Baptism in relation to Sabbath

[Phil D.]

​

The following was recently posted in the Sabbath forum:

​

In this week's Sabbath-related post, the Irish Presbyterian, Thomas Witherow, explains the link between infant baptism and Sabbatarianism. In Witherow's day, he addressed this argument to Sabbath observers who denied infant baptism; in our day, we find ourselves addressing the same argument to paedobaptists who reject Sabbath observance. If you are interested in reading more of Witherow on these subjects, you will find both Scriptural Baptism and his pamphlet on The Sabbath reprinted in the recent volume, I Will Build My Church. Anyway, here he is on this issue:​

​

... He maintains that the change from the seventh to the first day of the week does not interfere with the great unrepealed principle of one day’s rest after six days’ work, and he concludes, therefore, that the law of the Sabbath is a perpetual ordinance: and we maintain that the change of the initiatory rite from circumcision to baptism does not interfere with the great unrepealed principle of infant membership; and we conclude, therefore, that infant membership in the Church of God is a perpetual ordinance.​

​

He insists that if men do not discover sufficient authority in the New Testament for the change of day, this does not free them from the law of the Sabbath, but binds them to keep it on the seventh day instead of the first and we insist that if men do not see sufficient authority in the New Testament for infant baptism, this does not free them from the law of infant church membership, but binds them to acknowledge that membership by circumcising instead of baptizing them. In short, the mode of proof is the same exactly in the one case as it is in the other. ...​

​

----------------------------------------​

​

Moderating; just word in advance; if anyone wants to debate the point, do so in Baptism forum.​

​

------------------------------------------​

Simply put, this is category confusion (and seemingly a novel argument even among Reformed divines).

The Sabbath principle remains in effect because it is part of the irrevocable Moral Law, and a creation ordinance. The conduct of the NT church justifies the observance being moved from the seventh to the first day of the week.

Circumcision and Baptism are each positive institutions in their own right. The requirement for circumcision is specifically done away with in the NT. The requirement for Baptism is specifically initiated.

So now we’re back to the age-old difference in understanding whether or not baptism is the direct replacement/organic evolution of circumcision. Both sides are being true to the RPW in accordance with what they believe Scripture instructs on the matter.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Simply put, this is category confusion (and seemingly a novel argument even among Reformed divines).

Herbert Palmer and Daniel Cawdrey argue in their book on the Sabbath that it is a moral-positive institution, so the argument is not a particularly novel one.

 

[Phil D.]

Herbert Palmer and Daniel Cawdrey argue in their book on the Sabbath that it is a moral-positive institution, so the argument is not a particularly novel one.

Sure, my comment wasn't meant in strictly individualistic terms, but in the broader sense of overall, historical Reformed exposition.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Sure, my comment wasn't meant in strictly individualistic terms, but in the broader sense of overall, historical Reformed exposition.

Here is a question that you might find interesting: To what extent (if any) did the failure to see the Sabbath as a moral-positive institution contribute to seventh-day Sabbatarianism among Particular Baptists in the seventeenth century?

Various treatments of the Sabbath that I have read from that period, some of which were written against seventh-day Sabbatarians, dwell on the moral-positive aspect of the fourth commandment.