# why didn't Paul say that baptism replaced circ. in the



## rembrandt (May 5, 2004)

I'm sure this has been discussed before. But I don't know where.

Paedobaptists: why didn't Paul say to the circumcision crowd (in the debates) that baptism has replaced circumcision?

Rembrandt


----------



## Saiph (May 5, 2004)

Because circumcision did not replace baptism.

Circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant. Baptism is the sign of the New.

Circumcision symbolizes the cutting away of the sinful nature (circumcision of the heart) and was a sign of promise placed on the organ that passes the seed. The promise of the seed has been fulfilled. No more use for the external sign of circumcision.

Baptism is the pouring out of God's Spirit unto regeneration and re-creation. Like the flood. The water brought a new heaven and new earth. The wicked were drowned, while the righteous were saved and sprinkled through God's grace.


Also baptism predates circumcision. The world was formed out of water according to St. Peter.


----------



## rembrandt (May 5, 2004)

[quote:83ec8154ed][i:83ec8154ed]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:83ec8154ed]
Because circumcision did not replace baptism.

Circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant. Baptism is the sign of the New.

Circumcision symbolizes the cutting away of the sinful nature (circumcision of the heart) and was a sign of promise placed on the organ that passes the seed. The promise of the seed has been fulfilled. No more use for the external sign of circumcision.

Baptism is the pouring out of God's Spirit unto regeneration and re-creation. Like the flood. The water brought a new heaven and new earth. The wicked were drowned, while the righteous were saved and sprinkled through God's grace.


Also baptism predates circumcision. The world was formed out of water according to St. Peter. [/quote:83ec8154ed]

Note: I said Paedobaptists.


----------



## Saiph (May 5, 2004)

I am a paedobaptist.

The whole circumcision/baptism argument is a Red Herring to the debate.

The real issue is: Do the promises of the New Covenenat exclude the promises of the Old ? ? 

No.

The New Covenant includes all of the covenant blessings of the Old, while adding more and better promises at the same time.

Paul does make an analogy between the signs though.
But does not say one replaces the other. We are circumcised with Christ and Baptised with Christ. No replacement needed.

[quote:6197642a2f]
Col 2:10 - 12

And you are complete in Him, who is the Head of all principality and power, 
in whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, 
buried with Him in baptism, in whom also you were raised through the faith of the working of God, raising Him from the dead. 
[/quote:6197642a2f]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (May 5, 2004)

to Mark.


----------



## luvroftheWord (May 5, 2004)

I agree. Very nicely put, Mark.


----------



## Tertullian (May 6, 2004)

[quote:a22f0b57a7][i:a22f0b57a7]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:a22f0b57a7]

Paul does make an analogy between the signs though.
But does not say one replaces the other. We are circumcised with Christ and Baptised with Christ. No replacement needed.
[/quote:a22f0b57a7]

All though I have my reservations about saying that the New Covenant [b:a22f0b57a7]added[/b:a22f0b57a7] to the previous promises of other Covenants... for I think the New Covenant is the answer and fullfillment to the Covenants of promise. Of course this needs to be balanced by the fact that the New Covenant's answer comes in an now and then tension. 

Yet I am glad to see that some Paedobaptist haved started to see what Dr. John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Paul K Jewett and others have been saying all along about the analogy not identity between the rites of baptism and circumcison. 

-Tyler



[Edited on 5-6-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## BrianLanier (May 6, 2004)

[quote:cabe93e7ad][i:cabe93e7ad]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:cabe93e7ad]
Because circumcision did not replace baptism.
[/quote:cabe93e7ad]

I am still a little iffy on this statement, seeing as how just about ALL of the historic arguments surrounding covenant baptism use the word replace. Here is a short list if you are interested. I do see where you are coming from though.

[b:cabe93e7ad]B.B. Warfield[/b:cabe93e7ad]
So fully did the first Christians - the apostles - realize the continuity of the Church, that they were more inclined to retain parts of the outward garments of the Church than to discard too much. Hence circumcision itself was retained; and for a considerable period all initiates into the Church were circumcised Jews and received baptism additionally. We do not doubt that children born into the Church during this age were both circumcised and baptized. The change from baptism superinduced upon circumcision to baptism substituted for circumcision was slow, and never came until it was forced by the actual pressure of circumstances. The instrument for making this change and so - who can doubt it? - for giving the rite of baptism its right place as the substitute for circumcision, was the Apostle Paul. We see the change formally constituted at the so-called Council of Jerusalem, in Acts xv. Paul had preached the gospel to Gentiles and had received them into the Church by baptism alone, thus recognizing it alone as the initiatory rite, in the place of circumcision, instead of treating as heretofore the two together as the initiatory rites into the Christian Church. But certain teachers from Jerusalem, coming down to Antioch, taught the brethren "except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be saved." Paul took the matter before the Church of Jerusalem from which these new teachers professed to emanate; and its formal decision was that to those who believed and were baptized circumcision was not necessary. 

How fully Paul believed that baptism and circumcision were but two symbols of the same change of heart, and that one was instead of the other, may be gathered from Col. ii. 11, when, speaking to a Christian audience of the Church, he declares that "in Christ ye were also circumcised "- but how? - "with a circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the body of the flesh," - that is, in the circumcision of Christ. But what was this Christ-ordained circumcision? The Apostle continues: "Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Hence in baptism they were buried with Christ, and this burial with Christ was the circumcision which Christ ordained, in the partaking of which they became the true circumcision. This falls little, if any, short of a direct assertion that the Christian Church is Israel, and has Israel's circumcision, though now in the form of baptism. Does the view of Paul, now, contradict the New Testament idea of the Church, or only the Baptist idea of the Church? No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party! Let us take our places in opposition, along with Paul and all the apostles. 

[b:cabe93e7ad]Berkhof, Systematic Theology:[/b:cabe93e7ad] 

pg 633-634: 

&quot;(4) In the new dispensation baptism is by divine authority [b:cabe93e7ad]substitued[/b:cabe93e7ad] for circumcision as the initiatory sign and seal of the covenant of grace. Scripture stronly insists on it that cicumcision can no more serve as such, Acts 15:12; 21:21; Gal 2:3-5; 5:2-6; 6:12,13,15. If baptism did not take its place, then the New Testament has no initiatory rite. But Christ clearly substituted is as such, Matt. 28:19,20. 

[b:cabe93e7ad]Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol ii [/b:cabe93e7ad]

pg.1300 

&quot;Paul forestalls this objection when he immediately adds that the Colossians had been buried with Christ through baptism (Col. 2:12). [b:cabe93e7ad]By this he means that baptism is today for Christians what circumcision was for the ancients, and that therefore circumcision cannot be enjoined upon Christians without injustice to baptism[/b:cabe93e7ad].&quot; 


[b:cabe93e7ad]Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol 3 [/b:cabe93e7ad]

pg. 384 

&quot;(d) Baptism [b:cabe93e7ad]succeeded[/b:cabe93e7ad] circumcision; therefore as that was to continue always among the people [b:cabe93e7ad]until[/b:cabe93e7ad] the first advent of Christ, so also baptism out to continue even until the second advent of Christ.&quot; 

[b:cabe93e7ad]Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, vol 2[/b:cabe93e7ad] 

pg. 430 

&quot;XVIII. The thing signified by baptism in general, is the reception into the covenant of grace, as administered under the New Testament. As circumcision was the sign and seal of the Old Testament, Gen. xvii. so baptism, which [b:cabe93e7ad]succeeds[/b:cabe93e7ad] circumcision, Col. ii. 11. is the sign of the new covenant, and as Basil speaks, the inviolable seal thereof. 

[b:cabe93e7ad]O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants[/b:cabe93e7ad] 

pg. 162 

&quot;Thirdly, the interconnection between the seal of circumcision and the seal of the Holy Spirit provides the formal basis by which the corresponding purification rites of the old and new covenants relate to one another. Circumcision under the old covenant is [b:cabe93e7ad]replaced[/b:cabe93e7ad] by baptism under the new covenant. The cleansing rite of the one covenant is replaced by the cleansing rite of the other. This relationship between circumcision and baptism finds specific development in Col. 2:11,12 

According to Col. 2, the new covenant believer is not to be taken captive through human tradition (v. 8). The most basic reason he is not to be taken captive is that he now is &quot;in Christ,&quot; and all sufficiency is to be found in him.... 

The most signifiant points for the present discussion center on the reference to union with Christ in circumcision, and the relation of the is circumcision to baptism. Verse 11 affirms that participants in the new covenant experience circumcision. In him you were circumcised. Obviously the allsuion cannot be to the physical rite required under the old covenant. The Christian experiences the reality of cleansing from defilement symbolized in the rite.&quot; 

[b:cabe93e7ad]The Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 27 [/b:cabe93e7ad]

&quot;This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, which was [b:cabe93e7ad]replaced[/b:cabe93e7ad] in the New Testament by baptism.&quot; 

[b:cabe93e7ad]WCF, Chapter XXVII - Of the Sacraments[/b:cabe93e7ad] 

&quot;4. There be [b:cabe93e7ad]only two[/b:cabe93e7ad] sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord:...&quot; 

[b:cabe93e7ad]The Reformation Study Bible, Commentary on Colossians 2:11 [/b:cabe93e7ad]

&quot;2:11 circumcision...Baptism is not identical to circumcision, but it corresponds to it in essence (Rom. 4:11) and has [b:cabe93e7ad]replaced[/b:cabe93e7ad] it as the sign of the covenant.


----------



## BrianLanier (May 6, 2004)

The reason I even bring this up is because of the baptist objection that &quot;you ask 10 different paedos for an argument on infant baptism, you'll get 10 different answers&quot;. When we say things like &quot;baptism does NOT replace circumcision&quot; doesn't that just muddy the waters? While I think it is helpful to show the differences of the two signs to get people away from thinking that we are saying they are IDENTICAL, but not at the risk of adding MORE confusion to the debate by saying things that on the surface seem contra all previously formulated CT arguments.&quot;

Maybe this is just me, it is getting late ya know?!?!?!?!:blah1:

[Edited on 5-6-2004 by BrianLanier]


----------



## Saiph (May 6, 2004)

[quote:cad903182a]
When we say things like &quot;baptism does NOT replace circumcision&quot; doesn't that just muddy the waters? [/quote:cad903182a]

Brian, I think &quot;succeeds&quot; has a better meaning than mere replaced. A better sign for a better covenant.

It does not muddy the waters.

But I prefer the arguments regarding &quot;Promises&quot;.

It is what converted me from credo.

Can any Credo show me any scripture that says the following is nullified in the New Covenant?

Isa 59:21 
As for me, this [is] my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that [is] upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.



[Edited on 5-6-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## Saiph (May 6, 2004)

[quote:5b9381f1c5]
Also, I would say that baptism replaces circumcision as the initiatory sign of covenant inclusion....children are still included....they also get the sign (what do you think). 
[/quote:5b9381f1c5]

As a sign of initiation, yes.


----------



## Tertullian (May 6, 2004)

[quote:0fc6501ceb][i:0fc6501ceb]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:0fc6501ceb]

Tyler,

No paedo that I know of says that they are identical. If they do then you equivocate on &quot;identical.&quot; Who, in their right mind, would say that cutting of foreskin is identical to pouring/sprinkling of water? Now, they may say that the *spiritual* promises are identical...that's the best you will find.

-Paul [/quote:0fc6501ceb]

The idea that there ia an [b:0fc6501ceb]analogy[/b:0fc6501ceb] between circumcision and baptism has traditionally been held by Reformed Baptist. It has traditionally been the Reformed Paedobaptist that has argued that there is more then an analogy but that baptism is circumcison but becuase it was not longer appropriate for a blood rite the rite's outward form was changed (see Marcel [i:0fc6501ceb] The Biblicial Doctrine of Infant Baptism[/i:0fc6501ceb]) if you want to hear the traditional Reformed Paedobaptist view that circumcison and baptism are identical in every respect but outward form.

-Tyler

[Edited on 5-6-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## BrianLanier (May 6, 2004)

[quote:f2d12ba1c6][i:f2d12ba1c6]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:f2d12ba1c6]
[quote:f2d12ba1c6]
Also, I would say that baptism replaces circumcision as the initiatory sign of covenant inclusion....children are still included....they also get the sign (what do you think). 
[/quote:f2d12ba1c6]

As a sign of initiation, yes. [/quote:f2d12ba1c6]

Perfect! That is exactly what I was saying. I think that it muddies the water when you deny THAT!


----------

