ages prior; and we have more reason to hope that our little ones will be saved according to that promise than Abraham had.

So, we baptize them, for the sake of the elect among them. For the promise is theirs, as it was Isaac's (not Ishmael's), and Jacob's (not Esau's).

It's not about lineage, and it never was, but that the Incarnation was promised in it. The fact that time marches on, and now we look back at the moment the Incarnation first came to be, doesn't mean to me that 1) the Incarnation is now over, or that 2) the things spoken to the fathers that pertained to the children generally are now summarily dismissed.


Hopefully, you can see better how and why we differ. You see our practice through a certain lens, but it isn't our lens. "Paedo-baptism says to me...," since you are not one, explains it. You do not see baptism in the same way a paedo-baptist sees it.

Blessings.


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks Rev. Bruce. I am willing to accept many of the points being made.
1. the holiness of children born to Christian parents
2. the seemingly lack of change between the old and new testament economy of who are to be named as God's people.

But would you agree that circumcision as an old testament rite is abolished? I don't see baptism as it's replacement, but rather the circumcision done without hands - circumcision of the heart. It makes more sense to say that this is what circumcision was always meant to point to. This is done by Christ, to those who are in Christ.

Did circumcision foresee baptism to be its replacement? I see them to be very different pictures, and making them congruent requires an elaborate theology, in my opinion.

Another minor issue: paedobaptism, practically carried out, produces generation after generation of believers who did not remember the day of their baptism, and are unable to rejoice in their own entry into the church. This is unlike Acts, where conversion and baptism were linked and a cause for rejoicing. I think this is reproduced in credo-baptism in a larger extent than paedo; but I guess these subjective feelings is not the point..


----------



## Contra_Mundum

In Suk,
Moses, who is humanly responsible for the story of God's covenant with Abraham as it comes to us, is also the first person to write explcitly of "circumcision of the heart," see for example Lev.26:41, Deut. 10:16. Heart-circumcision is not a New Testament concept. When I correlate circumcision and baptism, I correlate both _outward_ acts, and both _inward_ acts. Of course, I correlate them as I understand Paul to be correlating them, Col.2:11-12. So, naturally I see Christ as responsible for both circumcision and baptism of the heart.

And, of course I see the two covenant-signs as saying substantially the same things, being signs of the same covenant, and preaching the same essential message. Elaborate theology? No, I think all one needs to do is make a list of the things both represent, and with the exception of a couple dispensation-specific articles, there is overwhelming and weighty continuity.

Your argument against baptism based on the lack of "memory" of the event is faulty in, I think, two significant ways. Firstly, it indicts the OT sign on the same basis. Was it a _defect_ of circumcision that so many who were blessed by it did not remember the day of it? Let me ask you: do you celebrate your birthday? Annually? Why on earth, may I ask, since you cannot recall it one whit?

Secondly, it makes a _subjective emotional experience_, rather than the _spiritually intellectualized meaning_ of a thing essential to its appreciation. A person with memory loss or obscurity, or mental deficicencies--who cannot remember a specific event well; or a who might have been baptized at age 15, or 10, or even younger; or who might be incapable of much memory (even as an adult)--such a person is in no way limited from participating in all the essentials of the import of baptism, under the scheme I envision.

I'm sorry, if for your part, you must regret the loss of so much by so many...

As for baptism being a cause of rejoicing, trust me when I tell you that among us who are paedo-baptists, an infant baptism (as much as an adult baptism) is both a cause of rejoicing in the event by all those intelligent participants, and a reason to rejoice in one's own faith in Jesus Christ--a product of the sovereign, electing grace of God that had nothing productive to do with me making any kind of decision for such a reception.

If an adult baptism, which happens *unto* a person *passively* receiving it, is a sign of God's sovereign bestowal of his grace on whom he will (and it is such a sign or pointer, even when the person receiving it is lying or mistaken about his own commitment, and eventually falls away); an infant's baptism can be no LESS a statement about his helplessness and inability to presonally effect his own redemption.

Baptisms of all kinds demand of us just as much reflection and "improvement" of our own individual baptisms as any baptism in one of your churches. For baptism to be of benefit to anyone, it must be accompanied by faith. When, how, and in what degree that faith manifests itself is not _by itself_ determinative of when all potential persons who ought to be baptized are, in fact, baptized.

For us, "timing" (before or after a profession) is not an essential characteristic of all baptisms. It is a "necessary condition" in the case of adults seeking to join the church. But because the falsity of a profession does not "invalidate" a baptism, where the necessary conditions have been met, it therefore cannot be an "essential condition," a sine qua non. We don't wrestle over whether a person was "sincere enough," or if his backsliding showed evidence of a fully unregenerate heart, necessitating another attempt at a baptism that "takes" the second (or more) time around.

Baptism, in our tradition, is less about what I am saying subjectively about my own faith, as what God says/promises objectively to _*the believing one*_ in the gospel concerning the Faith. What he promises unto faith is received by faith when that faith is expressed, and unto none other but the faithful. "In it [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed, from faith to faith."

Peace.


----------



## steadfast7

I'd like to look at that corelation in Col 2:


> Col 2:11 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,
> Col 2:12 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.



Some points:
1. the circumcision is not referring to infant circumcision. It is the circumcision done without hands, the circumcision of the heart - it is speaking of the spiritual, not carnal reality. Biblically, this motif refers to those who are in humble submission and obedience to Yahweh. Infants are never spoken of as being, or not being, circumcised in heart - this idea is only applied to adults.
2. It is this circumcision that is correlated by Paul with baptism, which symbolizes burial and rising from the death.
3. This rising from the dead is "through faith". 

Now, this correlation between baptism and burial appears again in Romans 6:


> Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
> Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
> Rom 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
> Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
> Rom 6:7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.



This again, very clearly has mature (albeit struggling) Christians in view: those who are struggling with sin and need to understand that their union with Christ means an end to their sin. In all of these references, the correlation of baptism with infants is very weak, in my opinion.


----------



## Michael

In Suk,

Forgive me but it appears as if your perspective of paedo theology is almost like you see it teaching infant baptism _only_. Yet every paedobaptist clearly glories in the instruction of baptizing adult converts and all of the scripture that comes with that. I'm not sure I see what sense it makes to stumble over, as you would say, mature Christian conversions by then asking where the children are in the very same example? There is more than enough scripture to go around if you want to see that infants also belong in the New Covenant.


----------



## steadfast7

Hi Michael, 
I'm only trying to speak into baptism and not covenant theology, of which I'm still learning. I believe that there is sufficient evidence to point to the sanctification of children and their inclusion in the family unit. I'm just pointing out how so-called baptismal/circumcision texts are not as strong as they seem in making a case for baptismal procedure. I still think that covenant theology and not exegesis of biblical prescriptions per se, serves as the ground for a theology of baptism. and with baptism being such a crucial sacrament of the church, should we take such chances?


----------



## littlepeople

Nova said:


> Regarding "all who are far off", do you agree that this needs to be viewed in exactly the same way as "you and your children"? Is there something in the text that sets it off as a separate item?
> 
> If covenant inclusion is in view, what could Peter possibly mean? Is every nation necessarily a covenant member? Are those to whom the gospel is preached necessarily a covenant member?
> 
> You see the problem with treating "all who are far off" the same as the children..
> 
> ---------- Post added at 01:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------
> 
> One more thought: That circumcision has no place in the NC is clear. Paul doesn't have good things to say about circumcision ... I'm curious, why is there no alarm or pause in the mind of paedos in making an argument for baptism based on circumcision? What makes a paedo feel confident in proceeding with circumcision as a basis for anything?


 

I don't want to get tied up too deeply in this discussion. The two of you are dialoguing well, so I am just tossing a chunk of meat into the dog pit here.

You raise two points above that are very good, and the discussion moved on before these were answered squarely. Unanswered, you are correct that the Paedo position has serious inconsistencies.

1. You are pointing out the apparant, grevious double standard. "Your children" are members of the covenant, but "All who are far off" are not YET covenant members-therefore not proper subjects for baptism. Consider the context of Acts 2. Peter is preaching to scattered Jews from many nations who are gathered to celebrate Pentecost. He has already referenced Joel 2, and presented this moment as the fulfillment of that prophecy concenerning ISRAEL. At this point, Peter knows nothing about Gentile converts. So "All who are far off" cannot (in Peter's mind at the time) refer to the coming wave of Gentile converts. He must be thinking about the scattered Jews who are "far off" These are already covenant members. I hope you can see the importance of this in light of the double standard that you are seeing. In hindsight we realize that Peter's words are bigger than he imagined, but try not to read that knowledge back into Acts 2. Reading Joel 2 might help as well.

2. "That circumcision has no place in the NC is clear. Paul doesn't have good things to say about circumcision" - This isn't entirely true. In Acts 21, Paul takes a Nazirite vow after visiting the church in Jerusalem. The vow was intended to assure the Jews that He was NOT teaching them to abandon circumcision. Paul railed against the abuse of circumcision, but not circumcision itself. In this instance he is very clearly going out of his way to embrace it. So in Acts 21 you have an Apostle in the NT expressly condoning infant inclusion in the covenant. Remember the Old Covenant was passinga way, but not gone yet. Also consider that he circumcised Timothy. Paul was very specific in his circumcision disputes. He wanted no one to place confidence in it.

Hope that is helpful


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks Brandon for offering that angle on things. I hadn't considered that "all who are far off" in the mind of Peter are Jews, already considered in the covenant. So what Peter seems to be saying is basically 'the promise (covenant) is for every single one of you.' But, I'm not sure if this solves the problems for me. Let's examine the text:

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 
Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 
Act 2:40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 
Act 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 

First of all, is the 'promise' in this verse identical with the covenant? Abraham does not acutally occur anywhere in this discourse, or in the chapter. so, it's presumptuous to link this with the Abrahamic covenant at all.

But let's say the link is implied. Let's note the string of noun phrases placed in serial: the promise is for ...
1. you
2. your children
3. all who are far off
4. everyone the Lord our God calls to himself

If I read you correctly, you are observing that participants #1-3 are all Jews and therefore already in the covenant by circumcision. Thus, by inference, Peter seems to have a Jewish way of looking at covenants and gospel benefits.

But what are we to make of #4? It would be wrong to interpret this to mean that God necessarily calls #1-3. Rather, this fourth category of persons are included in the promise _on the condition that God calls them_. I believe #4 is not really a separate category but a summary of all the persons Peter has in mind to receive this promise, including #1-3. Here's where we will differ. The paedo might argue that #1-3 are automatically in the covenant by their circumcision, but #4 are conditionally in the covenant IF God calls them. Again I see the arbitrary splitting of categories and the apparent double standard. 

To me, the evidence is very strongly in favor of the interpretation that the promise is only for those whom the Lord calls (conditional on their repentance and faith). This "call" must be referring to effectual calling because the promise itself is referring to forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit (v.38). The presence of #4 removes the possibility that Peter is thinking in purely Jewish-covenantal terms when he refers to the promise. In essence, the promise is 'for you, your children, and all who are far off, _IF the Lord calls you_."

Lastly, let's look at the context of those who received this promise. 
1. Peter tells them to repent and be baptized (v.38)
2. They were exhorted to 'save themselves' (v.40)
3. Those who 'received the word' were baptized (v.41)

Adults are most certainly in view. Michael has rightly argued that this does not exclude infants, as there are numerous places where children are included with parents. But the text is silent regarding this and is _primarily _aimed at adults.

As Christians who seek to follow the text closely, especially for such a sacred ordinance, it seems the text only allows us to go so far.

---------- Post added at 08:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 AM ----------




> "That circumcision has no place in the NC is clear. Paul doesn't have good things to say about circumcision" - This isn't entirely true. In Acts 21, Paul takes a Nazirite vow after visiting the church in Jerusalem. The vow was intended to assure the Jews that He was NOT teaching them to abandon circumcision.



Consider this: If Paul did not believe in abandoning circumcision, then he obviously didn't believe that baptism was its replacement. This argument actually ends up hurting paedo-covenant theology, but if that's what the text says, so be it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

In Suk,

I heard something from Dr. Beach today listening to Covenant Radio that I believe is apropos. He stated that if one is looking at baptism as a testimony of something that God has done in your life then everything about paedobaptism will seem strange to that person.

Bruce has noted this in multiple threads on this subject but, very often, these discussions are trying to determine the "killer verse" that will put a stake in the heart of a position. I liken it to the "Big 3" that Arminians want to fall back on to control any dialog that might overcome their position. In saying this, I'm not comparing a Reformed Baptist to an Arminian but I am cautioning both sides of an issue that a much wider aperture is necessary than considering a single verse or even a pericope as all-controlling for the issue.

I'm listening to Sinclair Ferguson's nearly 2 year exegesis of Romans that he delivered at his Church. It's worth listening to the whole thing but I want to point out a particular portion in Romans 2 that places a finger on the pulse of Reformed Covenant Theology with respect to the signs of the Covenant and the relationship of the person who is in possession of that sign to the Gospel.

Here's the audio: Sunday PM

You ought to listen to his exegesis of the surrounding text as well but I'm going to bracket the text that he exegetes above so marvelously:



> 12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
> 
> 17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God 18 and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; 19 and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
> 
> 25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded [2] as circumcision? 27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code [3] and circumcision but break the law. 28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 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.



Often with Paul, we have to read between the lines as to why he's writing certain things. You can get an early sense in the Book of Romans that he's having to defend the fact that he's an Apostle or that he soft-peddles certain issues, or that he even denies certain things about the Word of God. For a Church he's never met, then, he wants to lay out "...my Gospel..." to make it clear what he's actually teaching about the Gospel. His Gospel is, in fact, _the_ Gospel but there are those who would detract from it.

You can see a decided aim in the verses above against Jews who are resisting the Gospel and this is where Paul aims his heavy gunfire upon them. The Gentile world has already been demonstrated by Paul to be under the wrath and curse of God for their rebellion of God's righteousness and this might leave a Jew smug in the position that: "Yes this is true to them but I have circumcision. I have been set apart from this wrath and curse. I am in Abraham."

An astute observer of this would note that this very attitude can be in the heart of a man who has been baptized previously and sees himself as no longer in the state of the world's judgment but _presumptuously_ assuming he's made the decision, received the sign, and is safe and secure.

B.B. Warfield pointed out that very often the Baptist reduction of circumcision resembles, in many ways, the error that the Jews had that Paul has to break down and show is completely erroneous.

The Jew was _never_ and I repeat _never_ to view his circumcision in the manner that Paul criticizes. Paul is calling down the judgment of God for sin and unrighteousness and the Jew was looking to his circumcision as protection from it. _Rightly understood_, Paul says, circumcision by itself was never intended to direct a person's heart away from a broken and contrite heart but was _always intended_ to direct their need to God for His mercy. Later, in Romans 3, Paul appeals to Psalm 51 where David manifests this heart of brokenness and recognition of unrighteousness and need for mercy. He rightly understands that all visible signs pointed beyond themselves to something that was to come. Be it circumcision or hyssop or burnt offerings - every one of these things was ultimately pointless if the believer's heart was not directed toward the Savior _as these signs were intended to point toward_.

Consequently, I don't really think you'll ever grasp Reformed Covenant theology if you don't grasp how we see the signs operating in the lives of believers from all redemptive eras. In other words, it will not do to simply cast doubt about whether specific verses in Acts provide enough definitive historical example to sustain the baptism of specific groups but the entire operation of Covenant between both ends of the Scriptures literally has to be torn up and re-thought.


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks Rich. I'm in agreement with this view of circumcision and what it's meant to do. I appreciate that we need to have a 'wider aperture' when considering these things, but it's a little disturbing to me that a "killer verse" is missing. I'm beginning to see that a theology of baptism is needed, but theology should be built on clear texts, and not on the system or the lens through which texts are read. But, to be fair, isn't the Abrahamic covenant somewhat of a "all-controlling" killer verse for paedos?

I see paedobaptistic theology as being built on a system. This system has some basic presuppostions:
1. Signs always function the same way in all covenants, without exception
2. Older and newer covenants are completely harmonious with each other, without exception.
3. non-abrogation of a sign means its perpetual use.

I'm not really equipped at the moment to comment on whether the system is true, it may very well be. But this can only be determined by exegesis of clear texts, not by invoking the presupposition. I've been trying to show that the NT passages that are often quoted are not as strong as prooftexts as they appear to the paedo, and this _could_ cast doubt on the presuppositions. I hope I don't sound dispensational!

Acts presents us with descriptions of history, a picture of how things were done; and they seem strongly in favour for an exclusivist view, in my opinion. There isn't a whole lot of commentary to guide us into its deeper meaning or its relation with previous practices, but we are still responsible to mimic as much as possible what was described, in the packaging that comes with it.


----------



## littlepeople

Nova said:


> The presence of #4 removes the possibility that Peter is thinking in purely Jewish-covenantal terms when he refers to the promise.



See Joel 2:32. I would completely agree that your #4 is not a separate category, but rather an explanation of #1-3. That is the clearest teaching especially since Peter's sermon is basically an exposition of Joel 2: 23-32. He begins in Joel 2:23-31 explaining that the present time is the fulfillment of that prophecy. The prophecy is regarding the gathering together of the remnant of Israel and the pouring out of the Spirit upon them. Peter then presses the Jews to see how Jesus is the Christ gathering his remnant. He concludes with Joel 2:32 "Even among the survivors (remnant) whom the LORD calls."

Also remember that in chapter 10 Peter will say to Cornelius -"You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me (just now) that I should not call any man unholy or unclean"





Nova said:


> Consider this: If Paul did not believe in abandoning circumcision, then he obviously didn't believe that baptism was its replacement. This argument actually ends up hurting paedo-covenant theology, but if that's what the text says, so be it.


 
Regarding circumcision, I do not believe baptism replaces it. I believe that it corresponds to it. They both signify regeneration, and they are both tokens of covenant membership. But there is not a 1:1 relationship of replacement. This is a transitional period, passing the baton so to speak. Hebrews says the old covenant is fading away - soon to disappear. The point I am making with Acts 21 is that Paul doesn't take the opportunity to explain that the Jewish church cannot circumcise their children because God now deals with individuals on an individual basis. He does the opposite.


The point is that Paedo's will always refer to Acts 2:39 because of its clear teaching that the covenantal family unit is still in place. 





Nova said:


> To me, the evidence is very strongly in favor of the interpretation that the promise is only for those whom the Lord calls (conditional on their repentance and faith). This "call" must be referring to effectual calling because the promise itself is referring to forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit (v.38).



If Baptism was only intended to be administered to truly regenerate individuals, then it cannot be adminstered by men. But I'm sure you've been made aware of this


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Thanks Rich. I'm in agreement with this view of circumcision and what it's meant to do. I appreciate that we need to have a 'wider aperture' when considering these things, but it's a little disturbing to me that a "killer verse" is missing. I'm beginning to see that a theology of baptism is needed, but theology should be built on clear texts, and not on the system or the lens through which texts are read. But, to be fair, isn't the Abrahamic covenant somewhat of a "all-controlling" killer verse for paedos?


 
Not precisely. I didn't say that Systematic Theology is not built upon exegesis but that individual verses do not serve in the manner that many try to approach them. Certainly the verses in Scripture add up to build a Biblical exegesis, which then forms a Systematic understanding of certain topics. Often, however, many do not understand how much they are carrying with them when they go to specific verses to defeat a concept that is built verse by verse, pericope by pericope, etc into a larger understanding of Biblical concepts.

I'm not stating that the Reformed view is divorced from the text or that the Covenants made with Abraham and others are irrelevant but they build a larger picture that, when you zoom out and see the whole, allows you to see how the individual portions of Scripture inform those.

You're coming at the text from your own Systematic understanding of things and aren't even consciously aware (at least your presentation does not imply this) what you're reading into certain texts as necessary consequence.



Nova said:


> I see paedobaptistic theology as being built on a system. This system has some basic presuppostions:
> 1. Signs always function the same way in all covenants, without exception
> 2. Older and newer covenants are completely harmonious with each other, without exception.
> 3. non-abrogation of a sign means its perpetual use.


First, what you "see" is not accurate.

Even if I agreed with any of the three, they are not "pre-suppositions" but derivative understandings of exegesis combined with categorization that leads to the broader understanding.

As I said above, one cannot even begin to critique the position from individual verses or their exegesis in light of what they say within their pericopes if one does not even see how those pericopes build into the Covenant theology in view.

Just to demonstrate one use of a pericope, we can take the light that Paul clearly sheds on the role of circumcision within Romans 2 and 3 as he criticizes those who mis-apprehend what the signatory function of Circumcision was intended for. One can clearly discern circumcision as acting to direct the members of the OC beyond the signs to the substance of things signified. Other pericopes (Romans 4, Psalm 51, etc) will further fill in other blanks about the role of circumcision in the life of the Covenant and other pericopes will unpack the signs and shadows of the OC sacrifices (throughout Hebrews for instance).

Taken together, then, when one considers the sign of Circumcision from various parts of Scripture a complete understanding (both OT verses and NT verses that illumine them) you can fully develop an understanding of circumcision. This then causes one to begin to put the pieces together concerning NC signs and sacraments and begin to see the clear parallels that exist as well as other data about the inclusion of children within the scope of the Covenant.

If one is only interested in "killer verses", however, then it will simply leave the person at the level of "raw data". In other words, there will be single data points that can be connected to a particular conclusion that the person reading wants to connect without doing the hard work of building all the other interconnected pieces.


----------



## steadfast7

littlepeople said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of #4 removes the possibility that Peter is thinking in purely Jewish-covenantal terms when he refers to the promise.
> 
> 
> 
> Also remember that in chapter 10 Peter will say to Cornelius -"You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me (just now) that I should not call any man unholy or unclean"
Click to expand...

Hmm, now if the logic follows, as has been argued, that Cornelius and all men are "holy" (though having not yet heard the gospel, believed or been baptized), then does that make them in the covenant? Here, I see the argument breaking down for "holy children" as meaning that they are in the covenant.



> Regarding circumcision, I do not believe baptism replaces it. I believe that it corresponds to it. They both signify regeneration, and they are both tokens of covenant membership. But there is not a 1:1 relationship of replacement. This is a transitional period, passing the baton so to speak. Hebrews says the old covenant is fading away - soon to disappear. The point I am making with Acts 21 is that Paul doesn't take the opportunity to explain that the Jewish church cannot circumcise their children because God now deals with individuals on an individual basis. He does the opposite.


 Or, another possibility is that baptism and circumcision are two different things altogether. I think Paul views circumcision as not representing anything spiritual any longer, but sees its value only in its relation to Israel's privileged ethnicity (Rom 3:1-2).



> The point is that Paedo's will always refer to Acts 2:39 because of its clear teaching that the covenantal family unit is still in place.


 It still begs the question of the status of 'all who are far off'. Either they must be viewed as co-equal with the family unit, or all the categories of individuals must be subsumed under a conditional status: all are in the covenant whom the Lord calls to himself.



> If Baptism was only intended to be administered to truly regenerate individuals, then it cannot be adminstered by men. But I'm sure you've been made aware of this



Yes, that's the kicker!  I guess the best the baptist can say is, "we don't _intentionally_ baptize the non-elect."

---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------

Let's look at Romans 2 ...



> Rom 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?



This verse speaks volumes to me about Paul's view of circumcision. 
1. Circumcision is a spiritual not a physical reality.
2. the one who keeps the law perfectly is regarded as circumcized. This of course can only be said of Christ, and those in Christ. cf. Phil 3:3
3. The conversion of uncircumcision to circumcision does not come by parental lineage, but personal adherence to the whole law ("if *a man*...")

I'd have to research more, but this points back to my point, that circumcision as spiritual reality in the NT in no wise refers back to the practice of infant circumcision.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> I think Paul views circumcision as not representing anything spiritual any longer, but sees its value only in its relation to Israel's privileged ethnicity (Rom 3:1-2).


 
Here's the problem right here that I'm pointing out.

When you say that Paul does not view circumcision as "...not representing anything spiritual..." any longer what do you mean?

Did it ever have significance beyond itself or was it merely a marker of "privileged ethnicity" as you infer with your follow-on statement?

I don't believe Romans 2 and 3 can be made sense of to imply that Paul only means to infer that circumcision served a purpose to be a marker of privileged ethnicity but as described above.

*The very thing that Paul is rebuking the Jews in Romans 2-3 is over their misapprehension of privileged status before God.* That is to say that he is reminding them that the sign _always_ pointed to a need for a broken and contrite spirit and the need for mercy from a holy God. If, as David avers in Psalm 51 (and repeated in Romans 3:3-4) that God is to be justified when He judges, then there's going to be a need for a foreign righteousness and clean heart that only God can provide. Rather than telling the Jews that their circumcision represents "privileged status" in some crass way, Paul is demonstrating that the privilege of circumcision was to be a sign to a deeper reality.

God had "cut them out" from the world to manifest grace unto His people and everything about the established relationship was to be about grace. Every sign was to point to grace. The Jew that saw in that only a "privilege" and didn't see his sin in need of hiding from God became, as Paul emphasizes, _un_-circumcised.

Christ rebukes this crass idea of privilege where the Pharisee simply thanks God for all his privileges in being unlike the world and all the Covenant blessings he enjoys by keeping the Law and states that the prayer of the publican ("Have mercy on me a sinner!") left the Pharisee unjustified and the publican justified in God's sight.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Let's look at Romans 2 ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rom 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This verse speaks volumes to me about Paul's view of circumcision.
> 1. Circumcision is a spiritual not a physical reality.
> 2. the one who keeps the law perfectly is regarded as circumcized. This of course can only be said of Christ, and those in Christ. cf. Phil 3:3
> 3. The conversion of uncircumcision to circumcision does not come by parental lineage, but personal adherence to the whole law ("if *a man*...")
> 
> I'd have to research more, but this points back to my point, that circumcision as spiritual reality in the NT in no wise refers back to the practice of infant circumcision.
Click to expand...


This exegesis of Romans 2 is horrible and underlines my point about how to treat verses. One does not even need to leave Romans to point out how flawed this treatment is.

You drive a wedge between the sign and the thing signified that Paul is rebuking in the Jewish thinking to begin with.

Your view of why God instituted physical signs is impious. It makes a mockery of God's signs as if they are not meant to speak to spiritual things when, throughout the OT and NT, the Scriptures repeatedly enjoin the OT believer to look _from_ the sign of God's Covenant _to_ the spiritual things they signify.

Indeed, you _must_ research more. For a person who is, by his own admission, a novice you need much more instruction before you intend to teach on such things. I really don't care so much about whether one wants to draw parallels from circumcision to baptism but I must insist that our forebears in the faith be treated with the dignity that their faith was not somehow completely foreign to our own as your theological presentation infers.


----------



## steadfast7

Ok, to clarify. Yes, circumcision indeed pointed to all those things above and had those deeper meanings from the beginning. But when the gospel and gentiles are concerned, Paul lowers the emphasis to protect the gospel.


> Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
> Rom 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.


I wish he went on to describe points 2,3,4, as to the value of circumcision etc, but his main point is that circumcision is Jewish. That seems clear.

In Acts 21, he takes the Nazirite vow to appease Jewish Christians and convince them that he is not against Jewish custom and law obedience.

In Acts 16, he circumcizes Timothy because he has a Jewish mom. 

Here's my point. When it comes to *Gentiles*, circumcision (of the flesh, according to custom) has no place in his teaching or practice. He only speaks of the true circumcision, and in his mind, that pertains to the faithful.


----------



## littlepeople

I realize that your getting responses that are pulling you all over the map. But did you read Joel 2. The "all who are far off as many as the Lord shall call" is drawn from there. The status of "all who are far off" is covenant members (Jews and proselytes) who must believe the Christ in order to escape the wicked generation and avoid being cut off. See Acts 3:22-23. 

Now you might say that this need for belief and repentance shows the difference between new covenant membership and the old, but members of the old are called to faith and repentance as well. The "ethnic" understanding of circumcision cannot allow for proselytes. Yet we see that one who wished to worship God had to become a Jew in order to do it.

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

Cicumcision is slightly more than Jewish custom


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Ok, to clarify. Yes, circumcision indeed pointed to all those things above and had those deeper meanings from the beginning. But when the gospel and gentiles are concerned, Paul lowers the emphasis to protect the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
> Rom 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish he went on to describe points 2,3,4, as to the value of circumcision etc, but his main point is that circumcision is Jewish. That seems clear.
> 
> In Acts 21, he takes the Nazirite vow to appease Jewish Christians and convince them that he is not against Jewish custom and law obedience.
> 
> In Acts 16, he circumcizes Timothy because he has a Jewish mom.
> 
> Here's my point. When it comes to *Gentiles*, circumcision (of the flesh, according to custom) has no place in his teaching or practice. He only speaks of the true circumcision, and in his mind, that pertains to the faithful.
Click to expand...

 
No, you're missing Paul's point. In fact, the reason he brings up the "value" of circumcision is to deal with the Jewish objector who _wrongly_ infers from Paul's teaching that circumcision never had any value. He's circling back to deal with a common impious objection he heard (and he probably made to Stephen himself.)

Certainly I agree that Paul is not arguing for the _continued practice_ of circumcision but you're mixing apples and oranges here. Paul's purpose in this is not to precisely deal with the continued significance of circumcision but _it is to correct a Jewish objector from thinking that he didn't need the same kind of Gospel that the rest of the world needed._ Circumcision always and everywhere was to point to Christ. Full stop. "All you Jews," Paul is saying, "that think you're any better than Gentiles before a holy God because you're "privileged" are missing the entire point of that sign in your flesh! David understood this. The Scriptures testify to your own unrighteousness before the Law. Stop trusting in your privilege as the Covenant people of God because the Scriptures testify that ALL are guilty before the bar of God's judgment."

It was fine for the Jews to hear that the Gentiles were going to be judged by a holy God. But them? "How can this be? We are the children of Abraham!"

"Stop!", Paul says, "you are guilty, guilty, guilty."

In your attempts to try to prove a point that Paul is not even dealing with in this passage, you're missing Paul's point in even bringing circumcision into the discussion.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at Romans 2 ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rom 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This verse speaks volumes to me about Paul's view of circumcision.
> 1. Circumcision is a spiritual not a physical reality.
> 2. the one who keeps the law perfectly is regarded as circumcized. This of course can only be said of Christ, and those in Christ. cf. Phil 3:3
> 3. The conversion of uncircumcision to circumcision does not come by parental lineage, but personal adherence to the whole law ("if *a man*...")
> 
> I'd have to research more, but this points back to my point, that circumcision as spiritual reality in the NT in no wise refers back to the practice of infant circumcision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This exegesis of Romans 2 is horrible and underlines my point about how to treat verses. One does not even need to leave Romans to point out how flawed this treatment is.
> 
> You drive a wedge between the sign and the thing signified that Paul is rebuking in the Jewish thinking to begin with.
> 
> Your view of why God instituted physical signs is impious. It makes a mockery of God's signs as if they are not meant to speak to spiritual things when, throughout the OT and NT, the Scriptures repeatedly enjoin the OT believer to look _from_ the sign of God's Covenant _to_ the spiritual things they signify.
> 
> Indeed, you _must_ research more. For a person who is, by his own admission, a novice you need much more instruction before you intend to teach on such things. I really don't care so much about whether one wants to draw parallels from circumcision to baptism but I must insist that our forebears in the faith be treated with the dignity that their faith was not somehow completely foreign to our own as your theological presentation infers.
Click to expand...


whoa, whoa, whoa, hold the phone. Am I missing something here? Did I say that God's signs were not meant to speak to spiritual things? Heaven forbid if my view mocks God as you suggest. Perhaps I have been unclear, and if so, I apologize.

I think all I was trying to suggest is that Paul's view of circumcision, as far as the new economy and Gentiles were concerned, was over and done with. The spiritual significance and reality still remain of course. Circumcision is ultimately spiritual; and pertains to those who are in Christ - that is all I have gleaned from Paul.

(I admit my eagerness to learn more on this subject and do not profess to have it all together. I don't think there's any need to make this personal regarding my inabilities, or my stripping the forebears in the faith of their dignity, etc. I would kindly ask you to keep to the issues, keep to the texts in question, and help me understand. cheers.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It's nothing personal In Suk. I'm warning you that even our "eagerness" can lead us to state impious things. You need to be careful because others read this board and you are teaching whether you realize it or not.

As I stated, Paul's purpose in speaking about circumcision in Romans 2-3 is not to deal, precisely, with its continued validity. It's axiomatic that the sign has been abrogated. He's more precisely dealing with the arrogance of a Jew who sees himself as being in a privileged status because he is in Covenant with God. The same rebuke of Paul, as I noted, can be applied to the man who trusts in his baptism or decision in the same arrogant manner.


----------



## steadfast7

Ok Rich, I'm with you here. No objections to the above two posts. Now, a question: doesn't it seem that where Paul speaks of circumcision in Romans, he immediately thinks mostly of the Mosaic, not Abrahamic covenant? Check out the parallel in 2:28-29


> Rom 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
> Rom 2:29 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.



So, 'outward and physical' parallels 'letter' (law). The same is true for arguments given in Galatians and Hebrews. Jewish Christians wrongly link circumcision and law, and Paul is left denouncing circumcision in most of his references.

---------- Post added at 01:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 PM ----------

and yes, it would be arrogant, and perhaps idolatrous for someone to trust in their baptism, regardless of their baptistic persuasion. But if you consider that the main NT picture of baptism is of burial, then the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ is signified in the act.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Ok Rich, I'm with you here. No objections to the above two posts. Now, a question: doesn't it seem that where Paul speaks of circumcision in Romans, he immediately thinks mostly of the Mosaic, not Abrahamic covenant?


No. I think he has the Covenant in view. It would have been anachronistic but Paul could have "preached" this to Ishmael. Circumcision was given to Abraham.



> Check out the parallel in 2:28-29
> 
> 
> 
> Rom 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
> Rom 2:29 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, 'outward and physical' parallels 'letter' (law). The same is true for arguments given in Galatians and Hebrews. Jewish Christians wrongly link circumcision and law, and Paul is left denouncing circumcision in most of his references.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you read Paul more carefully, "outward and physical" does not equal Law but equals man's perversion of the Law to assume that he can attain righteousness through outward and physical conformity. Law was never given to point men to outward and physical conformity but to drive them to the Gospel (see Rom 3:21).



> and yes, it would be arrogant, and perhaps idolatrous for someone to trust in their baptism, regardless of their baptistic persuasion. But if you consider that the main NT picture of baptism is of burial, then the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ is signified in the act.


There are several "pictures" of what baptism represents as even the LBCF testifies to. That said, circumcision obviously did not operate with the same light that Baptism can for the NT believer. It did, however, function to direct attention to the same saving God.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> As I stated, Paul's purpose in speaking about circumcision in Romans 2-3 is not to deal, precisely, with its continued validity. It's axiomatic that the sign has been abrogated. He's more precisely dealing with the arrogance of a Jew who sees himself as being in a privileged status because he is in Covenant with God. The same rebuke of Paul, as I noted, can be applied to the man who trusts in his baptism or decision in the same arrogant manner.


 
Ok, so the sign of circumcision has been abrogated. This, to me, is a huge statement which leads to my next question: why is the practice of placing the sign on covenant children still in place? I'm a little confused at Brandon's post that baptism has not, in fact, replaced circumcision, but _corresponds _to it. I have often heard paedos say that it _is _a replacement; only the physical sign has changed. If circumcision has been abrogated, where do we find the basis for infant baptism?

As observed before, we find that Paul underwent the Nazirite vow in Jerusalem as a statement that he was not opposed to Mosaic law keeping or the continued practice of circumcision - that is, for Jewish believers. This suggests to me that he is relegating circumcision to religio-cultural status, and accepts it as long as it remains within the Jewish circle. One thing is for sure, where it comes to Gentiles taking on the practice, he is vehemently against it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't think circumcision has any status before God any more. The man who circumcises his child in supposed obedience to the "Covenant" in this day and age has the same status as anyone else - they need Christ and His righteousness. Muslims circumcise their children and, as they claim Ishmael, they could be considered physical children of Abraham practicing something that is a corruption of its intended signatory purpose even as Jews are compared to being sons of the slavewoman in Gal 5. 

Circumcision was not relegated to "religio-cultural" status by the inauguration of the NC but abrogated. In order to deal with a difficult, transitory period in Redemptive History, the Apostles could still make inroads into a people groups whose ideas of cultic separation required they not have any dealings with unclean Gentiles but, in this, they were becoming "all things to all people" in order to reach them with the Gospel. Paul, later in Romans 14, deals with how to treat the weak believer which has Jews in view.

As for "Gentiles" taking it on, you'll notice he circumcises Timothy (who willingly receives it) not for any religious significance but for the purpose I note for above. As for Titus, however, this is where nuance is important to notice. It is customary to view Paul as always speaking of circumcision in the same manner in every context. The context in Romans 2-3 when he refers to circumcision is different in some ways than the Galatians context. A close reading of what circumcision meant for those demanding it in Galatia is another aberration of the meaning of circumcision which equates to taking on the Jewish Law and its demands. it equated to Christ + Torah = Salvation. The "+Torah" side of the equation was *never* the equation (even in OC times) as Paul elaborates in Galatians 3.

As for your question of baptism replacing circumcision, I haven't read what Brandon wrote. All those who were to be marked out in the NT Church were to receive baptism - whether previously circumcised or not. It clearly is treated in the NT Scriptures as a sign that serves to mark the visible Church from the world as well as something that signifies Christ and His benefits sealed to the true believer. Even Baptists recognize both aspects in their Confession. Continuity is then provided as children are called out in Epistles both as holy and given Covenantal injunctions from the Apostles. There is certainly only language which confirms the family solidarity in God's covenant dealings as well as the expansion of the sign of baptism rather than its restriction.


----------



## littlepeople

To clarify, circumcision is not replaced by baptism any more than Israel is replaced by the church. Replace is a poor word for what goes on between the covenants. That is why I used correspond. Consider these two sentences: 1. "I am going to start using fluorescent light bulbs in my house". 2. "I am replacing the lightbulbs in my house with fluorescent ones. No one rooted out all those of the circumcision and un-did anything, so you can't call it a replacement.

You will notice that I am really only pressing one point in my posts and that is concerning infant inclusion, regardless of any signs or seals.

I would urge you to speak of Old Covenant signs and seals with the same reverence you show for NC counterparts. No one wants to hear baptism referred to as a religeo-cultural tradition. I have a very hard time sorting out theology within the transition period. One thing I know is that there was still a 2nd commandment in place throughout. So I'm not comfortable saying that Paul is encouraging will-worship in these settings. The best understanding I have come to is that both covenants are in place for this short time. That is consistent with Hebrews saying that the old is BECOMING obsolete. I have heard it illustrated like one runner handing off the baton in a relay race. There is a point where both runners have a firm grip on the baton, and they are both moving forward at the same pace.

I think we need to be careful in assigning motives to Paul and other's confusing actions. We tend to say, "oh he is just removing obstacles and being all things to all men." Paul was still worshipping the God who cares about worship. The same God that struck down those in the OT who worshipped according to their imaginations.

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

And yes, I believe with you that circumcision has 0 spiritual significance today. But when did that become the case? Incarnation, Last Supper, Crucifixion, Death, Burial, Resurrection, Ascention, Pentecost, 70 A.D. ??? We say it was abrogated, and I agree. But When?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brandon,

First, I didn't use the word "replace" but indicated that all, either circumcised or uncircumcised, were baptized.

Secondly, it is impossible for me to conceive of Paul or any of the Apostles bringing a burnt offering to the Temple after Christ had ascended. I can't imagine they were awaiting the Book of Hebrews to understand the import of His Priestly office. I agree that the transition period is difficult but there is no record in Acts of any of the Apostles participating in the sacrificial aspects of the OT economy.

I don't have to "assign motives" for Paul because it is indicated why Timothy was circumcised. Furthermore, when Paul took the Nazirite vow there are indications that this is a form of accommodation because the typical charge that Paul refutes surrounded him like a cloud: he had a rap for speaking against the Law of Moses. Nothing could be further from the truth but you see the fingerprints of that charge in Romans and clearly so in Galatians. 

I think much of the difficulty associated with the transition period had to do with consciences that were still very scrupulous to things that men now had liberty to ignore. For instance, Romans 14 speaks to scrupulous observances that deal with days and foods and one does not need to speculate to see a reference to ceremonial aspects of the Law that had been in place for over a millennium. Paul clearly feels at ease being stricter or looser depending on the man he is trying to teach the Gospel unto. It would be nigh impossible to even get near a Jew to teach the Gospel if the man thought he was ceremonially unclean.


----------



## littlepeople

The Nazirite vow involved sacrifice as indicated by Numbers 6 and Acts 21: 26

"Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them"

And I threw my bible against the wall when I read that because it just doesn't fit right, but it is there

For the record, I wasn't really directing anything towards you as I hadn't "caught up" in reading the posts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

littlepeople said:


> And yes, I believe with you that circumcision has 0 spiritual significance today. But when did that become the case? Incarnation, Last Supper, Crucifixion, Death, Burial, Resurrection, Ascention, Pentecost, 70 A.D. ??? We say it was abrogated, and I agree. But When?


 
I don't know precisely. Apollos, for instance, seems to be operating within the light he had before Aquila and Priscilla bumped into him. A pastor friend of mine has done some research into the periods of Judaism. Judaism, after 70 AD, pretty much ensconced a Pharisaical perversion of the Law of God and represented a decided reaction against Christianity.

I don't think the reception of baptism saved, per se, and could conceive of someone dying during that period who had not yet heard the News that the Messiah signified by circumcision had come.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

littlepeople said:


> The Nazirite vow involved sacrifice as indicated by Numbers 6 and Acts 21: 26
> 
> "Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them"
> 
> And I threw my bible against the wall when I read that because it just doesn't fit right, but it is there
> 
> For the record, I wasn't really directing anything towards you as I hadn't "caught up" in reading the posts.


 
Fair enough. Looks like the Nazirite vow included a burnt offering, a sin offering, a peace offering, and a wave offering. There you have it. I was wrong about "no example".

I would still argue that Paul had to have understood the real sin offering had already been offered once-for-all. I haven't studied this particular section but it would be inconceivable that he thought the shadows still had any real significance when the substance had come.


----------



## littlepeople

Semper Fidelis said:


> I would still argue that Paul had to have understood the real sin offering had already been offered once-for-all.



I would agree whole-heartedly


----------



## SolaScriptura

Speaking of baptism....

On Sunday, the 5th of September, we are baptizing our youngest, Noah Michael, during the morning worship service at our church in Bowie, MD. If you'd like to attend PM me and I'll send you the info.


----------



## littlepeople

Congrats. I have a Noah as well


----------



## Michael

SolaScriptura said:


> Speaking of baptism....
> 
> On Sunday, the 5th of September, we are baptizing our youngest, Noah Michael, during the morning worship service at our church in Bowie, MD. If you'd like to attend PM me and I'll send you the info.



Praise God! Thanks for sharing Ben...


----------



## steadfast7

[BIBLE]Rom 4:9-12[/BIBLE]

Verses 11b and 12 stand out for me. We are actually told the purpose of circumcision, so if baptism and circumcision are linked in the new economy, this verse ought be very enlightening indeed.
The purpose of the sign of circumcision is to make Abraham the father of faith - both uncircumcised gentiles who _believe_, and circumcised Jews who walk in Abraham's faith. I believe this strand in Paul's thought needs to be considered seriously. The theory that circumcision is simply a mark of covenant membership is here being challenged by Paul, wouldn't you say?

When it says that "The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, *so that righteousness would be counted to them as well*" this shows that we are not to be circumcised because of the faith of our parents, we are to be circumcised because we have imitated Abraham's faith. In other words, we are children of Abraham not in a generational sense, but in the sense that we have followed in his very own footsteps of faith. and just as he was circumcised after believing, this same pattern should apply to us: ie. baptism after believing.

The way I see it, Paul removes the generational sense of Abraham's fatherhood and replaces it with the 'imitative' sense. Abraham is our father not because we have believing parents, but because we are imitators of his faith!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

In Suk,
If you think that we view circumcision or baptism _simply_ as a mark of covenant membership, then clearly you are not apprehending the contrary position. It seems as though you have an "either-or" position, and therefore the other side position must be "either-or" also. This is not the case.

Observe by your own words the plain difference you posit between what you say the purpose of circumcision IS (presumably now, in this new economy), and what circumcision meant previously (having a "generational sense").

You need to understand that those (paedobaptsits), who are on the other side of the fence from you, _deny there is a difference between the purpose and meaning of the covenant sign before, and the purpose and meaning of the covenant sign now._

You note that Paul rehearses the purpose of circumcision. That purpose--in keeping with the Old Testament age, for a sign that isn't even directly relevant in this age, other than by analogy to baptism--is the purpose God meant unto Abraham and the Old Testament church! Therefore, the sign is to be a sign of faith in the Promise that the sign signifies.

Of course, you know that God designated the proper recipients of that circumcision, Gen.17. So, despite the fact that circumcision is directly tied to the salvific promises of God, and the recipients of that sign are supposed to give evidence of believing in the significance of the sign, God does not direct the same *order* of application--that is, to follow profession--in the case of the children of believers. Therefore, Ishmael is circumcised (immediately), and Isaac (later, at his birth). Likewise, the same orders obtained for converts, or children of the covenant.

You propose that the statements of Paul indicate a change. But how, since the meaning of covenant-sign is no different, from age to age?

There is no "replacement" of "generational" with "imitative" sense, unless you think that "imitative" wasn't a part of the Old Testament regimin, unless you think the meaning of the sign has actually changed.

Once again, we don't appear to share an "either-or" approach to the sign; but the paedo-baptist has a "both-and" approach, exactly as it was for Abraham and the Old Testament church.


----------



## steadfast7

> You need to understand that those (paedobaptsits), who are on the other side of the fence from you, deny there is a difference between the purpose and meaning of the covenant sign before, and the purpose and meaning of the covenant sign now ... You propose that the statements of Paul indicate a change. But how, since the meaning of covenant-sign is no different, from age to age?



thanks for your comments Bruce. It would probably be helpful for me if you stated propositionally what the purpose and meaning of circumcision was in the OT. (since there is no change between the economies, only one statement should suffice.)

What I'm arguing is that Paul does state plainly for NT Christians what _he _thinks circumcision was about _and he tells us_how that relates to present salvation. He seems to be saying that Abraham is our father NOT from an inherited faith proceeding from him (generational), but because we ourselves are now having that same faith and being counted righteous as he was (imitative).

When making mention of circumcision, no where (that I'm aware) does Paul make reference to the act that Abraham's offspring
receive. Rather, when he speaks of circumcision, he is strictly concerned with what _Abraham himself received_, by virtue of his faith. He was given the sign from God. Paul may not be making a strict abrogation of the OT principle, as paedos would want demonstrated, but he is certainly steering the ship in a different direction and telling us what is important when considering circumcision. 

It cannot be said any clearer than Romans 4


> Rom 4:22 That is why his faith was "counted to him as righteousness."
> Rom 4:23 But the words *"it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone,
> Rom 4:24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, *
> Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.



We are in relationship with Abraham NOT through generational continuity with him (physical or spiritual), but because we are cut from the very _same _block, to procure the same blessing!

My conclusion from this: we should not be baptized in the way that Isaac was cirumcised. We should be baptized in the way _Abraham _was circumcised!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

In Suk,
In answer to your first request, for the propositional statement re. the purpose and meaning of circumcision in the OT, I only ask you to please wait until next week, when I have returned from vacation. I have well-prepared materials on that exact question, and I would prefer to present it entire. Don't worry, it can be stated (as I indicated previously) pretty much in a list or column format. But given the PuritanBoard's set up, it will probably have to be in parallel sentence structure.


I find the following premises in your above:
1) You divide what Abraham received from what Isaac or any other of Abraham's offspring received.
2) You divide on a matter of mere temporality between the "way" Abraham is circumcised, and the way Isaac was circumcised.

We deny both premises, 
1) the first in its totality, because both men were God's elect, therefore God's promises to Abraham were no less true when applied to Isaac, and Isaac even received statements of covenant-renewal (Gen.26:2-5&23-25); 
2) the second according to substance, because temporality is accidental and not substantive regarding the meaning of the sign.


I am not certain that you have yet reckoned sufficiently with the explicit testimony of Moses regarding the spiritual essence of circumcision. You are quite focused on what Paul states about that spiritual essence, but appear to be saying that Paul basically introduces something of which the OT knows little or nothing, that he speaks in Romans of what "_he_ means," something that is actually a theological innovation, albeit one that is Spirit-inspired.

In fact, what he is doing is merely making explicit the Christological connection between what the OT already teaches about circumcision, and its NT application. The interest Paul has in Abraham's _particular_ faith has to do with the point he makes against the legalist's understanding of the value of an external relation to Abraham. External relationships, however calculated, have no inherent value if not accompanied by the inward relationship that is necessary to ground them.

But this realization doesn't make an external relation worthless in every case. Otherwise, Isaac's circumcision would have been of no value to him. Nay, but as a believer it indeed testified to him of God's faithfulness to his covenant word. Thus, by faith it stood in exactly the same relation to him as Abraham's circumcision did. Abraham believed God's Word of promise, and then he received a witness to that promise to strengthen his faith; and the Lord spoke further to him even challenging his faith, which stood the test. Isaac first received God's witness to his promise, and he believed the Word to which it pointed. That witness strengthened his faith, and the Lord spoke further to him as well.

Abraham is better for Paul's purpose, however, not only for the stock already placed in him by those who overvalued their external religious connection to him. But also because in his case there is no mistaking a spiritual blessing for an outward cause, due to the fact he was blessed in believing long before he was given any outward cause (circumcision) on which his hope might have been falsely based. Therefore, circumcision cannot be made rightly to serve any such-like purpose for anyone at all.

Nor is Abraham unique in this condition, except for his being the first to be given this covenant Word and sign (him the father of us all)! He isn't unique in the very subject under consideration, although he is the best example, since there can be only one such beginning. But his story of faith, followed by the sign for the strengthening of faith, was replicated in the case of all true, male converts to the Faith. Each and every one of them received the "sign of the righteousness he had (at first) by faith." The only way this would not be true for them all would be to propose a crass carnality infusing both sign and recipient, despite the convert's new commitment to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. From whom did converts "receive" this sign? From men? you could only say that in a mediated sense. No, but from God they received it, just as Abraham did. How far these believers were from "inheriting" faith!

In fact, no one ever "inherited faith," and I'm not really sure that you would even mean to imply such a thing, though you use the adjective "generational" opposed to "imitative." Isaac didn't inherit his faith from Abraham, neither David from Jesse, etc.

If you mean to imply that an (believing) Israelite received _the Faith_ passed down to him by his (believing!) parents, then surely you can see that Paul can't be stating a NT truth that is in any way incongruent with OT truth; but he is correcting _misapprehensions,_ current in every age, about what it always has meant to possess true saving faith, or truly access the Faith that saves. I'm not sure of what difference you see here, that age to this. Nor, can I see how practically speaking you desire anything less than a faithful passage of the Faith you possess down to your own children who shall believe it unto salvation just as you do.

I realize that you may think that the religion of Abraham was every Israelite's heritage, regardless of his faith. But that seems to me a very far-fetch, considering how sooner or later, unbelievers were visibly disinherited. Persistent law-breakers were supposed to be cut-off judicially; and corporately the nation as a whole was placed under progressive judgments that culminated in their expulsion for idolatry (even that conducted under the name of Jehovah). Isn't this the way of God with his church even now? Church-discipline, or eventual removal of a lampstand?


Again, it seems to me that the substance of your objection must be just as telling against the practice of infant-circumcision, _were the practice not explicitly spelled out in the commandment respecting that ordinance of the covenant of grace._ Every argument against infant-baptism is implicitly an argument against infant-circumcision. Only by one of several routes to the denial of said covenant with Abraham, as being that indissoluble promissory covenant of grace, can one escape the critique. And yet despite what might seem cogent arguments against the wisdom of circumcising any infants, God declared that some such persons should be so marked. Therefore, I must conclude that those arguments are wanting, regarding both covenant-signs in their respective eras.


I'll get back to you. Thank you for your patience.


----------



## steadfast7

Initial thoughts for now, but I'll wait for you expostion on the meaning of OT circumcision.


> 1) You divide what Abraham received from what Isaac or any other of Abraham's offspring received.
> 2) You divide on a matter of mere temporality between the "way" Abraham is circumcised, and the way Isaac was circumcised.





> 1) You divide what Abraham received from what Isaac or any other of Abraham's offspring received.
> 2) You divide on a matter of mere temporality between the "way" Abraham is circumcised, and the way Isaac was circumcised.


I think there is a significant difference here, and the significance applies directly to Paul's argument and our condition. Abraham received circumcision AFTER believing. Paul seems to want to emphasize this against his Judaizing objectors who insist that circumcision comes PRIOR to justification. Isaac, as is the case, received circumcision before believing. In the end, Paul puts Christians in parallel with Abraham, not Isaac. Where Isaac comes into Paul's thought is solely with reference to the promise (Christ), Rom 9, which must come through genetic lines. In the end, I do see a typological difference, if not, why single out Abraham specifically? Why not make the argument for justification based on Israel as a whole? You see, I think Isaac (and Israel's) situation is excluded precisely because they have reason to boast in their flesh; they were "born" elect. Abraham has none.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> why single out Abraham specifically?



This has already been answered In Suk. The problem with your approach to Paul here is that you are so keen to focus on the issue of Paul teaching about circumcision being abrogated is that you are missing the reason Paul is introducing Abraham into the discussion of Romans 4. You are jumping into the middle of a polemical argument by Paul where he is dealing with a Jewish objector who sees in his circumcision some sort of assurance that, because he possesses Circumcision and Torah, that he's unlike the wicked Gentiles.

Focus on what Paul is actually trying to convey to a Jewish reader. He's trying to destroy the common Jewish distortion that possession of Circumcision and Torah guarded the Jew from a need of the same foreign righteousness that the Gentile needed. It is quite obvious why circumcision is introduced: *because he's emphasizing the instrument by which Abraham laid hold of Christ*. It was *faith* and not circumcision and this theme is manifest throughout the Scriptures. It is sad that you're missing this.


----------



## steadfast7

I actually get that point pretty well. Your train of argument seems to be that Paul's discussion on circumcision doesn't, in any way, change the theology of cirucumcision with respect to Abraham or the OT economy, and I think we need to allow for that. It may very well be that the Jewish objectors have abused the sign and its meaning. and could not Paul be using this as an occasion to do away with the external sign and emphasize the reality? 

the parallel thing happens in new perspective on Paul debates. They say that Judaism was always a religion of election and grace, so Paul couldn't have been abrogating anything, or bringing in anything innovative. Well, whatever Paul says, he says to the current state of affairs and so speaks against it, thereby overturning the status quo to establish the new. Same thing here.

I disagree that Paul sees Abraham as merely the best exemplar among many. It may be that Isaac and Jacob were men of faith, but they had "inherited" covenant status from birth. There is a substantive difference between Abraham and the rest with regard to their faith, and Abraham is chosen to be the type of Gentile faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*Inward and outward characteristics*Circumcisionoutward--Jer.9:26; Gen.17:10-27; Lev.12:3; Jsh.5:1-8; cf. 1Sam.17:26; Lk.2:21; Phil.3:5
inward--Jer.9:26; Lev.26:41; Dt.10:16; Dt.30:10; Jer.4:4; Ezk.44:7,9; cf.Act.7:51; Rom.2:25-29​ Baptismoutward--Heb.10:22; Jn.1:26; Act.8:36; Act.10:47
inward--Heb.10:22; Gal.3:27; 1Cor.12:12-14​

*Five Symbols*1) Death/sacrificecircumcision was bloody, like most OT rituals, pointing to the necessity of death and sacrifice; Ex.4:24-26, cf.Gen.17:14; Col.2:13

baptism--Rom.6:3-4; Col.2:12; cf.Lk.12:50​2) Cure/cleansingthe cutting away implied needful removal of offense or cleansing, Gen.34:14-24; Ex.6:12,30; Jer.6:10; Is.52:1; cf.Lev.19:23-25

baptism--1Pet.3:21; Mk.1:4; Act.2:38; Act.22:16; Heb.10:22; cf.Heb.9:22​3) New humanitythe location of the cut pointed to an ineradicable, intergenerational fault affecting the whole race (scope), and the world was divided between those who became circumcised and those who continued without; Hab.2:16; 1Sam.14:6; Ezk.32:17-32; Ezk.44:7,9; Jer.9:23-26; Ex.12:43-49

baptism--Mt.3:7-12; Lk.7:29-30; Mt.28:19-20; Mk.16:16; Eph.4:4-6​4) Seed of lifethe fact that it was in such a vital place pointed further to a paradoxical situation in which to create more people naturally was simply to create more death, the instrument of life-giving was in reality propagating death, delaying it and even magnifying its hideous effects; the natural resolution would be to geld, to go sterile, and so terminate the sinful race—obviously unacceptable if the goal is to save the race; so the supernatural resolution is to remedy the defect. Jsh.24:2-3&etc., cf.Jsh.5:9 & Dt.30:19; 1Chr.16:12-14; Hos.9:10-17; Ps.87:4-6; Is.51:1-2, cf.Is.61:9, Is.65:23

baptism--new life in Christ's resurrection, Col.2:13; 1Pet.3:21; new life in Christ's body, 1Cor.12:12-13,27; cf.Gal.3:29, re. seed of Abraham; see also Jn.3:5 (associated with the new birth); Jn.4:7-15 & Rev.21:6 (water of life); Tit.3:4-6 (washing of regeneration)​5) Token/Symbolic judgmentthe cut was a token removal, though painful, something that compelled deliberation before and after, both on the cost of the solution as well as the source of the solution. One had to look to the supernatural—to God—for his solution. 1Sam.18:27; Gal.5:12; cf.Ex.13:15; Lk.2:21-24

baptism--1Cor.10:1-2; 1Pet.3:20​

*Significant related issues*Union with a mediator:Abraham, Gen.18:18-19; Moses, 1Cor.10:2; Christ, Gal.3:27​Name Associations:OT: Gen.48:15-16; Is.43:1-7, cf.Is:63:19; 2Chr.7:14; Nu.6:27; {Lk.1:59 & 2:21}, cf.Is.4:1; Is.65:15; Am.9:11-12

NT: Mt.28:19; Act.19:5; 2Tim.2:19; Rev.22:4​Sign/sealcircumcision: Rom.4:11
baptism: 2Cor.1:21-22; Eph.1:13-14

sign: something that points to something else
seal: something that marks or reminds re. God’s claims of ownership and of his oath​

*Dispensation-specific qualifiers to the signs*OT circumcision illustrated salvation coming specifically by a male descendant of Abraham (then Isaac, Jacob, Judah, finally David)

NT baptism illustrates that general outpouring/anointing by the Holy Spirit unto New Covenant believers, Jn.7:39; Act.1:5 & 2:17​


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> I actually get that point pretty well. Your train of argument seems to be that Paul's discussion on circumcision doesn't, in any way, change the theology of cirucumcision with respect to Abraham or the OT economy, and I think we need to allow for that. It may very well be that the Jewish objectors have abused the sign and its meaning. and could not Paul be using this as an occasion to do away with the external sign and emphasize the reality?
> 
> the parallel thing happens in new perspective on Paul debates. They say that Judaism was always a religion of election and grace, so Paul couldn't have been abrogating anything, or bringing in anything innovative. Well, whatever Paul says, he says to the current state of affairs and so speaks against it, thereby overturning the status quo to establish the new. Same thing here.
> 
> I disagree that Paul sees Abraham as merely the best exemplar among many. It may be that Isaac and Jacob were men of faith, but they had "inherited" covenant status from birth. There is a substantive difference between Abraham and the rest with regard to their faith, and Abraham is chosen to be the type of Gentile faith.


 
Your response indicates you didn't "get it" very well at all In Suk. You're so focused on Paul creating a new theology of circumcision in this portion of Scripture that you seem completely unaware of the train of thought of the Romans 2-5 altogether.

Paul hammers the unrighteousness of man over and over again in Romans 2-3 and then focuses on the solution to the problem at the end of Romans 3 with God being the just and the justifier of Jew and Gentile in the Person and work of Christ. He then drives the point home further for the Jew in asking them to consider that this is not novel and reminds them that it was _by faith_ that Abraham was justified and that he received the sign of circumcision _afterward_ to drive home to the Jew that Circumcision and Torah are not justifying.

You would have Paul interrupt the very point that he's been struggling to drive home for Jews and go on some strange excursion into circumcision and how the nature of the sign has been changed. You seem oblivious to basic rules of exegesis and context. You're pushing Paul's argument out of the text in order to insert a pet concept by jumping in the middle of his argument and ignoring surrounding context and what has come before and after.

Here's how Paul would appear using your logic:
1. The Gospel is the revelation of the righteousness of God.
2. All men are unrighteous.
3. Gentiles are unrighteous.
4. Those who have the Law are unrighteous.
5. A righteousness apart from the Law has now been revealed in Christ.
6. Those who have faith in Christ are justified in Him.
7. Boasting is excluded.
8. Now let's take a break from the Gospel when we're talking about Abraham and let me tell you how circumcision has changed.
9. We now have peace with God in Christ.

This would be an absurd aside. Your eisogesis in this portion of the Scripture is very sad. You are missing a veritable gold mine of truth about the nature of saving faith in Abraham as that is what is in view in Romans 4. Instead, you are obscuring something of great consequence for a pet theory.

Your note about the NPP is equally as irrelevant as this issue is not one of trying to import Jewish beliefs _into_ the text but simply following an argument that Paul is laying out _carefully_ and _clearly_ even if we know little or nothing about what the Jews thought about circumcision from sources outside the Scriptures. Of course the fact of the matter is that one does not need extra-Biblical sources to see the Pharisees arguing with Christ and with Paul repeatedly over the charge that they are "sons of Abraham" and that they are circumcised and have the Torah. These are problems self-evident from the text.


----------



## steadfast7

Rich, I have no objection to your correct understanding of Paul's argument. I honestly think it's you who is eisogeting my argument ad absurdum. Nothing I have presented takes away from Paul's argument in Romans - at all. My point has everything to do with the gospel and is not a distraction whatsoever. What I DO think is detrimental to the gospel is the insistence that NOTHING has changed in the economies or nature of covenant membership now that an alien righteousness has been revealed from faith to faith. 

My point is not really an argument, simply an observation: Paul is upset that Jews place prioritize circumcision and Jewishness. So, Paul puts the priority on faith above circumcision and makes _this _the pattern to follow (nothing new here). I object to the appraisal that there has been no re-orientation at all with respect to the theology of circumcision. It seems clear to me that now that Paul lifts up Abraham's example (ie. being circumcised AFTER faith) as representative of salvation, then scripture and necessary consequence would have us practice believers baptism, rather than to revert to the model of Isaac and the descendants (ie. being born with covenant status on the basis of our parents' faith). With regard to Rev. Bruce's helpful presentation of the meaning of circumcision, I (and many credos) struggle to see how those realites can apply to infants.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> What I DO think is detrimental to the gospel is the insistence that NOTHING has changed in the economies or nature of covenant membership now that an alien righteousness has been revealed from faith to faith



I have not made any such point that *nothing* has changed. The issue I have with what you're presenting is that you're not exegeting Romans 4 but importing ideas. Paul's purpose in raising circumcision in this passage is very focused and it's a matter of allowing him to focus on that point where he's not dealing with a change in administration in this passage. There are other portions of Scripture that may be appealed to.

Furthermore, your statement implies that an "alien righteousness" was revealed for the first time in the Gospels. I think that's part of your fundamental problem and I'm going to have to go through an exercise for that reason.

Let me make this plainer. You are asserting that, exegetically, one of Paul's priorities in Romans 4 is to present a new administration in the Covenant because *now* (not before Christ came) an alien righteousness has been revealed.

Let us see your exegesis in operation. Below, I'm going to break Paul's presentation in to several sentences and number them. Below each line, I want you to step through each line and exegete that line without bringing anything into it. Focus on grammar and syntax. Note that the sentence numbers do not correspond to verse numbers. Provide no more that 2-3 sentences that provides an explanation or restatement of each line.

1. What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 

2. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 

3. Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 

4. just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

5. Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? 

6. We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? 

7. It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. 

8. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

9. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 

10. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 

11. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

12. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 

13. as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 

14. In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 

15. He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. 

16. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 

17. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” 

18. But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. 

19. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

From your #69 above:


Nova said:


> With regard to Rev. Bruce's helpful presentation of the meaning of circumcision, I (and many credos) struggle to see how those realites can apply to infants.


And from my #63 above:


Contra_Mundum said:


> it seems to me that the substance of your objection must be just as telling against the practice of infant-circumcision


In Suk,
Please realize, I seldom approach these discussions with a thought to "convert" another person, and I do not expect to persuade you. My goal is typically to help a person convinced as you are to understand the position he disagrees with. I have spent considerable time and patience gaining understanding of the credo-baptist positions, so as to be able to represent them fairly and accurately.

Observe from the quotes above, that I was able to anticipate your reaction to what I wrote regarding the substantively identical declarations of BOTH of these covenant-signs. You asked in post #62 to have me defend one proposition concerning the purpose and meaning of circumcision in the OT. I did far more than that, giving no less than FIVE propositions, which I paralleled with baptism in the New Covenant, having the same basic import.

Now, these five are simply condensed into (or expanded from) my main proposition, which was and continues to be: that the purpose and meaning of the covenant-signs are essentially the same under both dispensations.

Your reaction, while not wholly unexpected, is nevertheless disappointing. Do the signs teach the same realities, or don't they? If they do, then your objection to the application of those realities--or the signs of those realities--to infants is equally directed toward those in the pre-Incarnation era and those in the post-Incarnation era. If you are struggling to see such application in the present era, how is it any clearer when looking to the previous one?

If the signs (in your mind) still do not have the same essential teaching, then what actually is helpful about my presentation? Were you just being "nice"? By all means, spell out the differences you have with what I wrote.

Obviously, in Gen.17, we are face-to-face with a plain statement of covenant-inclusion of infants. So, clearly one needs either to show that this is some other covenant than the covenant-of-grace, or two distinct covenants under one presentation, or there are profound differences between the Abrahamic covenant and the Christ covenant. Certain baptists have so concluded and taught any or all these.

As someone who sincerely wants to follow Scripture's teaching, and who believes the covenant substance is the same--and the signs of each era teach the same substance--I want to know where (if so) the late exclusion of infants is expressed. Absent a cogent explanation, I'm going to have to conclude that my recognition of continuity here is well-expressed in the practice of infant-baptism.


----------

