SmokingFlax
Puritan Board Sophomore
My limited study on the subject says that it is so but I came across an objection to this viewpoint by A.W. Pink in his The Divine Covenants:
p.136-137
'It is a mistake to suppose that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. As that which supplanted the OT sacrifices was the one offering of the Savior, as that which superceded the Aaronic priesthood was the high priesthood of Christ, so that which has succeeded circumcision is the spiritual circumcision which believers have in and by Christ: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ" (Col. 2:11) -how simple! how satisfying! "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him" (v.12) is SOMETHING ADDITIONAL: it is only wresting Scripture to say these two verses mean "Being buried with him in baptism, ye are circumcised." No, no; verse 11 declares the Christian circumcision is "made WITHOUT hands in putting off [judicially, before God] the body of the sins of the flesh" has taken the place of the circumcision made WITH hands. The circumcision of Christ has come in the place of the circumcision of the law. Never once in the NT is baptism spoken of as the seal of the new covenant; rather is the Holy Spirit the seal: see Ephesians 1:13; 4:30.'
What am I supposed to make of this? Am I missing something here? (probably)
What do you guys think? I don't know enough about it to make an informed judgment here.
Also, Pink objected at least a couple of times to Witsius some other issues (regarding the covenants) that I'd have to go back and look at my markings to get my mind around.
Could someone clue me in here?
Thanks.
p.136-137
'It is a mistake to suppose that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. As that which supplanted the OT sacrifices was the one offering of the Savior, as that which superceded the Aaronic priesthood was the high priesthood of Christ, so that which has succeeded circumcision is the spiritual circumcision which believers have in and by Christ: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ" (Col. 2:11) -how simple! how satisfying! "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him" (v.12) is SOMETHING ADDITIONAL: it is only wresting Scripture to say these two verses mean "Being buried with him in baptism, ye are circumcised." No, no; verse 11 declares the Christian circumcision is "made WITHOUT hands in putting off [judicially, before God] the body of the sins of the flesh" has taken the place of the circumcision made WITH hands. The circumcision of Christ has come in the place of the circumcision of the law. Never once in the NT is baptism spoken of as the seal of the new covenant; rather is the Holy Spirit the seal: see Ephesians 1:13; 4:30.'
What am I supposed to make of this? Am I missing something here? (probably)
What do you guys think? I don't know enough about it to make an informed judgment here.
Also, Pink objected at least a couple of times to Witsius some other issues (regarding the covenants) that I'd have to go back and look at my markings to get my mind around.
Could someone clue me in here?
Thanks.