Quote:
Originally Posted by puritancovenanter  First off I do believe the sign was spiritual to others beside Abraham. It wasn't for everyone who was descended from Abraham. |
Let me say one more thing with respect to this and then I need to jet to lunch and then to teach a class.
In the way you say this, you seem to think that a sign changes its significance based on the recipient. This is the key difference between our understanding of baptism as well. The reason our Confession sees Baptism and Circumcision as
essentially (that is in their substance) to point to the same thing is that the significance of the Sacraments is in
the Promise and NOT the recipient.
Let me re-state that in case it is not clear. What most need to get over is the idea that if two men get circumcized and one is reprobate and the other elect that circumcision signifies something different for the one and not the other. The person's faith, or lack thereof, did not
add or
subtract from the significance but, rather, one laid hold of the promise while the other did not.
The significance, then, is not inside of us but outside of us - for baptism and circumcision.
Somebody asked me once: "But what did circumcision signify for the Pharisee?" Read Galatians 3 again after I've said this.
Circumcision signified to the Pharisee that those who put their faith in the Gospel will be saved. That Gospel was obscured but some laide hold of it and some didn't. What it
didn't ever signify (which is what Paul is laboring in Galatians 3) is that those who obey the Law will be saved and those that don't will be cursed. This understanding of the Law is condemned as missing the entire point of the sign.
Thus, I maintain, that God ordained the sign of circumcision. The significance was, fundamentally, something
extra nos and, therefore, the significance was the same for everyone who received it.