In Suk,
If you think that we view circumcision or baptism simply as a mark of covenant membership, then clearly you are not apprehending the contrary position. It seems as though you have an "either-or" position, and therefore the other side position must be "either-or" also. This is not the case.
Observe by your own words the plain difference you posit between what you say the purpose of circumcision IS (presumably now, in this new economy), and what circumcision meant previously (having a "generational sense").
You need to understand that those (paedobaptsits), who are on the other side of the fence from you, deny there is a difference between the purpose and meaning of the covenant sign before, and the purpose and meaning of the covenant sign now.
You note that Paul rehearses the purpose of circumcision. That purpose--in keeping with the Old Testament age, for a sign that isn't even directly relevant in this age, other than by analogy to baptism--is the purpose God meant unto Abraham and the Old Testament church! Therefore, the sign is to be a sign of faith in the Promise that the sign signifies.
Of course, you know that God designated the proper recipients of that circumcision, Gen.17. So, despite the fact that circumcision is directly tied to the salvific promises of God, and the recipients of that sign are supposed to give evidence of believing in the significance of the sign, God does not direct the same order of application--that is, to follow profession--in the case of the children of believers. Therefore, Ishmael is circumcised (immediately), and Isaac (later, at his birth). Likewise, the same orders obtained for converts, or children of the covenant.
You propose that the statements of Paul indicate a change. But how, since the meaning of covenant-sign is no different, from age to age?
There is no "replacement" of "generational" with "imitative" sense, unless you think that "imitative" wasn't a part of the Old Testament regimin, unless you think the meaning of the sign has actually changed.
Once again, we don't appear to share an "either-or" approach to the sign; but the paedo-baptist has a "both-and" approach, exactly as it was for Abraham and the Old Testament church.
If you think that we view circumcision or baptism simply as a mark of covenant membership, then clearly you are not apprehending the contrary position. It seems as though you have an "either-or" position, and therefore the other side position must be "either-or" also. This is not the case.
Observe by your own words the plain difference you posit between what you say the purpose of circumcision IS (presumably now, in this new economy), and what circumcision meant previously (having a "generational sense").
You need to understand that those (paedobaptsits), who are on the other side of the fence from you, deny there is a difference between the purpose and meaning of the covenant sign before, and the purpose and meaning of the covenant sign now.
You note that Paul rehearses the purpose of circumcision. That purpose--in keeping with the Old Testament age, for a sign that isn't even directly relevant in this age, other than by analogy to baptism--is the purpose God meant unto Abraham and the Old Testament church! Therefore, the sign is to be a sign of faith in the Promise that the sign signifies.
Of course, you know that God designated the proper recipients of that circumcision, Gen.17. So, despite the fact that circumcision is directly tied to the salvific promises of God, and the recipients of that sign are supposed to give evidence of believing in the significance of the sign, God does not direct the same order of application--that is, to follow profession--in the case of the children of believers. Therefore, Ishmael is circumcised (immediately), and Isaac (later, at his birth). Likewise, the same orders obtained for converts, or children of the covenant.
You propose that the statements of Paul indicate a change. But how, since the meaning of covenant-sign is no different, from age to age?
There is no "replacement" of "generational" with "imitative" sense, unless you think that "imitative" wasn't a part of the Old Testament regimin, unless you think the meaning of the sign has actually changed.
Once again, we don't appear to share an "either-or" approach to the sign; but the paedo-baptist has a "both-and" approach, exactly as it was for Abraham and the Old Testament church.