Piano Hero
Puritan Board Sophomore
So I've been thinking (and please forgive me if this topic has already been discussed before), and was curious as to what the representative change was in baptism from circumcision. Okay, I guess that doesn't make a lot of sense, but what I'm going to ask can't be condensed to a single sentance. I have a lot of thoughts on this topic right now, but it is hard to put them in a readable form.
So please bear with me, and please inform me if I'm being unclear.
*deep breath* (for me)
In the Old Testement, the males of the household were circumcised as a sign of the covenant. When Abraham came to know God, he was circumcised (as an adult), and so were his sons.
In the New Testement, Jesus established the new covenant of baptism. Both males and females engaged in baptism, and it is the new sign of the covenant. From my understanding, for those who hold to paedo baptism, the new sign of the covenant (baptism) is to be bestowed upon the whole family when the head of the household becomes a member of The Elect (to both males and females, and to infants and children even when they don't have an understanding of redemption or the covenant).
Circumcision, as I understand, was also a sign of male headship. In showing that the son was part of the covenant, it also demonstrated his role to be responsible for the spiritual teaching of his family (correct me if I'm wrong). When baptism was instituted, the sign of the covenant was issued on both male and female, essentially taking away the "male headship" part of the sign of the covenant. I do understand that we're taught about male headship in other ways in the NT, but not exclusively through baptism.
My question is: what happened between the Old and New Testement to make the sign of the covenant bestowable upon both genders? Why did God give the opportunity of the covenant to be available to all when Jesus was baptized? What changed?
Jesus came to die for our sins. His death saved us. Baptism does not save. So why did Jesus change the covenant? In the OT, women were still saved even though they weren't bestowed the sign of the covenant. So why was there a change to women being given the sign of the covenant, even though baptism doesn't make anyone "more" redeemed than the women of the OT.
Again, please forgive me if this doesn't make sense or whatnot. Even though I've been going to church since early childhood, I am just now beginning to try and grasp complex theological issues.
Please forgive any spelling and grammatical mistakes. It is late, and I am tired, but i wanted to get this question out.

*deep breath* (for me)
In the Old Testement, the males of the household were circumcised as a sign of the covenant. When Abraham came to know God, he was circumcised (as an adult), and so were his sons.
In the New Testement, Jesus established the new covenant of baptism. Both males and females engaged in baptism, and it is the new sign of the covenant. From my understanding, for those who hold to paedo baptism, the new sign of the covenant (baptism) is to be bestowed upon the whole family when the head of the household becomes a member of The Elect (to both males and females, and to infants and children even when they don't have an understanding of redemption or the covenant).
Circumcision, as I understand, was also a sign of male headship. In showing that the son was part of the covenant, it also demonstrated his role to be responsible for the spiritual teaching of his family (correct me if I'm wrong). When baptism was instituted, the sign of the covenant was issued on both male and female, essentially taking away the "male headship" part of the sign of the covenant. I do understand that we're taught about male headship in other ways in the NT, but not exclusively through baptism.
My question is: what happened between the Old and New Testement to make the sign of the covenant bestowable upon both genders? Why did God give the opportunity of the covenant to be available to all when Jesus was baptized? What changed?
Jesus came to die for our sins. His death saved us. Baptism does not save. So why did Jesus change the covenant? In the OT, women were still saved even though they weren't bestowed the sign of the covenant. So why was there a change to women being given the sign of the covenant, even though baptism doesn't make anyone "more" redeemed than the women of the OT.
Again, please forgive me if this doesn't make sense or whatnot. Even though I've been going to church since early childhood, I am just now beginning to try and grasp complex theological issues.
Please forgive any spelling and grammatical mistakes. It is late, and I am tired, but i wanted to get this question out.