# Does baptism replace circumcision?



## JM (Jan 6, 2014)

"Nehemiah Coxe argues against the replacement of circumcision by baptism from the Galatian controversy."

You can read some of the work by Coxe here: https://www.facebook.com/NehemiahCoxe

May this small portion be of use to you.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 6, 2014)

*Why Nehemiah Coxe Makes The Same Fallacy*

Since I can't answer in the credo-baptist subforum, I thought this would be appropriate to show the false dichotomy that Coxe makes. In Coxe's article insert he argues that "circumcision was an ordinance of the Old Covenant and appertained to the Law" and "therefore is rather(baptism), opposed to...circumcision". This is wrong. First, we must define what the "old Covenant" is and is not. Hebrews 8 tells us that the old covenant is the one that was made with Moses and the people on Sinai. This is clear with how "the first covenant" is equated with Moses. Hebrews is clear throughout, that the old covenant is that which is made with Moses and the people on Sinai. According to Coxe's argument, circumcision was made according to the old covenant but if he was consistent with scripture, he would be saying that circumcision was made with Moses. This is obviously absurd because circumcision was made with Abraham (Gen. 17).


----------



## PaulMc (Jan 6, 2014)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Since I can't answer in the credo-baptist subforum, I thought this would be appropriate to show the false dichotomy that Coxe makes. In Coxe's article insert he argues that "circumcision was an ordinance of the Old Covenant and appertained to the Law" and "therefore is rather(baptism), opposed to...circumcision". This is wrong. First, we must define what the "old Covenant" is and is not. Hebrews 8 tells us that the old covenant is the one that was made with Moses and the people on Sinai. This is clear with how "the first covenant" is equated with Moses. Hebrews is clear throughout, that the old covenant is that which is made with Moses and the people on Sinai. According to Coxe's argument, circumcision was made according to the old covenant but if he was consistent with scripture, he would be saying that circumcision was made with Moses. This is obviously absurd because circumcision was made with Abraham (Gen. 17).



Agreed. I hear a lot of this kind of thinking from Baptists.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 6, 2014)

Thanks Josh.

Something also I'd like to point out is that the person writing the article (not Coxe) adds on to what Coxe is saying: "The Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works, to which circumcision bound its bearer. It was not the same as baptism nor did it belong to the covenant of grace." Circumcision didn't bind it's bearers to the Law given to Moses. Circumcision bound its bearers to the Promise made to Abraham in Genesis 17 which is the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 6, 2014)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Thanks Josh.
> 
> Something also I'd like to point out is that the person writing the article (not Coxe) adds on to what Coxe is saying: "The Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works, to which circumcision bound its bearer. It was not the same as baptism nor did it belong to the covenant of grace." Circumcision didn't bind it's bearers to the Law given to Moses. Circumcision bound its bearers to the Promise made to Abraham in Genesis 17 which is the Covenant of Grace.



What do you take Galatians 5:2-3 to mean?


----------



## Eoghan (Jan 6, 2014)

[BIBLE]Acts 8:36-38[/BIBLE]As a Baptist - eh no, Believer's Baptism is inappropriate for weans!


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 6, 2014)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Josh.
> ...



Paul was dealing with men who were trying to be "justified by the law" (v.4). The issue wasn't about circumcision, but rather the intent of why they were getting circumcised. It was a works based righteousness that Paul is condemning. We see this thought continued through verse 6, "you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."


----------



## JM (Jan 6, 2014)

Did Coxe commit a fallacy? Nah. It's too strong a claim based on the small portion linked in the op. More was added after I made the post and can be viewed here: 

The Covenant of Circumcision and the Mosaic Covenant | Particular Voices

I sent an invite to have the blogger join us. 

Yours in the Lord,

jm


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 6, 2014)

JM said:


> Did Coxe commit a fallacy? Nah. It's too strong a claim based on the small portion linked in the op. More was added after I made the post and can be viewed here:
> 
> The Covenant of Circumcision and the Mosaic Covenant | Particular Voices
> 
> ...



Jason,

Thank you for the response. 

Article in red. My response in black.

"The New Testament asserts that circumcision obligated its bearer to a complete obedience to the law (Gal 5:2-3)". 

This misunderstands the point of Galatians 5, and even more, the argument in Galatians. In Galatians 1 we see that Paul, from the beginning was speaking of people who were trying to go to a works based righteousness. It is further investigated and exhorted in Galatians 3: "Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?" 

"Baptists, like Coxe in the previous post, argue that baptism and circumcision are two different ordinances related to two different covenants."

Exactly! And this is the problem. 

The covenant of grace is revealed in the Abrahamic covenant, but it is not the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is the covenant of circumcision (Acts 7:8).

Making this a fleshly covenant and separating the purpose of why Abraham was circumcised disregards the intent of circumcision and the argument in Romans 4. "11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. 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, 12 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." The bearer of circumcision was bound by the Promise, since it was done AFTER God made the Promise to Abraham. 

The covenant of circumcision binds you to obey the Mosaic covenant. The promise of the covenant of grace is “I will remember your sins no more,” not “Obey and live in Canaan; disobey and die.” Ergo, the covenant of circumcision is not the covenant of grace. 

Again this is false. This is a false dichotomy since God made the covenant with Abraham and Abraham did/does nothing to receive this Promise. Also, saying that the covenant made with Abraham is fleshly disregards Hebrews 11: "8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore."

In the covenant of circumcision, God promised Canaan to Abraham and his descendants, obligating Abraham and his offspring to obey his commandments in order to inherit and enjoy the land. The Mosaic covenant was a further elaboration of this relationship, made specifically with Abraham’s offspring, inseparably connected by circumcision, focused on the land, and conditioned on obedience.

Again, making this a fleshly and land promise misunderstands what God did in Gen. 15 and 17. 

The covenant of grace was made known to Abraham via the promise that in his offspring the nations would be blessed. He would be a father of many nations in the sense that he, by way of example, was a paradigmatic believer justified by faith in the promise of his offspring. Thus all those who from all nations follow his example of faith are his sons, all of whom are in Christ by faith and comprise the offspring of Abraham.

According to Galatians 3, this offspring that was promised to Abraham wasn't many, but one, I.E. Christ. 

15 To give a human example, brothers:[f] even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 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. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

To object against this one would have to assert that:
1. The covenant of circumcision was the covenant of grace.
2. Circumcision did not bind its bearer to legal obedience in a covenant of works, but rather gospel obedience in the covenant of grace.

The first one misunderstands the point of Gen. 15 and 17. It would rightly be said that the Abrahamic covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. For the second point, Circumcision does bound the bearer to the promise made to Abraham, since the gospel was in fact preached to Abraham: "8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'In you shall all the nations be blessed.'" (Gal3:8)


----------



## MW (Jan 6, 2014)

JM said:


> "Nehemiah Coxe argues against the replacement of circumcision by baptism from the Galatian controversy."



WCF 19.3, "All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament." This is clearly taught in Col. 2 and Eph. 2. The arguments from Coxe are (1) an indirect and somewhat obscure way of arguing for the same thing, and (2) irrelevant as to the positive ordinance of baptism functioning under the New Testament in the same way as circumcision functioned under the Old Testament, namely, as a sign of the covenant. In fact, Coxe assumes there is a parallel between them and thereby establishes there is some degree of continuity.

WCF 19.5, "The moral law doth for ever bind all." The second and fifth commandments are moral and perpetual, and both recognise the inclusion of children in the promise.


----------



## JM (Jan 6, 2014)

Thanks folks.

I have to admit, right now I'm at the point where I cannot digest your arguments, I'm just being stubborn and will not hear them. Due to my hardheadedness I'll not comment further and instead, I'll play my uke and pray for a while. 

Yours in the Lord,

jm


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 6, 2014)

Andrew P.C. said:


> SeanPatrickCornell said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew P.C. said:
> ...



You cant separate circumcision from the keeping of the Law in this context.

Why? Because Paul didn't.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 6, 2014)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > SeanPatrickCornell said:
> ...



With all due respect, it truly makes little sense to argue
(by extracting a snippet from the apostle's reasoning out of an entirely different argument, having a different purpose)
that an argument against the _*abuse*_ and _*false use*_ of the OT law
is properly set up against a question having to do with the meaning and place of NT ordinances.

Putting the best construction on it, an argument from Gal.5:2-3 seems to go: 
1) paedobaptists treat baptism the way the Galatian errorists and the Jews (allegedly) treated circumcision, thus merely _replacing_ circumcision with baptism, thereby continuing the church in bondage to Moses; and 
2) baptism, in distinction from circumcision, _uniquely_ binds the taker to a promise, not a law. (This point isn't actually derivable from Gal.5:2-3, because there is no contrast present in the text; but it appears to be treated as an implication of it).

At best, this seems unutterably confounded on what a paedobaptist means by the replacement of an earlier sign by a new (covenant-appropriate) sign. It perpetuates the (odd) argument that if Paul had wanted to defeat the Galatian errorists, he needed only to argue that baptism replaced circumcision (and since he did not...). To put it finely, when a paedobaptist hears this argument, it sounds like something out of science fiction or something. It is bizarre. It's not just an argument from silence (it is that), it is unrelatable to any actual paedobaptist contention (or shows a gross misunderstanding).

Any argument on any point, as pertains to Galatians, must be derived from the apostle's actual intention, and his actual words. If Baptists and Presbyterians agree on the argument of Paul in the letter, then a double-burden falls on him who would set one side at odds with the apostle in a secondary matter. It has to be clear 1) that the implication of the apostle in re. the secondary matter is plain, and 2) that those contending for the secondary matter have subverted their aim in the primary by holding to a false principle (and therefore should abandon both the false principle, and the secondary matter).


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 6, 2014)

I think it would be appropriate to see what Calvin has to say concerning Galatians 5:2-3:


> 2. Behold, I Paul. He could not have pronounced a severer threatening than that it would exclude them entirely from the grace of Christ. But what is the meaning of this, that Christ will profit nothing to all who are circumcised? Did Christ profit nothing to Abraham? Nay, it was in order that Christ might profit him that he received circumcision. If we say that it was in force till the coming of Christ, what reply shall we make to the case of Timothy? We must observe, that Paul’s reasoning is directed not so properly against the outward rite or ceremony, as against the wicked doctrine of the false apostles, who pretended that it was a necessary part of the worship of God, and at the same time made it a ground of confidence as a meritorious work. These diabolical contrivances made Christ to profit nothing; not that the false apostles denied Christ, or wished him to be entirely set aside, but that they made such a division between his grace and the works of the law as to leave not more than the half of salvation due to Christ. The apostle contends that Christ cannot be divided in this way, and that he “profiteth nothing,” unless he is wholly embraced.
> 
> And what else do our modern Papists but thrust upon us, in place of circumcision, trifles of their own invention? The tendency of their whole doctrine is to blend the grace of Christ with the merit of works, which is impossible. Whoever wishes to have the half of Christ, loses the whole. And yet the Papists think themselves exceedingly acute when they tell us that they ascribe nothing to works, except through the influence of the grace of Christ, as if this were a different error from what was charged on the Galatians. They did not believe that they had departed from Christ, or relinquished his grace; and yet they lost Christ entirely, when that important part of evangelical doctrine was corrupted.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jan 6, 2014)

Every time I enter these discussions, I walk away a little more firmly convinced of credobaptism.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 7, 2014)

JM said:


> "Nehemiah Coxe argues against the replacement of circumcision by baptism from the Galatian controversy."



as has been stated if Abraham believed God & it was attributed to him for Righteousness ie; he was Justified by an Imputed
Righteousness through Faith, then he was given an Outward Sign & Seal of his Covenant with God, namely Circumcision,
which signified the Inward Sign & Seal of his Covenant with God, & was Commanded by God to apply the Outward Sign &
Seal of that Covenant to his as yet Unbelieving & Unregenerate Children.

Now in the new Testament the Apostle Peter when preaching on the Day of Pentecost, clearly showed that men were to repent & believe in The Name of Jesus Christ,i.e. for Justification, & were given a Sign & Seal i.e. be Baptised, & were assured that this Promise was for them & their Children invoking The Abrahamic Covenant !

so if you go back to my first paragraph you substitute your name for Abraham, you substitute Baptism for circumcision, &
you apply the Outward Sign & Seal of the Covenant of The Lord Jesus Christ i.e. Baptism,to your Seed. simple isn't it !


----------



## Petty France (Jan 7, 2014)

Brothers, I would hope that everyone involved would keep in mind that quite different covenantal presuppositions are at play behind arguments like these. And whenever we analyze the opponents' logic/argumentation on our own foundation of logic/argumentation it appears ridiculous, and who could believe that anyone would hold to that argument, etc. E.g. no one ever loses a debate. On their own terms, they always win. And on their own terms, the opponent can never be right.

It's all going to come back to the argument that the covenant of circumcision is not the covenant of grace as opposed to the argument that the old and new covenants are simply administrations of the covenant of grace. On our respective presuppositions related to that point, the argument appears valid or invalid, and goes like this: 

Paedobaptist argument:
Baptism succeeds circumcision as the sign and seal of the promise of the covenant of grace. The subjects of the one (believers and their children) are the subjects of the other. To posit circumcision as an obligation to a covenant of works makes absolutely no sense because it belongs to the covenant of grace.

Baptist argument:
Baptism and circumcision have separate meanings (not saying there is no relation whatsoever) and pertain to separate covenants. In Galatians Paul contrasts two covenants, a free covenant (Jerusalem above) and a bondage covenant (Jerusalem below), connecting circumcision to the bondage covenant, and baptism to the free covenant. The argument does not take place within two "administrations" of one covenant, but two covenants differing in substance.

Where is the common/uncommon ground?

Agreement re. Galatians: 
Paul is dismantling and destroying any argument that would teach that justification is possible by the works of the law. Justification is by faith alone in Christ alone. The Judaizers abused the law by seeking justification from it.

Disagreement re. Galatians:
The Judaizers were wrong to seek justification from the bondage covenant (the law was never republished coordinately as a rival to the promise), nevertheless they were right to find a works principle connected to circumcision in the bondage covenant. Their error was to take a valid principle, "Do this and inherit/enjoy blessed life in *Canaan*," and invalidly impose that on "Believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life." Hence Paul's argument to the contrary that you don't need to keep the law to be justified, and if you accept circumcision which is a yoke of bondage and pertains to an altogether covenant, a legal one at that, you are rejecting the gospel covenant. Of course, this disagreement on the nature of the republication of the law is alive and well not just between Baptists and paedobaptists but among paedobaptists as well.

Baptists look at the paedobaptist argument from their own foundations and see it as being irreconcilable with Paul's own statements about circumcision in Galatians 5:2-3. To accept circumcision as the Judaizers had presented it, as a means of justification, was to reject the gospel (Verse 2). I trust we would all agree on that. But whereas we might want to stop there and save circumcision from the hands of the Judaizers, Paul asserts the binding bondage nature of circumcision (verse 3). It was indeed a legal yoke of slavery, and operated on a principle antithetical to faith (the law is not of faith). Thus, if Paul testifies that circumcision obliges a man to the whole law in a way contrary to the gospel, whether abused by Judaizers or not, how can it be the old covenant precursor to baptism? And how can the contrast between the bondage covenant and the free covenant be manipulated into two administrations of one covenant?

All of this is to avoid the idea that the arguments here are science fiction. Just keep in mind that the Baptist argument is taking Baptist foundations and supplying paedobaptist principles which will yield an inherently illogical and unsound conclusion. But that's the point of any argument. Everyone argues from their presuppositions and foundations. If you take the paedobaptist succession of circumcision to baptism within one covenant, and place it in a Baptist argument that treats circumcision and baptism as two very different things belonging to two different covenants, the result is what has been presented above and by Coxe.

If there is going to be substantive interaction on this point, or others, then we need to be willing to take the time to deal with each other on those broader levels of foundations and presuppositions (and not treat each other as crazy and foolish for doing so). Otherwise we're going to keep playing Bible baseball, lining up our favorite arguments, verses, and quotes, talking past each other with "No it's not" and "Yes it is." I think we can do better than that, it just takes some time and patience. Here is my recommendation for how to proceed: Rules for Debate in the 17th Century | Particular Voices


----------



## Tirian (Jan 7, 2014)

Petty France said:


> I think we can do better than that, it just takes some time and patience. Here is my recommendation for how to proceed:



In some respects I think Rev. Buchanan's post has already established a simple ground rule on how this should proceed & I think shows great wisdom in maintaining peace and unity among us:



Contra_Mundum said:


> Any argument on any point, as pertains to Galatians, must be derived from the apostle's actual intention, and his actual words. If Baptists and Presbyterians agree on the argument of Paul in the letter, then a double-burden falls on him who would set one side at odds with the apostle in a secondary matter. It has to be clear 1) that the implication of the apostle in re. the secondary matter is plain, and 2) that those contending for the secondary matter have subverted their aim in the primary by holding to a false principle (and therefore should abandon both the false principle, and the secondary matter).



The information provided in the OP does nothing by way of amounting the evidence as suggested (a double burden) and therefore it should be dealt with as per the process outlined.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 7, 2014)

To offer some support to Steve (Petty France), he does try to elucidate one aspect of Baptist-particularity in how Galatians (sp. vv) should be exegeted, thus trying to dispel the "mystery" of the origin of one specific Baptist objection.

But still, it's clear that unless one shares the _a priori_ reading in Genesis of an essentially secular covenant--and that with Abraham, even before Sinai--the particular meaning of Paul predicated on his words in Galatians will not be obvious to the Presbyterian.

An appeal to Gal.5:2-3 is an "in-house" Baptist objection, and I think Steve was acknowledging that.


----------



## Petty France (Jan 7, 2014)

Contra_Mundum said:


> An appeal to Gal.5:2-3 is an "in-house" Baptist objection, and I think Steve was acknowledging that.



Absolutely. The portion of Coxe about circumcision and baptism occurs at the very end of his lengthy work (largely dealing with distinguishing the covenant of circumcision from the covenant of grace) and is preceded by "If the principles that this discourse is built upon be well proved by Scripture, as I take them to be...then etc..." 
There is a great deal assumed in such exegesis/arguments, for both sides.

Btw, Sam I am.


----------



## MW (Jan 7, 2014)

Petty France said:


> Thus, if Paul testifies that circumcision obliges a man to the whole law in a way contrary to the gospel, whether abused by Judaizers or not, how can it be the old covenant precursor to baptism? And how can the contrast between the bondage covenant and the free covenant be manipulated into two administrations of one covenant?



Even allowing the discontinuous terminology of "two covenants," the argument is still irrelevant. Paedobaptism relates to the baptism of infants, not the circumcision of them. It is agreed that the ceremonial law is abrogated, including circumcision. The positive institutions of the "old covenant" have passed away and new positive institutions are appointed for the "new covenant." Baptism is one of those institutions. It obliges the person to walk in a Christian profession of faith and to follow Christ Jesus as Lord. As a sign of initiation implying obligations it parallels the sign of circumcision. This touches on the "nature" of the ordinance, but does nothing to address the "subjects" of it. It still remains a fact that the "old covenant" people of God were initiated into covenant with God as infants, and that was a means of grace to them; moreover, that infants are saved by the covenant of grace now and are counted among the covenant community; and therefore, there is every reason to give to infants the sign of the covenant of grace and to visibly recognise their membership in the covenant community. None of this depends on the way one formulates their covenant theology; it depends on the doctrine of salvation by grace.


----------



## Tirian (Jan 7, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> there is every reason to give to infants the sign of the covenant of grace and to visibly recognise their membership in the covenant community



Amen - to withhold the sign of God's gracious promise from a child seems such an insurmountable problem in trying to hold a baptistic point of view. In fact is it.


----------

