Response to Questions Asked - Page 2

PuritanCovenanter · #41 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Col 2:11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised...

The only way these verses do not connect baptism and circumcision as separate signs (in separate eras) pointing to the same thing is if "circumcision without hands" (i.e. "circumcision of the heart", Dt. 10:16) is not symbolized in the circumcision of the forskin.

Also Nehemiah Coxe here. Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? - The PuritanBoard

Quote:

Nehemiah Coxe, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005, 140) A reprint of A Discourse of the Covenants that God Made with Men before the Law, 1681

Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision.

Certainly it is safer to interpret one text according to the general current of Scripture and in full harmony with it, than to force such a sense on many texts (which they will in no way admit) to bring them into a compliance to a notion with which our minds are prepossessed. It is plain that the notion I have insisted on fully agrees with other places where circumcision is discussed according to its immediate and direct use in the old covenant. For there can be no contradiction in ascribing a different and seemingly opposite use and end to the same thing, if it be done in a different respect. What circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing; what it was as subordinate to a better covenant and promise that had precedence to it, is another. It is easy to conceive that it might be that to the father of the faithful in its extraordinary institution, what it could not be to the children of the flesh or carnal seed in its ordinary use.

To conclude: if circumcision and baptism have the same use and are seals of the same covenant, I can hardly imagine how the application of both to the same subjects should at any time be proper. Yet we find those that were circumcised in their infancy were also baptized on the profession of faith and repentance even before circumcision was abrogated. Yes, according to the opinion that has been argued against, the Jews that believed before Christ suffered were at the same time under a command both of circumcising and baptizing their infant seed. But if the principles that this discourse is built upon are well proved by Scripture, as I take them to be, there must be allowed a vast disparity between circumcision and baptism. The old covenant is not the new; nor that which is abolished, the same with that which remains. Until these become one, baptism and circumcision will never be found so far one that the law for applying the latter should be a sufficient warrant for the administration of the former to infants.

Contra_Mundum · #42 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 02:29 PM

Right, Randy,
And of course the biblical names for things we CAN see and CAN'T see may be identical, but they have nothing to do with one another. Sure.

My answer to the question asked of me was direct to the point which was asked. As we have gone round and round on many times, the whole question of "which baptism" "and "which circumcision" is in view is really meaningless to me when we aren't addressing an historic baptism, but rather the theology of baptism.

We deny that the two circumcisions were fundamentally about two different things, just like we deny that the two baptisms are about two different things. But don't forget to drop the Barcellos quote in this thread too. Gotta get all the RBs to "represent." Three posts to one. You win.

PuritanCovenanter · #43 (**permalink**) 06-26-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Right, Randy,
And of course the biblical names for things we CAN see and CAN'T see may be identical, but they have nothing to do with one another. Sure.

Shadows and fulfilment have nothing to do with each other? Circumsion of the flesh and Circumsion of the heart are two that have a link. One was a shadow and the other is the reality. Isn't that what the quotes just said? Maybe I am slipping.

CalvinandHodges · #44 (**permalink**) 06-29-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InevitablyReformed

CH,

You wrote this in an above post:

"So, why does this block infants of believers/disciples from being considered members of the Covenant of Grace? Since God has commanded us to receive infants, 8 days old, into the New Covenant, then where is the commandment that forbids infants from receiving the sacrament of baptism?"

Can you elaborate on this a little? Thanks in advance.

Daniel

Hi Daniel:

I am sorry that I have not answered sooner. This past week I was at the Synod of my denomination (RPCNA).

One of the reasons why I do not believe in Abortion is that I believe that the fetus is a human being. Thus, I believe that a fetus can think, feel and act. That he/she has all the reasoning capabilities of a human being.

Consequently, I believe that infants are capable of saving faith. I believe that the Bible teaches this when John the Baptist leapt in the womb of Elizabeth upon hearing the voice of Mary (who was pregnant with Jesus).

The matter also of the infant Jesus being the very Son of the Living God from conception is also relevant. Though Jesus grew in wisdom and honor before God and man it is a remarkable thing that a human infant can "contain" (if I can use that expression) the Divine Nature. If infants are incapable of faith, then how can the infant Jesus "hold" the Second Person of the Trinity?

If "Elect infants are regenerated" then they obviously are capable of saving faith.

What I find most curious is that Credo baptists have no Scripture that teaches their mantra, "Infants are incapable of faith."

Where they get that, and why they are so militant about barring infants from the Kingdom of God where there is so much evidence to the contrary is beyond me.

Grace,

-CH