Circumcision question

[Notthemama1984]

O. Palmer Robertson in The Christ of the Covenants makes a statement about circumcision:

Far from being an optional aspect of the covenantal bond, the seal is the covenant.

P.148

He is refers to Genesis 17:13b to make this point.

I have two questions:

Do you agree with the quote?

and

Would this mean that without baptism one would not have the covenant?

I remember reading Luther and he seemed to agree with this idea. I am also vaguely remembering that some of Calvin's writing seemed to think this as well (but I could be mistaken though).

 

[au5t1n]

Would this mean that without baptism one would not have the covenant?

I agree with the quote, and without baptism one would not have the visible covenant, since baptism is how one is initiated into the visible church (not invisible). I recall that Hebrews describes the ceremonial washings of the OT as "baptisms." A person who received such a baptism was ceremonially clean; the elect also receive the spiritual benefit (not at the same time), but the non-elect don't.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Would this mean that without baptism one would not have the covenant?

I agree with the quote, and without baptism one would not have the visible covenant, since baptism is how one is initiated into the visible church (not invisible). I recall that Hebrews describes the ceremonial washings of the OT as "baptisms." A person who received such a baptism was ceremonially clean; the elect also receive the spiritual benefit (not at the same time), but the non-elect don't.

Are you saying that one has two covenants; a visible one and an invisible one?

 

[au5t1n]

Would this mean that without baptism one would not have the covenant?

I agree with the quote, and without baptism one would not have the visible covenant, since baptism is how one is initiated into the visible church (not invisible). I recall that Hebrews describes the ceremonial washings of the OT as "baptisms." A person who received such a baptism was ceremonially clean; the elect also receive the spiritual benefit (not at the same time), but the non-elect don't.

Are you saying that one has two covenants; a visible one and an invisible one?

Good question. And a difficult one to answer. I'll answer with an example. We were speaking of circumcision first. Jacob and Esau were both visibly in covenant with God, and both had the sign of God's covenant with Abraham (likewise, so did Peter and Judas Iscariot). So they were outwardly in covenant with God, but one of their hearts (in each example) was not right with God -- he did not receive the spiritual benefits of the covenant. That's all I'm saying. I'm not sure if "two covenants" is the right way to explain that.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Good question. And a difficult one to answer. I'll answer with an example. We were speaking of circumcision first. Jacob and Esau were both visibly in covenant with God, and both had the sign of God's covenant with Abraham (likewise, so did Peter and Judas Iscariot). So they were outwardly in covenant with God, but one of their hearts (in each example) was not right with God -- he did not receive the spiritual benefits of the covenant. That's all I'm saying. I'm not sure if "two covenants" is the right way to explain that.

Ok, I understand what you were saying now.

Would you say that one could receive the spiritual benefits of covenant without the seal of covenant? When I read Robertson it seems that he would say, "No."

 

[au5t1n]

Would you say that one could receive the spiritual benefits of covenant without the seal of covenant? When I read Robertson it seems that he would say, "No."

I'll just quote the WCF.

WCF 28.5 "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."

I would also point to Cornelius's conversion: he received the spiritual benefits before being baptized. In fact, that is the norm for adult converts to Christianity. It is very common.

Your question sparked my curiosity so I just re-read the sections in the WCF called "God's Covenant with Man," "The Church," "The Sacraments," and "Baptism" and found them helpful.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I'll just quote the WCF.

Cop out.

Just kidding. Thanks for the answers.

 

[au5t1n]

I think the question of salvation without baptism is the same as asking, "Can someone be saved without ever joining any church?" Obviously joining a church is not a part of justification, but we would have serious concerns about whether a person who refused to go to church could be regenerate, ordinarily.

---------- Post added at 09:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 AM ----------

I'll just quote the WCF.

Cop out.

Just kidding. Thanks for the answers.

You're welcome. But don't thank me yet. Eventually Rev. Buchanan will answer the question and you'll wonder why you wasted any time reading my posts.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Palmer's point is that there is no "option" as to whether one joins himself to God in covenant, and there is no joining that does not embrace the body-soul complex.

This is not to deny that there are those outside the visible church who are united to Christ. But exceptions merely prove the rule. When exceptions are no longer "exceptional," this situation forms a true threat to covenant-expression. Instead of a "body" (which by the very terminology is clearly substantive), we have a "gas," the ephemera of Christ.

Palmer points to the phrase, "covenant in your flesh," by which Moses is seen to acknowledge that the ceremony or rite is itself the covenant. We can say the same thing regarding a marriage-covenant. The marriage, of course, is the deep and abiding companionship of two body-souls. But it is also the whole marriage ceremony. And it is the vows in particular. And it is the rings on the fingers, which are the covenant on/in their flesh. See the connection?

In circumcision, a tiny little "token" of blood is spilt, reminiscent of the dead animals and the pool of blood of the covenant-ceremony (cf. Gen.15). It's a permanent mark. It's a sign of the promise to cause the redeeming Seed to arise from this nation. The sign of the covenant is the covenant-visible, tangible. Just like the rings of a married couple. How badly do you feel if you lose your wedding ring? Just try taking that ring off for a few nights-out on the town--how's your spouse going to react?

We can add, finally, the fact that God makes promises by means of his signs. So, if anything other than Providence hinders us from receiving his sign/covenant/blessings-by-it, that's saying something about our valuation of his word of promise. We can take it or leave it. We claim the "reality," while his preferred means of self-expression to us isn't really that important to us. "Baby, we are really married in our hearts; I know your love is unfeigned and unmovable; your love makes mine possible; I can never abandon you while you hold me so tightly. You want a wedding to show that love, but how does that make it any more "real"? C'mon kid--we don't need the expense."