Baptist error in common with Judaizers?

Status
Not open for further replies.

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
B.B. Warfield from "The Polemics of Infant Baptism"-

http://www.mbrem.com/baptism/babybap.htm#top


"So fully did the first Christians -- the apostles -- realize the continuity of the Church, that they were more inclined to retain parts of the outward garments of the Church than to discard too much. Hence circumcision itself was retained; and for a considerable period all initiates into the Church were circumcised Jews and received baptism additionally.

We do not doubt that children born into the Church during this age were both circumcised and baptized. The change from baptism superinduced upon circumcision to baptism substituted for circumcision was slow, and never came until it was forced by the actual pressure of circumstances. The instrument for making this change and so -- who can doubt it? -- for giving the rite of baptism its right place as the substitute for circumcision, was the Apostle Paul. We see the change formally constituted at the so-called Council of Jerusalem, in Acts xv. Paul had preached the gospel to Gentiles and had received them into the Church by baptism alone, thus recognizing it alone as the initiatory rite, in the place of circumcision, instead of treating as heretofore the two together as the initiatory rites into the Christian Church.

But certain teachers from Jerusalem, coming down to Antioch, taught the brethren

"except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses ye cannot be saved."

Paul took the matter before the Church of Jerusalem from which these new teachers professed to emanate; and its formal decision was that to those who believed and were baptized circumcision was not necessary.

How fully Paul believed that baptism and circumcision were but two symbols of the same change of heart, and that one was instead of the other, may be gathered from Col. ii.11, when, speaking to a Christian audience of the Church, he declares that

"in Christ ye were also circumcised "-- but how? -- "with a circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the body of the flesh,"

-- that is, in the circumcision of Christ. But what was this Christ-ordained circumcision? The Apostle continues:

"Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Hence in baptism they were buried with Christ, and this burial with Christ was the circumcision which Christ ordained, in the partaking of which they became the true circumcision. This falls little, if any, short of a direct assertion that the Christian Church is Israel, and has Israel's circumcision, though now in the form of baptism.

Does the view of Paul, now, contradict the New Testament idea of the Church, or only the Baptist idea of the Church?

No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party!

Let us take our places in opposition, along with Paul and all the apostles."
 
:up:

This was the exact same conclusion I came to after studying the baptism issue, although for one or two other reasons. Thanks for another interesting angle on it.
 
There are so many suppositions made I wouldn't know where to start. :)

But on a side note, mildly related, where did Paul (or anyone) ever ask for believers to bring their infants to baptism. Any scripture reference to baptizing infants? Any early church baptism of infants? Any scripture allusions to baptizing infants?

Every scriptural reference to baptism, to me atleast, seems to be believers. :(
 
Mr. Rogers talking to the paedos in agreement with the OP:

"Can you say ad hominem tu quoque? I knew you could."
 
Mr. Rogers talking to the paedos in agreement with the OP:

"Can you say ad hominem? I knew you could."

Bill,

I don't have anything against your hominem. :D I just see similarities in the Baptists' and Pharisees' thinking. If you are referring to the final statements in the passage copied in the OP itself, then maybe.
 
Bill,

It's not ad hominem. If someone had called you a Pharisee, it would have been, but no one did that. If someone said that the Baptist position was wrong because it's the same as the Pharisees', it would be ad nazium. All that was said was that the arguments are very similar.

I don't have anything against your hominem! :lol:

David - I don't know how else to take the OP. It certainly seems to lump all credos in the same boat. Whether it was addressed to a group or individual it boils down to the same thing.
 
David - but I'll tell you this....if it's not quite ad hominem, it certainly is singing to the paedo choir!

:sing:

:lol:
 
David - I don't know how else to take the OP. It certainly seems to lump all credos in the same boat. Whether it was addressed to a group or individual it boils down to the same thing.

Sorry, I realized that what I originally said may've been innacurate after reading the end of the OP again. Please note that I reworded my statement.
 
Sorry, I realized that what I originally said may've been innacurate after reading the end of the OP again. Please note that I reworded my statement.


David - no biggie. Sometimes these posts get so long it is easy to miss things. That is why I love the word "brevity." Or said in another way, "Less is more."
 
Which baptism

the verse in col.2 is speaking about Spirit baptism, not water baptism.
It is our union with Christ by virtue of Spirit baptism that places us in Him,,, as in 1 cor 12:13,,,,water on an infant does not do this, or accomplish this.
 
Ironically, I was just thinking about similarities this AM as I was reflecting on the Ishmael thread while I was working out. It reminded me of this post:

http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/11/22.34.41

I've repeatedly noticed that Baptists tend to roll the Abrahamic Covenant into the Sinaitic Covenant and see them as identical in some of their arguments (mind you not all).

The reason I point to this post is showing how Welty takes a term like circumcision and makes it completely physical and actually agrees with the Pharisees in a certain fashion even as he's trying to show that paedobaptists really agree with the Pharisees.

I have honestly found Baptists to be very uncareful with the word circumcision and not noting the different ways that Paul uses it. As long as a "circumcision means nothing" verse supports their view, they'll throw it in to support a credo formula even where it contextually cannot support what they're trying to get it to say. I've seen it done by both Welty in that article and Piper on another occassion. It honestly shocked me the first time I saw it done.
 
the verse in col.2 is speaking about Spirit baptism, not water baptism.
It is our union with Christ by virtue of Spirit baptism that places us in Him,,, as in 1 cor 12:13,,,,water on an infant does not do this, or accomplish this.

And what does that prove concerning the question of baptism's relationship to circumcision? It's not like physical circumcision ever accomplished spiritual circumcision, yet infants were still circumcised.
 
what does it prove/

Carolina calvinist,you said;And what does that prove concerning the question of baptism's relationship to circumcision? It's not like physical circumcision ever accomplished spiritual circumcision, yet infants were still circumcised.
__________________
In col.2:11-12 Paul speaks of spiritual circumcision,that is inward and spiritual,in verse12-13 He is speaking of those in union with Christ,quickened together with Him,whose sins are forgiven
When you baptize an infant neither of these things are true of Him. In 1cor 12:12-18 we are told that Spirit baptism places us in the Body of Christ.
Unsaved persons are not placed in the body,,,,BY God 1cor 12;18
 
No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party!

If the error of the Judaizers in Acts 15 were that they failed to see baptism as the replacement of circumcision, then it would have been easy for the apostles to correct them by saying that -- "circumcision has been replaced by baptism." But the apostles didn't argue that in Acts 15 at all. If anything, this passage is an argument against the paedobaptist view that circumcision replaces baptism.
 
If the error of the Judaizers in Acts 15 were that they failed to see baptism as the replacement of circumcision, then it would have been easy for the apostles to correct them by saying that -- "circumcision has been replaced by baptism." But the apostles didn't argue that in Acts 15 at all. If anything, this passage is an argument against the paedobaptist view that circumcision replaces baptism.

Don - hence, "ad hominem tu quoque" to our paedo brethren who bought into the OP.
 
Carolina calvinist,you said;And what does that prove concerning the question of baptism's relationship to circumcision? It's not like physical circumcision ever accomplished spiritual circumcision, yet infants were still circumcised.
__________________
In col.2:11-12 Paul speaks of spiritual circumcision,that is inward and spiritual,in verse12-13 He is speaking of those in union with Christ,quickened together with Him,whose sins are forgiven
When you baptize an infant neither of these things are true of Him. In 1cor 12:12-18 we are told that Spirit baptism places us in the Body of Christ.
Unsaved persons are not placed in the body,,,,BY God 1cor 12;18

I still don't see what you're trying to prove.

What was the sign of spiritual circumcision? Physical circumcision. What is the sign of spiritual baptism? Water baptism. When Paul talks about spiritual baptism he's talking about what water baptism signifies and when he talks about spiritual circumcision he's referring to what physical circumcision signifies. If spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism are both terms used to signify regeneration, then it makes perfect sense to see baptism as a New Testament replacement for circumcision.
 
If the error of the Judaizers in Acts 15 were that they failed to see baptism as the replacement of circumcision, then it would have been easy for the apostles to correct them by saying that -- "circumcision has been replaced by baptism." But the apostles didn't argue that in Acts 15 at all.
Because the assumption at Jerusalem was that one needed to be baptised to be saved. Thus only the negative was given: Gentiles do not have to be circumcised. Apparently circumcision and baptism were coupled together as initiation rites by the primitive church and it was OK for a transitory period of time.

If anything, this passage is an argument against the paedobaptist view that circumcision replaces baptism.

Could you elaborate, Don? I don't see how Warfield didn't know he was actually arguing for the Baptist view.

PS I don't see baptism as identical to circumcision but one has definitely replaced the other.
 
It accuses the person making an accusation of being guilty of the same thing he is arguing against! :D


Bill, do you mean, "It accuses the Baptists of being guilty of the same error of the Judaizers, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"

Or, "It accuses the Baptists of being guilty of the same error as Dr. Strong, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"

Or, "It accuses the Judaizers of being guilty of the same error as the Baptists, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"

Or, "It accuses the Primitive church of being guilty of the same error of the Judaizers, of whom Baptists are arguing against?"

'much appreciated- good to see you again!:cheers:
 
Bill, do you mean, "It accuses the Baptists of being guilty of the same error of the Judaizers, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"

Or, "It accuses the Baptists of being guilty of the same error as Dr. Strong, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"

Or, "It accuses the Judaizers of being guilty of the same error as the Baptists, of whom B.B. Warfield is arguing against?"

Or, "It accuses the Primitive church of being guilty of the same error of the Judaizers, of whom Baptists are arguing against?"

'much appreciated- good to see you again!:cheers:

David - your wit aside, I think you know exactly the context in which I used that phrase.

Good to see you again too.
 
Because the assumption at Jerusalem was that one needed to be baptised to be saved. Thus only the negative was given: Gentiles do not have to be circumcised. Apparently circumcision and baptism were coupled together as initiation rites by the primitive church and it was OK for a transitory period of time.

I don't understand your point. How do we know that those at Jerusalem (including Paul and the apostles?) assumed that baptism was necessary for salvation? I hope we both agree that this is not true.

Could you elaborate, Don? I don't see how Warfield didn't know he was actually arguing for the Baptist view.

PS I don't see baptism as identical to circumcision but one has definitely replaced the other.

I never said that Warfield was arguing for the baptism view. I am saying that the passage he used against baptists actually supports the Baptist position. Warfield argues that the Judaizers assumed that baptism did not replace circumcision, but the apostles and elders, in refuting the Judaizer's position, said or did nothing to refute that assumption!

Assume for a moment that you are uncircumcised. If I were to tell you as a paedobaptist, "You must be circumcised," what would you say? Probably something along the lines of "No I don't. I've been baptized, and baptism replaces circumcision in the New Covenant." In other words, you would argue based on the replacement of circumcision by baptism, and that circumcision has been rendered obsolete by baptism. This would be the correct answer for your position as a paedobaptist.

And it would have been very easy for the apostles to make that argument when making a decision. But they don't. And it would have been easy also to say "what is important is that you have been baptized, not circumcised," when they wrote letters to the Gentile churches. But they don't.
 
David, I think, beat me to the punch--If you don't understand the argument being made, that itself is not sufficient to dismiss the argument. Warfield 1) is no slouch, and 2) he's not arguing in a vacuum; he is addressing specific arguments put forward by "Dr. Strong" (probably Augustus H. Strong, president and professor of Biblical theology at the Rochester Theological Seminary around the turn of the 20th century).

So, if there's something missing, its probably because we haven't heard the rest of the conversation. Which makes concentrating on the material at hand all the more important.

The excerpt is narrowly focused:
How many "initiatory acts" were there to get in the church at the beginning? TWO, or so it appeared. Circumcision and baptism.

Is this point really debatable? No. Which is why Warfield passes over it cursorily. This is not a point in dispute. The church was "Jewish", comprised of Jews. Jews who were Jews already were not stopping the practice of circumcising their 8-day old children. And converts to this "Jewish sect" (coming from the outside) were from the beginning becoming "Jewish," and obviously there were grown converts who were receiving circumcision. If there weren't, there wouldn't be a debate! True, even if not 100% of them were being circumcized.

The question at Jerusalem (Acts 15) isn't "does baptism replace circumcision?" but "do converts to the faith need to keep the rituals of Moses, the Jewish OT rites, diet, separation, etc., in order to be saved?" (vv.1, 5). Circumcision was the beginning of such obedience to God, it was initiation into covenant with him. Hence, it is undoubtedly the case that the Judaizers were maintaining TWO initiation rites into Christianity, baptism and circumcision.

Until Gentiles were more than a blip on the radar screen, this wasn't even a serious question or issue, because <99.9% of believers (males) were already circumcized, and their male children were also being circumcized. Outsiders? Its possible that the practice with them (the >.1%) was mixed. And without the mission into the Gentile world, this question barely makes a ripple.

But it is simply out of the realm of possibility to suggest that the question of Acts 15 represents an attempt by remonstrants in the church to introduce a new practice into the church. Rather, it is plainly the effort of a faction in the church (the "We're Jewish!" faction) to make ritual law-observance normative for ALL converts. They are obviously trying to standardize their practice which at this point is most certainly the NORM in the church, or at least the DEFAULT. They want a "deliverance" from the leadership. "If not circumcision, then no salvation,... IT IS NECESSARY to circumcise." And circumcision is the beginning of ritual law-observance. It is initiation.

It is Paul who sees most clearly that the major influx of Gentiles demands rethinking of the OT "order". The OT rituals and symbols are inadequate for the new situation. So, in the new context he makes no reference to circumcision, but initiates the Gentile converts by baptism alone. (The accusation--that he teaches them to despise Moses, or does not uphold the moral essentials which are before Moses and incorporated by Moses--this is untrue). And Paul goes to Jerusalem to defend his practice.

Warfield's argument is that evidently in the minds of many in the early, predominantly Jewish church, circumcision and baptism were not functionally equivalent, but complementary. Thus, both were necessary. Paul (and eventually the church qua the church) said "no, these two were conceptually and functionally equivalent," thus demonstrating that circumcision was unnecessary and could be discarded. And if circumcision could be discarded, so could the rest of the Israelite OT ritual. Get rid of the first rite, and the rest of the rites are also done away.


Warfield says that the Baptist agrees with the Judaizer that baptism does not replace circumcision. Isn't this true?

He is NOT saying "Baptists promote the equivalent of the Judaizing heresy."
(which is where Bill got his tu quoque blast--i.e. the common charge from the Baptist side is that Presbyterians are "going back to Jewish ritualism," and so Warfield supposedly represents a Presbyterian counter-charge that it is the Baptists who are Judaizing).

The closest he comes to saying anything like that is when he says "denial of this substitution...leads them into the error." Unless I miss my guess, this statement only says that the Baptist's conclusion causes him to agree with the first serious errorists in the church. If there is anything more to his statement, the rest of the article would have to be referenced in support of it. Which is why I said at the beginning that this excerpt must be read as a-contextual, and therefore only capable of proving a very focused point.

No, what Warfield is saying is that to say that "baptism replaces circumcision" is manifestly NOT Judaizing, but rather puts us alongside Paul against the Judaizers. And it is a perverse sort of argumentation that would accuse US of promoting a Judaizing tendency, when our position is directly in the face of the Judaizers as they opposed Paul, who clearly substituted baptism in place of circumcision as the SOLE initiation rite into the NT church.
 
But on a side note, mildly related, where did Paul (or anyone) ever ask for believers to bring their infants to baptism. Any scripture reference to baptizing infants? Any early church baptism of infants? Any scripture allusions to baptizing infants?

Given the OP, and the supposition that there were two initiatory rites at the beginning, shouldn't the question be, Where did Paul (or anyone) ever ask for believers to withhold their infants from baptism? Any Scripture references to baptising infants of believers only after they have made a profession of faith? Any early church deference of the baptism of infants? Any Scripture allusions to non-baptising of infants?
 
Bruce,

That was well said.
He is NOT saying "Baptists promote the equivalent of the Judaizing heresy."
(which is where Bill got his tu quoque blast--i.e. the common charge from the Baptist side is that Presbyterians are "going back to Jewish ritualism," and so Warfield supposedly represents a Presbyterian counter-charge that it is the Baptists who are Judaizing).
I think what is missed by Reformed Baptists is very subtle as they make this charge. In fact, Welty repeats this charge that Warfield is re-buffing - that is that the manner in which paedobaptists practice baptism is a form of the Judaizing heresy.

Now when the rejoinder to their criticism comes to them they tend to see it in the way that Bill has put it. Why? Because they have trouble seeing how we see they have erred.

Baptists tend to deprecate circumcision in a way that makes it merely familial and national. They see us performing Baptism in a familial way and project their view of circumicsion upon us and conclude that we're like the Pharisees that are putting stock in the flesh.

Their mistake begins in their apprehension of circumcision and, as you have aptly pointed out, what Paul is criticizing. The Ishmael thread is complementary here in fact.

Paul is critical of the Judaizers, especially in Galatians, for corrupting the meaning of the Abrahamic promise and turning the covenant into Torah keeping. He demonstrates that the Abrahamic promise is of the nature of faith - always has been and always will be. Yet when Judaizers wanted to circumcise they thought in terms of Torah fulfillment and committed a fatal error.

If one is not paying attention then they miss the senses in which Paul uses the term circumcision. In one place it is promise and in another place it is a corrupted ritual of the flesh that Jews are taking pride in. In one place it signifies Christ, in another it means nothing.

It is rather like Church of Christ baptisms where the formula and trappings are instrumental to salvation and then the person is joined to pietistic law keeping. I would say that their baptism means nothing because the thing they attempt to signify with it has no power to save.

Thus, as Baptists are trying to attack the paedobaptist position, they will take a circumcision means nothing passage (as Welty did in my critique) and try to apply that broadly to the meaning of circumcision. In that sense, Baptists are committing a form of the mistake that the Pharisees did by corrupting the meaning of the sign while ignoring Paul's references to Abraham's faith and the fact that circumcision was established in the light of a promise and not of Law.
 
I don't understand your point. How do we know that those at Jerusalem (including Paul and the apostles?) assumed that baptism was necessary for salvation? I hope we both agree that this is not true.
Of course. I don't mean it in an absolute sense. That baptism was initiatory was not in dispute in the Jerusalem council. It certainly stands to reason that they didn't have a thorough framework for covenant theology at that time.
I never said that Warfield was arguing for the baptism view. I am saying that the passage he used against baptists actually supports the Baptist position. Warfield argues that the Judaizers assumed that baptism did not replace circumcision, but the apostles and elders, in refuting the Judaizer's position, said or did nothing to refute that assumption!

" And certain men came down from Judaea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them...."

Certainly there was much said that is not recorded in Acts. The 'minutes' from Acts 15 pertained to the greater issue of the matter of law keeping, as Bruce and Rich pointed out.

.......
And it would have been very easy for the apostles to make that argument when making a decision. But they don't. And it would have been easy also to say "what is important is that you have been baptized, not circumcised," when they wrote letters to the Gentile churches. But they don't.

This is an argument from silence isn't it? There was much discussion. The natural assumption is that God put children in the Abraham covenant and there is as yet no word that He has taken them out, to borrow from B.B.'
 
The natural assumption is that God put children in the Abraham covenant and there is as yet no word that He has taken them out, to borrow from B.B.'

Even if this were to be true, does it follow that they are to be baptized?

I read the comments by Rich above with much interest, perhaps I have been guilty of using 'circumcision is nothing' verses as a sound bite in the past. However, even if you say that baptism is a replacement for circumcision, don't we still have to admit that the sign has changed? One sign was a surgical act performed on male children, the other something done with water done to both males and females. So given that the sign has not gone completely unaltered between the Old and New Testaments, why is it so unbelievable that God would change the timing of its application as well?

Why does saying children are in the covenant seem to mean necessarily that they must be baptized?
 
Bruce, I agree with much of what you wrote, esp. this part:

The question at Jerusalem (Acts 15) isn't "does baptism replace circumcision?" but "do converts to the faith need to keep the rituals of Moses, the Jewish OT rites, diet, separation, etc., in order to be saved?" (vv.1, 5). Circumcision was the beginning of such obedience to God, it was initiation into covenant with him. Hence, it is undoubtedly the case that the Judaizers were maintaining TWO initiation rites into Christianity, baptism and circumcision.

While I agree that the question is not "does baptism replace circumcision?", but the solution to the question "do converts to the faith need to keep the rituals of Moses, the Jewish OT rites, diet, separation, etc., in order to be saved?" could certainly be answered by "baptism (and other NT ordinances) replace OT rituals." But this isn't the answer given at all. Baptism isn't even mentioned.

I think you start to go astray here:

Warfield's argument is that evidently in the minds of many in the early, predominantly Jewish church, circumcision and baptism were not functionally equivalent, but complementary. Thus, both were necessary. Paul (and eventually the church qua the church) said "no, these two were conceptually and functionally equivalent," thus demonstrating that circumcision was unnecessary and could be discarded. And if circumcision could be discarded, so could the rest of the Israelite OT ritual. Get rid of the first rite, and the rest of the rites are also done away.

As I said, baptism isn't even mentioned, so Warfield's argument about the Judaizers saying that they were complementary, and Paul saying that baptism replaces circumcision because it is functionally equivalent, is simply not there.

And again, here.

No, what Warfield is saying is that to say that "baptism replaces circumcision" is manifestly NOT Judaizing, but rather puts us alongside Paul against the Judaizers. And it is a perverse sort of argumentation that would accuse US of promoting a Judaizing tendency, when our position is directly in the face of the Judaizers as they opposed Paul, who clearly substituted baptism in place of circumcision as the SOLE initiation rite into the NT church.

Again, where does Paul clearly substitute baptism in place of circumcision in Acts 15? Even if you use Colossians 2, there is no language of substitution or replacement, and it doesn't seem to be written in the context of Judaizers.
 
This is an argument from silence isn't it? There was much discussion. The natural assumption is that God put children in the Abraham covenant and there is as yet no word that He has taken them out, to borrow from B.B.'

Re: argument from silence, I suppose it is. Arguments from silence aren't always invalid.

My argument from silence is that apostle never said that baptism replaces circumcision, but your/Warfield's argument is that the Judaizers were wrong for the reason that baptism does replace circumcision, thus reading into the passage something that isn't stated. I would think that this is eisegesis.

An argument from silence, in my opinion, is preferable to an eisegetical interpretation.

Re: Abraham Covenant, that's why the scripture speaks of the "new covenant." There are no pre-existing new covenant members, so there is no taking out of members. They were never included in this new covenant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top