In Greg Welty's paper "From Circumcision to Baptism: A Baptist Covenantal Rejoiner to John Calvin", he states in his introduction his purpose for writing it. He says:
Welty deals with the paedobaptist argument by looking at two assumptions by Calvin. They are:
AND
In this post I want to only focus on the first point.
In response to Calvin's first assumption, Welty says:
He goes on to say:
Further down he says:
I find these points very convincing. I would be very interested in seeing how the paedobaptist deals with them.
Calvin's argument for infant baptism (which has become the standard justification for the practice in Reformed paedobaptist churches) applies to the church God's command that Abraham circumcise his household, and appeals to the New Testament analogy between circumcision and baptism as a strong confirmation of this application. In this paper I argue that Calvin (and his Reformed paedobaptist heirs) misapplies the command and miscontrues the analogy.
Welty deals with the paedobaptist argument by looking at two assumptions by Calvin. They are:
First, Calvin contends that baptism and circumcision are interchangable in their meaning, signifying the same promises and therefore the same redemptive realities.
AND
Second, Calvin contends that God's command to Abraham to circumcise his household (Gen 17) is applicable to the church today by way of baptism, due to the fundamental continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant with the New Covenant.
In this post I want to only focus on the first point.
In response to Calvin's first assumption, Welty says:
...according to biblical record, circumcision signified specific promises and blessings that baptism does not signify, and has never signified. God made many promises to Abraham in the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17, which confirmed the covenant of Genesis 15), and circumcision signified the promises of that covenant. For instance: "I will make you very fruitful" (physical descendants as many as the stars in the sky) - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "you will be a father of many nations" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "kings will come from you" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Or "the whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you" - baptism does not signify this promise, but circumcision did. Thus, the meaning of circumcision and baptism are not interchangeable. Here there has clearly been a change in meaning: the specific, earthly, generational promises are no longer signified.
He goes on to say:
Since paedobaptists already accept...that there has in fact been a change in sign, meaning of sign, and recipients of sign, they will be very hard pressed indeed to insist that fundamental continuity ensures infant recipients of sign.
Further down he says:
...even if OT circumcision signified spiritual needs and spiritual realities, it also has been abolished because its prophetic significance was fulfilled in Christ.
...Calvin continually presses the critic to acknowledge that circumcision signifies spiritual realities also signified in baptism, inferring that if this overlap of meaning is really there, then we ought to apply baptism to infants. But one might as well argue that since OT sacrifices signified spiritual realities, we have warrant for continuing their use today. Clearly, we do not. In each case, it was the typological, forward-looking nature of the OT statute that prophesied its own obsolescence when the fullness of time drew near in the New Covenant.
I find these points very convincing. I would be very interested in seeing how the paedobaptist deals with them.