Is 1689 Federalism Novel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ethan. Note an important point that you just made: The Abrahamic and New Covenants are not the same covenants. The ratification/establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant was not the ratification/establishment of the New Covenant. Importantly, the ratification/establishment of the New Covenant meant the end of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant, while the ratification/establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision did not. The author of Hebrews says this is because the New Covenant was established on better promises than the Old (regeneration and justification). The author of Hebrews also says that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant specifically because His priesthood is not derived from Abraham (7:1-21). Abraham ("him who had the promises") was inferior to Melchizedek. The New Covenant is "better" because Jesus' priesthood is superior to Abraham (7:6-7). Jesus is not the guarantor of the Covenant of Circumcision, but of the New "better" Covenant.

Concerning Galatians (and I would say the same applies to Hebrews), T. David Gordon argues



I believe Paul's argument in Galatians is much more nuanced than saying Christians are part of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision. Rather, I believe Paul is making an intra-Abrahamic argument, distinguishing between the different promises to the different seed (Gal 3:16), demonstrating that the promise to bless all nations in Abraham refers to Christ, not to his numerous offspring (Jews). Receiving the blessing of the nations comes through Christ, not by being a circumcised offspring of Abraham (as the land promise required).

The Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision and the New Covenant relate, not as two phases of the same covenant, but as historia salutis and ordo salutis. The Covenant of Circumcision promised that the Christ would come from Abraham (and the Davidic narrowed that down, promising that the Christ would be a Jew from the line of David) and that he would bless the nations. However, the actual blessing (ordo salutis) comes through union with Christ (the New Covenant). The Judaizers erred in believing that in order to receive the blessing of the nations one had to become a Jew by being circumcised like the physical offspring of Abraham because 430 years prior to the law (which circumcision obligates one to obey and which conditioned reception of the Abrahamic land promise) God promised that salvation would come through the New Covenant.

The Abrahamic inheritance of the land of Canaan by his physical offspring (what the Covenant of Circumcision promised, in part) was typological of the eschatological inheritance through Christ. Thus Paul argues with the heirs of the sub-eschatological promise to Abraham that the heirs of the eschatological promise are those who are in Christ.
The thrust of this passage is that the priesthood of Christ is better than the Levitical priesthood. Yes, the author proves this by showing that Abraham (the father of Levi) was blessed by Melchizedek. However, the comparison is clearly between the New Covenant and that of Sinai. In no way is the author using this reasoning to disparage the covenant of circumcision.

Furthermore, the Covenant of Circumcision promised a lot more than just the fact that the Christ would physically come from Abraham's loins. Again, the very fact that circumcision is called a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith by Paul in Romans 4 emphasizes this. Moreover, the Jews are admonished to "circumcise their hearts" by Moses, which is clearly picked up on by Paul in Romans 2:29 - "a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.". Therefore, the sign of circumcision pointed also to regeneration and justification - which means that the covenant of circumcision also promised these things, for the sign always points to spiritual realities beyond itself. I believe that you are espousing a very reductionistic view to the covenant of circumcision which is not warranted by the biblical data.
 
Gentlemen, this is is an amazing thread. In light of everything I'm learning about 1689 Federalism, does it provide a theology for children? What I mean is this: how does the children of believers fit in the the 1689 Federalism framework? What do I do with my kids? Blessings from Missouri!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Take them to church. Catechize them. Teach them that Christ stands ready to forgive their sins if they will believe in Him.
BTW, Presbyterians do all these things, especially the last one. And if they don’t, they are wrong precisely because their children are in the covenant.
 
Gentlemen, this is is an amazing thread. In light of everything I'm learning about 1689 Federalism, does it provide a theology for children? What I mean is this: how does the children of believers fit in the the 1689 Federalism framework? What do I do with my kids? Blessings from Missouri!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
Curious about this as well. I know some RBs who are very strict against baptizing non-adults. Like, 18 is the minimum. And even that's not advised, if they're living under their parents' roof.

Have 1689ers worked this out yet, or do they allow leeway?
 
Gentlemen, this is is an amazing thread. In light of everything I'm learning about 1689 Federalism, does it provide a theology for children? What I mean is this: how does the children of believers fit in the the 1689 Federalism framework? What do I do with my kids? Blessings from Missouri!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
I can't see how Federalism or Vanilla makes any difference to the doctrine of baptism. We are called baptists because we are credobaptists: we baptize believers who have made a credible profession of faith. How that plays out, age-wise and otherwise in Baptist churches is a matter of local administration, but the underlying understanding of WHY we only baptize believers is still the same. Baptists believe that only those who are regenerate are currently in covenant with God, therefore only they receive the sign.
I beg my presbyterian brethren not to derail the thread debating this: it is standard baptist boilerplate and this thread is not about credo- vs-paedo baptism.
 
I can't see how Federalism or Vanilla makes any difference to the doctrine of baptism. We are called baptists because we are credobaptists: we baptize believers who have made a credible profession of faith. How that plays out, age-wise and otherwise in Baptist churches is a matter of local administration, but the underlying understanding of WHY we only baptize believers is still the same. Baptists believe that only those who are regenerate are currently in covenant with God, therefore only they receive the sign.
I beg my presbyterian brethren not to derail the thread debating this: it is standard baptist boilerplate and this thread is not about credo- vs-paedo baptism.
I think you underestimate the importance of this. And for my part, it's not a debate. I've met RBs that refuse to recognize the baptism of children baptized in other Baptist churches -- or only accept it with great reluctance -- profession or no.

Perhaps Federalism makes no difference, but given as you don't seem to know a great deal about it, I would like to hear it from them. Just a quick answer to satisfy my curiosity. No debate.

I don't see how this derails the thread.
 
Last edited:
I can't see how Federalism or Vanilla makes any difference to the doctrine of baptism. We are called baptists because we are credobaptists: we baptize believers who have made a credible profession of faith. How that plays out, age-wise and otherwise in Baptist churches is a matter of local administration, but the underlying understanding of WHY we only baptize believers is still the same. Baptists believe that only those who are regenerate are currently in covenant with God, therefore only they receive the sign.
I beg my presbyterian brethren not to derail the thread debating this: it is standard baptist boilerplate and this thread is not about credo- vs-paedo baptism.
Thanks for the response brother. What makes a confession "credible"? What exactly does that mean? I'm more convinced that the credibility of a believer based on an outward confession is less credible than God's confession in His Word by comparison. Why put emphasis on the confession of a creature, when we can have a more credible confession through the promises of God?

And another thing I've been thinking about in relation to this subject. God made promises to you and your children, didn't he? Why fight tooth and nail to make distinctions between parent and child? I just can't wrap my head around that.

In summary, over the past few years I have wondered why we do the things we do. Not in a negative light, but in a spirit of inquiry. God bless!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
If someone says, "I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and I rest in His works, not my own", and you believe it, then it's credible. If you have reason not to believe it, then it's not credible. It's not a complicated issue.
Right. I get that. But credible to whom?

Credibility needs some form of objective standard to weigh it by, right? How do we determine what is or isn't credible?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Right. I get that. But credible to whom?

Credibility needs some form of objective standard to weigh it by, right? How do we determine what is or isn't credible?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

The profession needs to be credible to the Christian elders that are going to consider the candidate for baptism and membership in the local church. They are the ones that have the duty to such things.

Credibility needs some form of objective standard to weigh it by, right?

I do not necessarily accept that this is so, but I would be willing to hear arguments that make that case.
 
The profession needs to be credible to the Christian elders that are going to consider the candidate for baptism and membership in the local church. They are the ones that have the duty to such things.



I do not necessarily accept that this is so, but I would be willing to hear arguments that make that case.
Thank you for the explanation, brother. This is a fascinating subject for me, so forgive me for all of my questions. What are some things elders look for to consider someone for baptism?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Anthony, I find your questions really odd to be honest. To the best of my knowledge, our position on this matter is really no different from how Presbyterians deal with adults who confess and want to be baptized. Take a look at the various Presbyterian BCOs quoted here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/04/11/do-presbyterians-have-regeneration-goggles/

See also A.A. Hodge
1st. In the case of adults, or persons arrived at the condition of independent responsible agency, the presumptive ground of fitness for admission to the sealing ordinances of the Church is a competent knowledge of the plan of salvation, a credible profession of personal faith, and a walk and conversation consistent therewith. The amount of knowledge requisite must vary with the general intelligence of the subject. But it is evident that no person can be a Christian by profession who is absolutely ignorant of his own guilt and pollution and of Christ’s meritorious work in our behalf. And, on the other hand, it is no less evident that multitudes of Christ’s children are saved who have attained only to the vaguest and most elementary knowledge of the essentials of the gospel. A “credible profession” does not mean a profession of faith which compels credence, or which convinces the observer that it is genuine; but it is simply the opposite of the incredible—it is a confession that can be believed.


God made promises to you and your children, didn't he?

Why put emphasis on the confession of a creature, when we can have a more credible confession through the promises of God?
Brother, the whole point of this overall discussion is that we do not agree with you on this point. We do not believe God has made any promise concerning the salvation of our children.
 
Anthony, I find your questions really odd to be honest. To the best of my knowledge, our position on this matter is really no different from how Presbyterians deal with adults who confess and want to be baptized. Take a look at the various Presbyterian BCOs quoted here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/04/11/do-presbyterians-have-regeneration-goggles/

See also A.A. Hodge





Brother, the whole point of this overall discussion is that we do not agree with you on this point. We do not believe God has made any promise concerning the salvation of our children.

According to Anthony's signature line, He's a Reformed Baptist!

Anthony, are you still a Reformed Baptist or have you changed your views?
 
Anthony, I find your questions really odd to be honest. To the best of my knowledge, our position on this matter is really no different from how Presbyterians deal with adults who confess and want to be baptized. Take a look at the various Presbyterian BCOs quoted here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/04/11/do-presbyterians-have-regeneration-goggles/

See also A.A. Hodge





Brother, the whole point of this overall discussion is that we do not agree with you on this point. We do not believe God has made any promise concerning the salvation of our children.
Even as a baptist I believe that God has made general promises to the children of believers.

I would think that many baptists also believe this without pushing to baptize those same children until their own profession of faith.

To say there are no general promises for a believing household is ludicrous.
 
Thanks for the response brother. What makes a confession "credible"? What exactly does that mean? I'm more convinced that the credibility of a believer based on an outward confession is less credible than God's confession in His Word by comparison. Why put emphasis on the confession of a creature, when we can have a more credible confession through the promises of God?

And another thing I've been thinking about in relation to this subject. God made promises to you and your children, didn't he? Why fight tooth and nail to make distinctions between parent and child? I just can't wrap my head around that.

In summary, over the past few years I have wondered why we do the things we do. Not in a negative light, but in a spirit of inquiry. God bless!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
God did not make promises to "me and my children" as though I could bring them along by virtue of my conversion. Rather, the promise of salvation in Christ is extended to me if I will believe; to my children if they will believe; to as many as are far off if they will believe. We cannot separate that phrase from its context.
 
Even as a baptist I believe that God has made general promises to the children of believers.

I would think that many baptists also believe this without pushing to baptize those same children until their own profession of faith.

To say there are no general promises for a believing household is ludicrous.
Pergamum, if I have read Brandon's comments correctly, he was not denying the blessing of a general promise to a Christian family, he was talking about the specific promise of salvation. Just because a child grows up in a Christian family, does not mean they will be infallibly saved.
 
Pergamum, if I have read Brandon's comments correctly, he was not denying the blessing of a general promise to a Christian family, he was talking about the specific promise of salvation. Just because a child grows up in a Christian family, does not mean they will be infallibly saved.
Oh ok, that is more sane. But what reformed person actually believes this?
 
According to Anthony's signature line, He's a Reformed Baptist!

Anthony, are you still a Reformed Baptist or have you changed your views?
Well, let me put it this way: I'm learning and growing from conversations like this each day!

God's people have been given many good gifts from the Father. The Word, prayer, fellowship, etc. Most of us with children allow them to participate within the sphere of the visible church. They pray with us, they read with us, and they fellowship in the midst of His people.

I can't for the life of me understand why we would allow them to dwell in the sphere of God's people and benefit from the many gifts He provides, but withhold the primary identifier (baptism) from them.

The one thing that marks them from the world is being withheld from them.

It appears as though we are making them feel as if they are "other" whilst simultaneously letting them participate in the general assembly (I hope I used that term right). They are our closest neighbors. Am I missing the mark here? Forgive me if I am.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Anthony, feel free to start a new thread about baptism if you'd like. I feel your questions and comments are getting us off track.
 
Anthony, feel free to start a new thread about baptism if you'd like. I feel your questions and comments are getting us off track.
Sorry brother. I just wanted to send a reply to the comment above. I agree, I don't want to derail this thread. It's too good.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
The thrust of this passage is that the priesthood of Christ is better than the Levitical priesthood. Yes, the author proves this by showing that Abraham (the father of Levi) was blessed by Melchizedek. However, the comparison is clearly between the New Covenant and that of Sinai. In no way is the author using this reasoning to disparage the covenant of circumcision.

Furthermore, the Covenant of Circumcision promised a lot more than just the fact that the Christ would physically come from Abraham's loins. Again, the very fact that circumcision is called a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith by Paul in Romans 4 emphasizes this. Moreover, the Jews are admonished to "circumcise their hearts" by Moses, which is clearly picked up on by Paul in Romans 2:29 - "a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.". Therefore, the sign of circumcision pointed also to regeneration and justification - which means that the covenant of circumcision also promised these things, for the sign always points to spiritual realities beyond itself. I believe that you are espousing a very reductionistic view to the covenant of circumcision which is not warranted by the biblical data.
Izaak, from your perspective I am being reductionistic. From my perspective, you are being simplistic and missing the nuance of what Scripture says on these things.

Regarding Romans 4:11, there are some translation issues involved.

The addition of circumcision subsequent to this statement of faith and justification was a confirmation to Abraham that what he believed would indeed take place (Romans 4:11a).* God promised Abraham that from his offspring would come one who will bless the nations. God added circumcision to confirm this promise outwardly.

*The designation of circumcision as a seal has often been misused to make a systematic point when Paul is making a historical one. In the Greek text of Romans 4:11a, the words "circumcision" and "seal" for a double accusative, which can be tralsted in an abstract or concrete way. It could be translated to say that circumcision is "the seal" (concrete) or "a seal" (abstract). Paul's concern is the meaning of the timing of God's dealings with Abraham. The timing of circumcision subsequent to the promise of the birth of the one who blesses and the declaration of Abraham's justification is what serves as a confirmation to Abraham. There are additional translation-related difficulties that need to be addressed. Paul says that circumcision is a seal “of the righteousness of faith which in uncircumcision” (τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ). Some translations fill in the blanks that are ambiguous by referring to “the righteousness of the faith which Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised.” Considering the context of Paul's argument with respect to chronological order, this can be translated another way, as awaiting “the righteousness of the faith which was to be in the uncircumcision [gentiles].” So, what Paul means is that God gave the circumcision to confirm to Abraham that he would indeed have a son who would bless the nations. This interpretation was presented by John Lightfoot and endorsed by the Particular Baptists in the appendix to their Confession of Faith.

-Sam Renihan, The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom, p. 185

Here is Lightfoot
[Commenting on 1 Cor. 7:19] Circumcision is nothing, if we respect the time; for now it is vanished, the end of it, for which it had been instituted, being accomplished. That end the apostle shows in those words, Romans 4:11 σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, a seal of the righteousness of the faith in uncircumcision. But I fear the words are not sufficiently fitted by most versions to the end of circumcision, and the scope of the apostle; while they insert something of their own. The French translation thus: "Sceau de la justice de foi, laquelle il avoit durant le prepuce:" A seal of righteousness of faith which he had during uncircumcision. The Italian thus; "Segno della giustitia della fede, laquale fu nella incirconcisione:" A seal of the righteousness of the faith which was without circumcision. The Syriac reads, And a seal of the righteousness of his faith. The Arabic, "Of the righteousness of faith, which was in uncircumcision.” Other versions are to the same sense; as though circumcision were given to Abraham for a sign of that righteousness which he had while as yet he was uncircumcised; which we deny not in some sense to be true; but we believe circumcision especially looks far another way.

Give me leave to render the words thus; "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which should hereafter be in uncircumcision:” I say, 'Which should be,' not 'which had been;' not which had been to Abraham as yet uncircumcised, but which should be to his seed uncircumcised, that is, to the Gentiles that should hereafter imitate the faith of Abraham.

For mark well upon what occasion circumcision was appointed to Abraham, laying before your eyes the history of it, Genesis xvii.

First, This promise was made to him, "Thou shalt be the father of many nations," [in what sense, the apostle explains, in that chapter;] and then a double seal is subjoined to establish the thing, viz. the changing of the name 'Abram' into 'Abraham ;' and the institution of circumcision, ver. 4, "Behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations." Why is his name called 'Abraham?' For the sealing of his promise, 'Thou shalt be a father of many nations.' And why was this circumcision appointed him? For sealing the same promise, 'Thou shalt be a father of many nations.' So that this may be the sense of the apostle, very agreeable to the institution of circumcision; "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, which hereafter the uncircumcision (or the Gentiles) was to have and obtain."

Abraham had a double seed; a natural seed, that of the Jews; and a faithful seed, that of the believing Gentiles. The natural seed is signed with the sign of circumcision, first indeed for the distinguishing itself from all other nations, while they were not as yet the seed of Abraham; but especially in memory of the justification of the Gentiles by faith, when at last they were his seed. Therefore upon good reason, circumcision was to cease when the Gentiles should be brought in to the faith, because then it had attained to its last and chief end; and from thenceforth ἡ περιτομὴ οὐδέν, circumcision is nothing.

-John Lightfoot, Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations upon 1 Epistle Corinth., 1664 (quoting from 1859 translation) 214-15

A. W. Pink:
Thus as the rainbow was the confirmatory sign and seal of the covenant promises God had made to Noah, as circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant promises God had made to Abraham, so the tree of life was the sign and seal of the covenant promises He had made to Adam. It was appointed by God as the pledge of His faithfulness...

As a seal from God, circumcision was a divine pledge or guaranty that from him should issue that seed which would bring blessing to all nations, and that, on the same terms as justifying righteousness had become his—by faith alone. It was not a seal of his faith, but of that righteousness which, in due time, was to be wrought out by the Messiah and Mediator. Circumcision was not a memorial of anything which had already been actualised, but an earnest of that which was yet future—namely, of that justifying righteousness which was to be brought in by Christ.

-The Divine Covenants

As for Deut 10:16, circumcision devoted an individual to the priestly service of God according to the terms of Mosaic law. John D. Meade notes that the practice of circumcision in Egypt during the time was an initiation rite for those who would serve in the court of Pharaoh as priests. Richard Pratt, Jr. explains that in circumcision “Abraham committed himself to loyal service.” Kline said
The oath whose curse sanction circumcision symbolized was an oath of allegiance. It was an avowal of Yahweh as covenant Lord, a commitment in loyalty to him. As the symbolized curse which sealed this pledge of allegiance, circumcision partook of the import of the oath. It was, therefore, a sign of consecration. Hence Israel is commanded: “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord” (Jer. 4:4). (BOC 41)
In this way Israel was to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:6). This was a glorious thing, but it also proved to be an unbearable yoke (Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1) because it devoted one to obedience to Mosaic law (Gal 5:3). It was profitable if one kept the law, but if one broke the law their circumcision made them liable to Mosaic curse (Rom 2:25). And there was no getting out of this obligation. If one was not circumcised, they were to be cut off (killed; Gen 17:14; Ex. 4:24-26). There was no voluntary profession of saving faith. All offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were obligated to circumcision, devoting them to obedience to Mosaic law, upon pain of death.

Of course, the rite of circumcision did not guarantee that any particular circumcised Israelite would actually serve Yahweh from the heart (Deut 6:4). It just meant that they were obligated to (Deut 10:12-16). Note that Moses commanded the Israelites to circumcise their hearts, meaning devote themselves to the service of Yahweh from the bottom of their heart – not just outwardly. Circumcision was not a sign that an individual had a circumcised heart. It was a reminder that they needed one. Jeremiah again commanded Israel to be circumcised to the Lord (Jer 4:4). God had been longsuffering towards the circumcised, but this patience was coming to an end. Jeremiah warns of a coming judgment upon the circumcised for their disobedience. ““Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “that I will punish all who are circumcised with the uncircumcised— Egypt, Judah, Edom, the people of Ammon, Moab, and all who are in the farthest corners, who dwell in the wilderness. For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.”

Romans 2:29, understood in the proper context of Romans 2 as a whole, is a rebuke against the Jews of Paul's day who gloried in having the law and being circumcised, but neglected to keep the law. In keeping with the above, Paul explains that circumcision dedicates one to obey the law, thus without that obedience circumcision is nothing. Therefore a true Jew (note that Jew is not a synonym for Israelite, but refers to the tribe of Judah who continued to worship God according to Mosaic law after the kingdom split, thus becoming synonymous with "law keeper" over against Samaritans and Gentiles) is not someone who is circumcised, but someone who does what circumcision required: obeys the law. I find Robert Haldane's comments helpful here

The Apostle now passes to what is reality, not supposition, and gives here the proof of what he had affirmed, namely, that circumcision effects nothing for transgressors of the law, except to cause their deeper condemnation, and that the want of circumcision would be no loss to those who should have fulfilled the law. The reason of this is, that when the Jew shall appear before the tribunal of God, to be there judged, and when he shall produce his title as a Jew, as possessing it by birth, and his circumcision, as having received it as a sign of the covenant of God, God will not be satisfied with such appearances, but will demand of him what is essential and real. Now the essence and reality of things do not consist in names or in eternal signs; and when nothing more is produced, God will not consider a man who possesses them as a true Jew, nor his circumcision as true circumcision. He is only a Jew in shadow and appearance, and his is only a figurative circumcision void of its truth. But he is a Jew, who is one inwardly; that is to say, that in judging, God will only acknowledge as a true Jew, and a true confessor of His name, him who has the reality, — namely, him who is indeed holy and righteous, and who shall have fulfilled the law; for it is in this fulfillment that confession, and praise, and giving of thanks consist, which are the things signified by the name Jew. It is thus we are to understand the contrast which Paul makes between ‘outwardly’ and ‘inwardly.’ What is outward is the name, what is inward is the thing itself represented by the name. And circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter. — It is essential to keep in view that here, and in all that precedes, from the beginning of the 18th verse of the first chapter, Paul is referring not to the Gospel, but exclusively to the law, and clearing the ground for the establishment of his conclusion in the following chapter, verses 19th and 20th, concerning the universal guilt of mankind, and the consequent impossibility of their being justified by the law. The whole is intended to prepare the way for the demonstration of the grand truth announced, ch. 1:17, and resumed, ch. 3:21, of the revelation of a righteousness adequate to the demands of the law, and provided for all who believe.

From a misapprehension in this respect, very erroneous explanations have been given by many of this verse and the context, as well as of the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th of the second chapter, representing these passages as referring to the Gospel, and not exclusively to the law. This introduces confusion into the whole train of the Apostle’s reasoning, and their explanations are entirely at variance with his meaning and object...

Paul is treating of the judgment of strict justice by the law, which admits of no repentance or amendment of life. The meaning, then, here is, that if the Jew will satisfy himself with bringing before the judgment of the law what is only external and merely a ceremonial observance, without his possessing that perfect righteousness which this observance denotes, and which the Judge will demand, it will serve for no purpose but his condemnation. That of the heart in the spirit. — That is to say, what penetrates to the bottom of the soul; in one word, that which is real and effective. The term spirit does not here mean the Holy Spirit, nor has it a mystical or evangelical signification; but it signifies what is internal, solid, and real, in opposition to that which was ceremonial and figurative. And not in the letter. — Not that which takes place only in the flesh, according to the literal commandment, and in all the prescribed forms. In one word, it is to the spiritual circumcision that the Apostle refers, which is real in the heart and spirit. Whose praise is not of men, but of God. — Here Paul alludes to the name of Jew, which signifies praise, which may be taken either in an active sense, as signifying praising, or in a passive sense, as praised.

Moses has taken it in this second meaning; when relating the blessing of Jacob, he says, ‘Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise.’ The Apostle here takes it in the same way; but he does not mean that this praise is of men, but of God. The meaning is, that in order to be a true Jew, it is not sufficient to possess external advantages, which attract human praise, but it is necessary to be in a condition to obtain the praise of God.

The object of the whole of this chapter is to show that the Jews are sinners, violators of the law as well as the Gentiles, and consequently that they cannot be justified before God by their works; but that, on the contrary, however superior their advantages are to those of the Gentiles, they can only expect from His strict justice, condemnation. The Jews esteemed it the highest honor to belong to their nation, and they gloried over all other nations. An uncircumcised person was by them regarded with abhorrence. They did not look to character, but to circumcision or uncircumcision. Nothing, then, could be more cogent, or more calculated to arrest the attention of the Jews, than this argument respecting the name in which they gloried, and circumcision, their distinguishing national rite, with which Paul here follows up what he had said concerning the demands of the law, and of their outward transgressions of its precepts. He had dwelt, in the preceding part of this chapter, on their more glaring and atrocious outward violations of the law, as theft, adultery, and sacrilege, by which they openly dishonored God. Now he enters into the recesses of the heart, of which, even if their outward conduct had been blameless, and the subject of the praise of men, its want of inward conformity to that law, which was manifest in the sight of God, could not obtain his praise.
 
Sam Renihan says "Considering the context of Paul's argument with respect to chronological order, this can be translated another way, as awaiting “the righteousness of the faith which was to be in the uncircumcision [gentiles].” So, what Paul means is that God gave the circumcision to confirm to Abraham that he would indeed have a son who would bless the nations."

This is quite the conclusion indeed, considering that literally a few verses earlier, Paul clearly says "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.". In the context of that passage, it is clearly talking about Abraham's faith, and the fact that Abraham was justified by faith. And in the context of the passage, Paul is clearly trying to teach the Jews (who had misapplied and misunderstood circumcision) that circumcision itself was unnecessary to be made right with God, because Abraham himself first believed and was declared righteous, and then received the sign. He didn't receive the sign of something that would only come later to the gentiles, he received the sign and seal of something that he had, right then and there. For this passage is all about the justification of Abraham and how Abraham serves as the model for us all. Therefore, I conclude that the passage is not mistranslated at all, but perfectly fits the context of the passage, and that circumcision indeed pointed to the righteousness of faith, even from it's first institution.

Secondly, as to whether circumcision points to regeneration or not: while yes, the Jews were exhorted to circumcise their hearts and dedicate themselves to the Lord, this is not the only passage on this matter. For in Deuteronomy 30:6 it clearly says this: "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." This is not a self-administered circumcision, this is a circumcision of the heart wrought by God, by the Spirit, as clearly taught by Paul in Romans 2. Therefore, even from the earliest days, circumcision pointed beyond some outward fleshy ordinance which merely pointed to the coming of a Saviour from the loins of Abraham, but to regeneration itself. Thus, the Jews were to look beyond their physical circumcision to a circumcision of the heart wrought by God, which means that the sign clearly pointed to regeneration, even from the time it was given.
 
Sam Renihan says "Considering the context of Paul's argument with respect to chronological order, this can be translated another way, as awaiting “the righteousness of the faith which was to be in the uncircumcision [gentiles].” So, what Paul means is that God gave the circumcision to confirm to Abraham that he would indeed have a son who would bless the nations."

This is quite the conclusion indeed, considering that literally a few verses earlier, Paul clearly says "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.". In the context of that passage, it is clearly talking about Abraham's faith, and the fact that Abraham was justified by faith. And in the context of the passage, Paul is clearly trying to teach the Jews (who had misapplied and misunderstood circumcision) that circumcision itself was unnecessary to be made right with God, because Abraham himself first believed and was declared righteous, and then received the sign. He didn't receive the sign of something that would only come later to the gentiles, he received the sign and seal of something that he had, right then and there. For this passage is all about the justification of Abraham and how Abraham serves as the model for us all. Therefore, I conclude that the passage is not mistranslated at all, but perfectly fits the context of the passage, and that circumcision indeed pointed to the righteousness of faith, even from it's first institution.

Secondly, as to whether circumcision points to regeneration or not: while yes, the Jews were exhorted to circumcise their hearts and dedicate themselves to the Lord, this is not the only passage on this matter. For in Deuteronomy 30:6 it clearly says this: "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." This is not a self-administered circumcision, this is a circumcision of the heart wrought by God, by the Spirit, as clearly taught by Paul in Romans 2. Therefore, even from the earliest days, circumcision pointed beyond some outward fleshy ordinance which merely pointed to the coming of a Saviour from the loins of Abraham, but to regeneration itself. Thus, the Jews were to look beyond their physical circumcision to a circumcision of the heart wrought by God, which means that the sign clearly pointed to regeneration, even from the time it was given.
Regarding the part where you said:

"This is not a self-administered circumcision, this is a circumcision of the heart wrought by God..."

This is what I was trying to convey earlier but dropped the ball a bit. All of these gifts we receive belong to and are ultimately administered by God, not us. The Covenants, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc. All of these are his! Not trying to cause a side discussion, just wanted to give a hearty amen.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Izaak, brother, you are very eager to critique our position, but I still encourage you to study our position (though I can sympathize, as I was very eager to critique Westminster's position when I first learned it). I think that your criticisms miss the mark by not understanding the whole context of our position.

This is quite the conclusion indeed, considering that literally a few verses earlier, Paul clearly says "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.". In the context of that passage, it is clearly talking about Abraham's faith, and the fact that Abraham was justified by faith. And in the context of the passage, Paul is clearly trying to teach the Jews (who had misapplied and misunderstood circumcision) that circumcision itself was unnecessary to be made right with God, because Abraham himself first believed and was declared righteous, and then received the sign. He didn't receive the sign of something that would only come later to the gentiles, he received the sign and seal of something that he had, right then and there. For this passage is all about the justification of Abraham and how Abraham serves as the model for us all. Therefore, I conclude that the passage is not mistranslated at all, but perfectly fits the context of the passage, and that circumcision indeed pointed to the righteousness of faith, even from it's first institution.
I think you have presented a false dichotonomy. The passage refers both to Abraham's justificiation by faith apart from circumcision as well as to the question of the Gentiles' justification. Rom 3:29-30 "is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." 4:9 "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?" So it is not simply Paul's point to show that one can be justified without circumcision, but also to show more specifically how God can justify the Gentiles. Paul goes on to specifically talk about the promise concerning the nations. So it is not an either/or. The context is addressing Abraham's faith, as well as the promise that the (uncircumcised) nations would be blessed/justified.
For in Deuteronomy 30:6 it clearly says this: "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." This is not a self-administered circumcision, this is a circumcision of the heart wrought by God, by the Spirit, as clearly taught by Paul in Romans 2. Therefore, even from the earliest days, circumcision pointed beyond some outward fleshy ordinance which merely pointed to the coming of a Saviour from the loins of Abraham, but to regeneration itself. Thus, the Jews were to look beyond their physical circumcision to a circumcision of the heart wrought by God, which means that the sign clearly pointed to regeneration, even from the time it was given.
Again, I think you're skipping over typology and the contours of redemptive history. Deut 30:6 does not teach that circumcision was a sign unto the party circumcised of their regeneration (as baptism is a sign unto the party baptized of their regeneration and union with Christ WCF 28.1). Does it relate in some typological manner to regeneration and union with Christ? Yes, but it was not a covenant sign of regeneration. Note Calvin on Deut 30:6 “This promise far surpasses all the others, and properly refers to the new Covenant, for thus it is interpreted by Jeremiah.” I also highly recommend reading Bryan D. Estelle's chapter in "The Law is Not of Faith" on Lev 18:5 and how it relates to Deut 30:6.
[T]his amazing passage anticipates ahead of time the plight of which the Israelite nation will find itself, destitute and unable to fulfill the stipulations of the covenant on its own. It also describes the new measure of obedience – accomplished by divine initiative – in which they will satisfy the conditions hanging over them. Finally, when Paul creatively brings these two significant passages (i.e., Lev 18:5 and Deut. 30) into closer proximity to one another (Rom 10:1-12), the mystery of the divine plan for fulfillment emerges from the shadows and into the light…

In Deut 10:16, the people are commanded to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts and not stiffen their necks any longer. Verse 6 of Deut 30, however, is no mere allusion to that passage! On the contrary, new covenant language and imagery permeate this Deuteronomy passage because it is clear that divine initiative will supersede human impotence… Verse 8 declares that when God himself circumcises hearts, “you [fronted in the Hebrew] will repent and you will obey the voice of the LORD and you will do all his commandments.” This will happen with the coming of the Spirit in the gospel age…

Just as Leviticus 18:5 is taken up in later biblical allusions and echoes, so also is this Deuteronomy passage. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, the language of the new covenant that was cloaked in the circumcision of heart metaphor is unveiled in this classic passage. I argued above that Deuteronomy 30:1-14 is a predictive prophecy of the new covenant, and, therefore, all that was implicit there becomes explicit in Jeremiah 31. In verse 31, Jeremiah says this will happen “in the coming days” and in verse 33 he says “after these days”; both refer to the new covenant, messianic days.

This new covenant, however, is going to be unlike the old covenant with respect to breaking. The old covenant was a breakable covenant, it was made obsolete… The reader is obliged to say that a works principle in the old covenant was operative in some sense because the text clearly states that it was a fracturable covenant, “not like the one they broke.” Here indeed was a covenant that was susceptible to fracture and breakable! They broke it at Sinai (Ex. 32), and they did it time and again until that old covenant had served its purposes. For the one who holds a high view of God directing history, there must be something going on here…

…the point is that the whole old covenant order will be annihilated, it will be wiped out, and it will go down in judgment as a modus operandi. The new covenant is not like that: it is not subject to breaking because it is built upon God’s initiative to complete it and Christ’s satisfaction in his penalty-paying substitution and his probation keeping. His merit is the surety of the new covenant promises, and therefore it cannot fail. The old Sinaitic covenant by way of contrast is built upon a very fallible hope, and therefore is destined to fail since Israel individually and corporately could not fulfill its stipulations.
 
Last edited:
Izaak, brother, you are so extremely eager to critique our position, but I wish you were as equally eager to study our position (though I can sympathize, as I was very eager to critique Westminster's position when I first learned it). Your criticism continues to miss the mark by not understanding the whole context of our position.


You have presented a false dichotonomy. The passage refers both to Abraham's justificiation by faith apart from circumcision as well as to the question of the Gentiles' justification. Rom 3:29-30 "is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." 4:9 "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?" So it is not simply Paul's point to show that one can be justified without circumcision, but also to show more specifically how God can justify the Gentiles. Paul goes on to specifically talk about the promise concerning the nations. So it is not an either/or. The context is addressing Abraham's faith, as well as the promise that the (uncircumcised) nations would be blessed/justified.

Again, what you're skipping over here is typology and the contours of redemptive history. Deut 30:6 does not teach that circumcision was a sign unto the party circumcised of their regeneration (as baptism is a sign unto the party baptized of their regeneration and union with Christ WCF 28.1). Does it relate in some typological manner to regeneration and union with Christ? Yes, but it was not a covenant sign of regeneration. Note Calvin on Deut 30:6 “This promise far surpasses all the others, and properly refers to the new Covenant, for thus it is interpreted by Jeremiah.” I also highly recommend reading Bryan D. Estelle's chapter in "The Law is Not of Faith" on Lev 18:5 and how it relates to Deut 30:6.
You say that circumcision relates "in some typological manner to regeneration and union with Christ" but "was not a covenant sign of regeneration". What does this even mean? To me, this is a distinction without a difference. If something is a "type", then it necessarily "points to" the antitype, which is the same idea as a a "sign" pointing to "the thing signified".

You have essentially here admitted that circumcision points to regeneration and union with Christ. The question is, when did it start pointing to these spiritual things? Only once the NC was inaugurated, or when the sign was instituted? I contend that it was when the sign was instituted. When did the Passover meal start pointing to Christ's work on the cross? It was immediately upon the institution. These signs have always pointed to these spiritual things.

Circumcision was not simply a fleshly ordinance meant to seal the promises that the Christ would come from Abraham's loins. This does not make sense considering the fact that those who were not of his seed were circumcised (Gen. 17:12) along with foreigners (Exodus 12:43-49).
 
Regarding the part where you said:

"This is not a self-administered circumcision, this is a circumcision of the heart wrought by God..."

This is what I was trying to convey earlier but dropped the ball a bit. All of these gifts we receive belong to and are ultimately administered by God, not us. The Covenants, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc. All of these are his! Not trying to cause a side discussion, just wanted to give a hearty amen.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
Yes, but though all those things are God's, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are to be administered by human ministers. While circumcision of the heart is done by God, the sign of that is done by men, and must be done according to His instructions.
 
Yes, but though all those things are God's, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are to be administered by human ministers. While circumcision of the heart is done by God, the sign of that is done by men, and must be done according to His instructions.
Are all who are given the sign circumcised of the heart?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top