Perfecting your circumcision

[Scott Bushey]

Acts 2:36-41 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

The Jews Peter was addressing above were in the external church; They believed in the promise and the coming messiah; they just didn't believe that Christ was that messiah promised. After being told to repent, why were they not just exhorted to perfect their circumcision?

[Edited on 5-20-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

How could they perfect their circumcision? They needed circumcision of the heart, which is God's work. Maybe I just don't get your question...

 

[Scott Bushey]

I see that Bob removed his response; Bob, for the record, you are on the right track!

Patrick, I understand what you are saying, but as was previosly mentioned in the post Bob deleted, these people were/are in the covenant community. Peter, having known this, should he have not exhorted them to perfect/improve on their circumcision/baptism? This is exactly what we tell our children; repent, believe accept, improve on your baptism. As well, why would there be a need to baptise? They had the sign already upon them! I mean, was Peter baptised? Any of the apostles? What sign did they have upon them?

[Edited on 5-20-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[turmeric]

Good questions, Scott! Maybe baptism isn't circumcision, but is still administered to a household. We're still in a covenant, just a new one. (No, I'm not NCT.)

 

[Scott Bushey]

Peter calls the hearers:
Acts 2:29 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Acts 2:5 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

Apparently, these people were Jews! They were there for pentecost, no?

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I see that Bob removed his response; Bob, for the record, you are on the right track!

If I would have known that, I would have left it. After further thought, I thought I was way off base.

 

[LawrenceU]

Because it is a new covenant. It really is that simple. I know that the paedo hermeneutic does not apply the Jeremiah prophecies in the same manner, but the Acts account certainly seems to lend credence to the credo interpretation.

Their sign was of the old covenant. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. And, no I'm not NCT either.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The response to the Apostes:

Acts 2:36-37 36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

They consider themselves 'brethren' to the apostles.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by LawrenceU
Because it is a new covenant. It really is that simple. I know that the paedo hermeneutic does not apply the Jeremiah prophecies in the same manner, but the Acts account certainly seems to lend credence to the credo interpretation.

Their sign was of the old covenant. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. And, no I'm not NCT either.

Lawrence,
I know you are not dispensational. So if the sign, whether circumcision or water, points to that which Christ has accomplished, our need for remission of sin, to Christ. why would these Jews have had to apply another sign that points essentially to the same thing? The apostles didn't!

[Edited on 5-20-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The Jews Peter was addressing above were in the external church; They believed in the promise and the coming messiah; they just didn't believe that Christ was that messiah promised. After being told to repent, why were they not just exhorted to perfect their circumcision?

In paedo churches, infants are assumed to be in the covenant until they prove otherwise. At some point later in their lives, some prove by their actions/attitudes that they are indeed not in the covenant (or they've broken the covenant, or whatever). Perhaps there was something in the actions/attitudes of these people that made the apostles think they weren't in the covenant:

...Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

If that's the case, there's no point telling them to perfect their circumcision.

[Edited on 5-20-2006 by blhowes]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The Jews Peter was addressing above were in the external church; They believed in the promise and the coming messiah; they just didn't believe that Christ was that messiah promised. After being told to repent, why were they not just exhorted to perfect their circumcision?

In paedo churches, infants are assumed to be in the covenant until they prove otherwise. At some point later in their lives, some prove by their actions/attitudes that they are indeed not in the covenant (or they've broken the covenant, or whatever). Perhaps there was something in the actions/attitudes of these people that made the apostles think they weren't in the covenant:

...Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

If that's the case, there's no point telling them to perfect their circumcision.

[Edited on 5-20-2006 by blhowes]

Thats not true Bob. Covenant members that show signs of apostacy are warned, rebuked and exhorted to repent and perfect/improve upon their baptism. They are never rebaptized.

[Edited on 5-20-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

They didn't say improve upon circumcision here because it was after the Great Commision, where baptism is commanded for all who would now join the new covenant people of God. These were Jews yes, but they were unbelievers and had been cast out when Jesus initiated the Church with the apostles. Their former house was left desolate. All special priviledges they once enjoyed were now gone. Circumcision no longer profited them. The only way they could now come to Christ was the same way the Gentiles would come.

Now, as to why the apostle's were not baptised, I'm not sure. Many of them were baptized by John. Perhaps that counted. Or perhaps, because they were the transitionary figures from old covenant to new covenant their circumcision counted for them, because they were true Israelites.

Is this more along the lines you're looking for?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritansailor
They didn't say improve upon circumcision here because it was after the Great Commision, where baptism is commanded for all who would now join the new covenant people of God.

Were these Jews not covenant members? Whether they were elect or not is irrelevent. Was not Esau and Ishmael covenant members?

These were Jews yes, but they were unbelievers.....

Again, in regards to consistancy, they were covenant members. The passage calls them 'devout men'.

Acts 2:5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven.

and had been cast out when Jesus initiated the Church with the apostles.

'initiated the church'??? The church was initiated in Gen 3!

Their former house was left desolate. All special priviledges they once enjoyed were now gone.

Pat, What special priviledges? The land? Abraham enjoyed everything that you and I do. I'm not following you.

Circumcision no longer profited them.

Romans 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
Romans 3:3 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?
Romans 3:4 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, And mightest prevail when Thou art judged."

The only way they could now come to Christ was the same way the Gentiles would come.

Through Christ alone and faith alone; just like Abraham.

Now, as to why the apostle's were not baptised, I'm not sure. Many of them were baptized by John. Perhaps that counted. Or perhaps, because they were the transitionary figures from old covenant to new covenant their circumcision counted for them, because they were true Israelites.


Is this more along the lines you're looking for?

Pat, how is the sign any different today?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Yes but these "devout men" were also responsible for crucifying Jesus. "Devout" is probably relative to their pharisaical Judaism, not to actual spiritual piety.

And yes, the Church as we know it, institutionally began with Jesus, with the apostles as the foundation. The dynamic changed. The church was no longer bound by the ethnic lines of Israel. With the Great Commision, baptism became the sign of covenant inclusion not circumcision. That is why they had to be baptized. Israel lost it's priviledged place among the nations. The Church became international. The old nation of Israel was broken off of the olive tree.

[Edited on 5-21-2006 by puritansailor]

 

[Dan....]

Originally posted by LawrenceU
Because it is a new covenant. It really is that simple. I know that the paedo hermeneutic does not apply the Jeremiah prophecies in the same manner, but the Acts account certainly seems to lend credence to the credo interpretation.

Their sign was of the old covenant. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. And, no I'm not NCT either.

Good answer Lawrence. (except for the part where you said, "the Acts account certainly seems to lend credence to the credo interpretation." :bigsmile: ) -and no, I am neither NCT, nor Baptist.

Circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant administration. To deny that the Jews needed to be baptized would be to deny that there is any difference between the New Covenant administration and the Old Covenant administration. Were they not baptized (baptism being the sign of the New Covenant Administration) it would be as if the New Covenant were a continuation of the Old Covenant, or that there was not a New administration of the covenant of grace.

The Westminster Confession speaks concerning this (note the bold, and esspecially the underlined portions) :

WCF Chapter VII: 5,6 -

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel:[9] under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;[10] which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.[12]

9. II Cor. 3:6-9
10. Heb. 8-10; Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12; I Cor. 5:7
11. I Cor. 10:1-4; Heb. 11:13; John 8:56
12. Gal. 3:7-9, 14; Psa. 32:1-2, 5

VI. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper:[14] which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy,[15] to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;[16] and is called the new testament.[17] There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.[18]
13. Col 2:17

14. I Cor. 1:21; 11:23-25; Matt. 28:19-20
15. Heb. 12:22-24; II Cor. 3:9-11; Jer. 31:33-34
16. Luke 2:32; Acts 10:34; Eph. 2:15-19
17. Luke 22:20
18. Gal. 3:8-9, 14, 16; Rom. 3:21-22, 30; 4:3, 6-8, 16-17, 23-24; 10:6-10; Heb. 4:2; Gen. 15:6; Psa. 32:1-2; I Cor. 10:3-4

To deny these circumcised men baptism would be to deny that "This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel"

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Thats not true Bob. Covenant members that show signs of apostacy are warned, rebuked and exhorted to repent and perfect/improve upon their baptism. They are never rebaptized.

My point was that at some point (I presume) that people are deemed to be not in the covenant. Perhaps when it gets to the point of excommunication, after numerous exhortations to repent, and their's no repentance. (I'm not real familiar with paedo practices. I assume when someone's excommunicated, they're deemed to have broken the covenant, to be outside of the covenant community, and are not encouraged to perfect/improve their baptism)

I wasn't really thinking along the lines of rebaptism, though you raise a good point. A group of people that had received the OT sign of circumcision were also baptized. If circumcision and baptism essentially represent the same thing and serve the same purpose, it seems reduntant.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Thats not true Bob. Covenant members that show signs of apostacy are warned, rebuked and exhorted to repent and perfect/improve upon their baptism. They are never rebaptized.

My point was that at some point (I presume) that people are deemed to be not in the covenant. Perhaps when it gets to the point of excommunication, after numerous exhortations to repent, and their's no repentance. (I'm not real familiar with paedo practices. I assume when someone's excommunicated, they're deemed to have broken the covenant, to be outside of the covenant community, and are not encouraged to perfect/improve their baptism)

I wasn't really thinking along the lines of rebaptism, though you raise a good point. A group of people that had received the OT sign of circumcision were also baptized. If circumcision and baptism essentially represent the same thing and serve the same purpose, it seems reduntant.

or inconsistant. This is the gist of the thread.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Thats not true Bob. Covenant members that show signs of apostacy are warned, rebuked and exhorted to repent and perfect/improve upon their baptism. They are never rebaptized.

My point was that at some point (I presume) that people are deemed to be not in the covenant. Perhaps when it gets to the point of excommunication, after numerous exhortations to repent, and their's no repentance. (I'm not real familiar with paedo practices. I assume when someone's excommunicated, they're deemed to have broken the covenant, to be outside of the covenant community, and are not encouraged to perfect/improve their baptism)

I wasn't really thinking along the lines of rebaptism, though you raise a good point. A group of people that had received the OT sign of circumcision were also baptized. If circumcision and baptism essentially represent the same thing and serve the same purpose, it seems reduntant.

or inconsistant. This is the gist of the thread.

As I go over these posts, I had initially left it alone for a while and then jumped in when you said that the Apostles had not been baptized. You broke that off into another thread. Now that other thread and this one are converging in their conclusions.

Circumcision was the sign that pointed to, prefigured, and shadowed the reality that had come. Christ came and instituted a new Sacrament. Yes Baptism was identical in substance but broader in administration and in a different Redemptive Historical "season". For the reasons I cited in the other thread, it would be perilous to create classes of Christians, some initiated under the old sign, some under the new.

If, for no other reason that all NT believers were initiated into the New Covenant the same way, it was necessary. Galatia is a perfect example of how a class of "We are in the NC by circumcision..." believers would cause even more class envy.

[Edited on 5-22-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Robin]

Read Abraham "through" the covenant of Abraham (Genesis 15.) Do not read the covenant of Abraham "through" the Sinai (Moses) covenant - (like the Pharisees and Galatian/Judaizers did.) Recall, Jesus admonished the Pharisees that they were not "children of Abraham" as they asserted (revealing that they viewed law-keeping as a sign of Abraham's covenant.)

In Abraham's covenant, God swears the oath. At Sinai, the people swear.

This is the essential distinction to get right!

Robin

[Edited on 5-22-2006 by Robin]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Robin
Read Abraham "through" the covenant of Abraham (Genesis 15.) Do not read the covenant of Abraham "through" the Sinai (Moses) covenant - (like the Pharisees and Galatian/Judaizers did.) Recall, Jesus admonished the Pharisees that they were not "children of Abraham" as they asserted (revealing that they viewed law-keeping as a sign of Abraham's covenant.)

In Abraham's covenant, God swears the oath. At Sinai, the people swear.

This is the essential distinction to get right!

Robin

Who do you think is missing this point beside the credo-Baptists who we would expect to differ on this issue?

I think the OP recognizes the Covenant of Abraham in those terms and most of us have been affirming that the sacraments are identical in substance (as signs and seals into the Covenant of Grace) but different in administration (WCF Ch 28). They are, however, distinct sacraments just as the Passover and the Lord's Supper are.

In case I'm not clear, I'm not at all claiming that the Jews lacked participation in the Covenant of Grace through Circumcision which was a sign and a seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith (Rom 4:11). Just like baptism (which looks backward), it was a sign that the things that were true of Abraham were true of them when they trusted that "...the just shall live by faith...." Instead of trusting in the Promise, as you noted, many had misunderstood the Law as the end of righteousness instead of viewing it as a schoolmaster that would prepare them for the Messiah.

What Scott is trying to account for is "Why the need for a redundant sign and seal?" If they have believed in the Messiah, is not the sign and seal of Abraham enough after all? I can understand and appreciate the merit of his question.

I think, temporally, there had to be a point at which one sign stopped and they transitioned to the new sign that recognized the beginning of a new administration of the Covenant of Grace. If good enough for Dad then why does the son of a Jew who believes now need to be baptized? At some point (Pentecost perhaps) there must have been a time at which God no longer recognized physical circumcision as an appropriate sign and seal into the COG? (That might be a thread in and of itself.)

I still maintain that the issue that solidarity among God's people in the new administration is not an unimportant factor if I am missing a more profound reason why the Jews (and the Apostles) needed to be baptized. There is to be one Church where there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free. In more than one place in the Epistles that fact that all are baptised (one baptism) is pointed to as a basis of communion.

To use another analogy, like and I.D. card, circumcision expired at Pentecost. "All you you who believe, it's time to line up and get your new I.D. card." And three thousand obeyed that day.

 

[Robin]

Rich,

Christ's shedding of His blood upon Calvary ended circumcision. This is why the veil was rent in the Temple.

At that moment God, the Son, receives the consequences of the "self-maledictory" oath YHWY makes in Genesis 15. Abraham's covenant is a "royal grant"; Moses' covenant is a suzerainty treaty. They're different. Christ dies to enact the ratification of His "last will and TESTAMENT" so that IN Him we might inherit eternal life.

The reason baptism can be and IS the continued sign of the covenant of grace is because it was an "ordeal" pointing to Noah and also the Red Sea crossing. What happened to those involved there? They were preserved through the flood of destruction.

Baptism is not an analogy...it really is "SIGN-ificant."

See Michael Horton's book "The God of Promise" chapter 4.



r.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sound like something Meredith Kline wrote.

I don't disagree precisely but circumcision was not an initiation rite into Sinai. It initiated into Abraham and was a sign and seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith in Christ. Nobody was confused about it being only linked to Moses and that was what I was driving at.

Wheter I used the suzerain and royal grant language, I, and others, have repeatedly stated that Circumcision was a type and shadow while you call it an analogy.

I think what you add is significant nevertheless but it would have been nice to just spell it out rather than being so mysterious.

It is certainly more profound than my feeble reasoning regarding the reason that Jews had to be baptized in addition to their circumcision they received earlier but I still maintain that the solidarity among believers (one baptism) is pointed to explicitly in more than one passage.

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I see that Bob removed his response; Bob, for the record, you are on the right track!

Patrick, I understand what you are saying, but as was previosly mentioned in the post Bob deleted, these people were/are in the covenant community. Peter, having known this, should he have not exhorted them to perfect/improve on their circumcision/baptism? This is exactly what we tell our children; repent, believe accept, improve on your baptism. As well, why would there be a need to baptise? They had the sign already upon them! I mean, was Peter baptised? Any of the apostles? What sign did they have upon them?

[Edited on 5-20-2006 by Scott Bushey]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that they were not in the covenant community any more. Once Israel rejected Christ, they were cast out. They were removed from the olive tree and needed to be grafted back in, therefore baptism. I think this answers the question of the Jews being baptized in chapter 2. Circumcision ceased to be the sign. It no longer profited them (Gal. 5:2,3,6).

Notice in Romans 9, Paul's recounting of the blessing of circumcision is answering the question about whether God was faithful to the OT people and promises. He answers yes. But those blessings are no longer the exclusive property of the Jews but of the Church in the NT.

I'm still thinking about the apostle's baptism/circumcision and will save that aspect for the other thread.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritansailor


Patrick, I understand what you are saying, but as was previosly mentioned in the post Bob deleted, these people were/are in the covenant community. Peter, having known this, should he have not exhorted them to perfect/improve on their circumcision/baptism? This is exactly what we tell our children; repent, believe accept, improve on your baptism. As well, why would there be a need to baptise? They had the sign already upon them! I mean, was Peter baptised? Any of the apostles? What sign did they have upon them?

[Edited on 5-20-2006 by Scott Bushey]

I guess the point I was trying to make is that they were not in the covenant community any more.

Patrick,
You're kidding me right? Don't be offended by my next statement, but you are sounding baptistic and highly dispensational with this treatment. Think about this, unless these people were baptised, you are saying that they lost thier election and salvation that comes along with it. This is just not possible. The elect OT Jew held to the same premise that you and I do. Their warrant was to place the sign upon themselves and family. This they did. Could you imagine the effect of telling them, your circumcision no longer counts; God lied. You must now be baptised as well.

Once Israel rejected Christ, they were cast out.

Right. The Israel that rejected Christ were not the Israel of God. You seem to be lumping all the people of Israel in with the rejection factor. Not all Israel is Israel. The elect were never cast away; water saves no one!

They were removed from the olive tree and needed to be grafted back in, therefore baptism.

So you see baptism as the ingrafting tool? Actually, the ingrafting tool is the HS and Gods grace.

I think this answers the question of the Jews being baptized in chapter 2. Circumcision ceased to be the sign. It no longer profited them (Gal. 5:2,3,6).

Baptism was not meant to nullify their circumcision nor usher them out of the covenant. Baptism was the fulfillment. This is key. Their belief and Christianity was fulfilled in baptism!

Notice in Romans 9, Paul's recounting of the blessing of circumcision is answering the question about whether God was faithful to the OT people and promises. He answers yes. But those blessings are no longer the exclusive property of the Jews but of the Church in the NT.

The above has nothing to do with the elect. Israel as a nation lost the gold ring, never the elect.

[Edited on 5-23-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritansailor
Patrick, I understand what you are saying, but as was previosly mentioned in the post Bob deleted, these people were/are in the covenant community. Peter, having known this, should he have not exhorted them to perfect/improve on their circumcision/baptism? This is exactly what we tell our children; repent, believe accept, improve on your baptism. As well, why would there be a need to baptise? They had the sign already upon them! I mean, was Peter baptised? Any of the apostles? What sign did they have upon them?

I guess the point I was trying to make is that they were not in the covenant community any more.

Patrick,
You're kidding me right? Don't be offended by my next statement, but you are sounding baptistic and highly dispensational with this treatment. Think about this, unless these people were baptised, you are saying that they lost thier election and salvation that comes along with it. This is just not possible. The elect OT Jew held to the same premise that you and I do. Their warrant was to place the sign upon themselves and family. This they did. Could you imagine the effect of telling them, your circumcision no longer counts; God lied. You must now be baptised as well.

Slow down Scott. I never said they lost their election or salvation. They were 'excommunicated' by Jesus (for lack of a better word), "Your house is left desolate." These Jews in Acts 2 were obviously not regenerate at the time. Otherwise they would not have crucified Christ, they would have beleived in Him. And Peter did in fact tell them to be baptized. If their circumcision was enough, he would have said so. Israel was no longer considered the people of God. Only the remant of Jews believed, in accordance with the OT promises, and they were baptized in order to be included publically in the Church.

Once Israel rejected Christ, they were cast out.

Right. The Israel that rejected Christ were not the Israel of God. You seem to be lumping all the people of Israel in with the rejection factor. Not all Israel is Israel. The elect were never cast away; water saves no one!

They were removed from the olive tree and needed to be grafted back in, therefore baptism.

So you see baptism as the ingrafting tool? Actually, the ingrafting tool is the HS and Gods grace.

I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion either. Peter told them to be baptized. That was part of PUBLIC acceptance into the people of God, the sign of initiation. Circumcision ceased to be that sign. Of course the Holy Spirit is the one who engrafts them. But they still had to be baptized with water, which signified the reality.

And the Israel of God certainly did reject Christ initially, as Peter explicitly charged these elect Jews with that act. Paul was part of that remnant as well. How did he interpret his experience? He was an enemy, a persecutor of the Church. He was elect. He obtained the promises to the remnant, and he was baptized upon his conversion. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

I think this answers the question of the Jews being baptized in chapter 2. Circumcision ceased to be the sign. It no longer profited them (Gal. 5:2,3,6).

Baptism was not meant to nullify their circumcision nor usher them out of the covenant. Baptism was the fulfillment. This is key. Their belief and Christianity was fulfilled in baptism!

Yes. But you asked why Peter told them not to improve upon their circumcision. I'm simply trying to answer the question. Baptism replaced that role in the covenant.


And just out of curiosity, where does the New Testament call us to "improve upon our baptism." I'm not objecting to the principle. I just would like to see the verses you have in mind regarding this so I can study further.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

bump