Question on Baptist Covenant Theology

[Particular Baptist]

Brothers,

Recently, I've been seeing the Abrahamic Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision as being one covenant rather than separate covenants. This, of course, is different from traditional Reformed Baptist covenant theology, as espoused by Nehemiah Coxe, who saw the covenant of grace given to Abraham in Gen. 12 as being different from the covenant of circumcision given in Gen. 17. I've read other views on this topic and most others, even dispensational ones such as John MacArthur, see Chapters 12, 15, and 17 as renewals of the same covenant, although I would disagree with MacArthur on the strictly physical blessing and his definition of who is the church and Israel.

But, that being said, I've also started a study in Hebrews, guided by A.W. Pink's Commentary on the book, and come across those passages which speak of Moses and Jesus being over the same house, as well as the fact that good news was spoken to Israel under the Mosaic administration. This has caused me to question all of the covenant theology that Coxe espouses and, if I'm correct, even Michael Horton to an extent, as well as my whole view of the covenant of grace throughout history. And, again, it's caused me to question my credobaptist beliefs. But, at the same time, I can't see any way to fit paedobaptism into the New Testament.

Are there any Baptists who view Chapters 12, 15, and 17 as being all one covenant of grace? Also, are there any others who see the OC, the Mosaic Covenant, as being a dispensation of the covenant of grace who still hold to credobaptism? Or, is it even possible to hold to such a viewpoint and be theologically consistent within a covental framework?

I would love feedback from both paedobaptist and credobaptist brothers, even if it doesn't exactly pertain to one of the questions I've listed above.

Thanks,
Spencer

 

[Herald]

Brother, when I have time I'll provide an answer later today.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Great, Spencer!

You are starting to see the unity of the covenant of grace contra. Baptistic theology on the one hand and Klineanism on the other hand.

You said,

And, again, it's caused me to question my credobaptist beliefs. But, at the same time, I can't see any way to fit paedobaptism into the New Testament.

I would answer that the one proves the other. If Genesis 17 is an administration of the covenant of grace, as you are beginning to see, and the New Covenant is the eschatological fulfillment of the covenant of grace, then there is no warrant to remove the covenant sign from the children of the covenant. If the covenant sign belongs to the children of believers in Genesis 17, then it also belongs to the children of believers in Acts. The covenant is the same, only the outward sign has changed. Circumcision has been changed to baptism.

Colossians 2:11-12 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

If the covenant fits, the covenant sign "fits". Then the question is not, where is the text that proves this in the New Testament?--but rather, where is the text which takes the covenant sign away from children in the New Testament. The assumption is continuity rather than discontinuity. It would take a proof text explicitly removing the covenant sign from the children of believers in the New Testament in order for this covenant command (Genesis 17) to be abrogated.

 

[MichaelLofton]

Hello Particular Baptist,

I believe these resources will help your understanding of Covenant and how paedobaptism fits into the New Testament. These two resources were the very things that changed me from being a Reformed Baptist to a paedobaptist (Presbyterian). I hope they help.

Read these lectures by Ligon Duncan: INDEX of covenant theology lectures

Also read this article by Richard Pratt: http://old.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/TH.Pratt.New.Covenant.Baptism.pdf

 

[Andres]

it's caused me to question my credobaptist beliefs. But, at the same time, I can't see any way to fit paedobaptism into the New Testament.

Many people note the absence of specific references to paedobaptism in the NT and use this as their reasoning to reject it (paedobaptism). However, references to familial or household baptism are implied to include paedobaptism. I have heard it argued that paedobaptism was the norm, so the writers did not feel the need to specify or distinguish between credo and paedo.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Spence,
To be precise, Moses was servant OF Jesus, in His house, Heb.3:5; and so I would say he was over "the same house" as Christ, indeed, but as the steward rather than the lord, for a certain time until the Lord entered.

As for the baptism thing, I would not even spend time thinking on that topic until you have settled your conception of covenant. Whatever you end up thinking about covenant should influence you in your understanding of such related topics. But I think that you should try to get as much settled on the more fundamental issue of covenant and its bearing on biblical reading and interpretation. Reading Scripture with a covenant grid impacts not just one area but all areas. Just as you see dispensationalism does. Just as Pentecostalism does.

Frankly, there is a "sacramental" grid also, several actually, on a spectrum that includes Roman catholic, or Lutheran, and Anglican, all the way through our circles over to Baptist. Everyone has an initial hermeneutic (a set of basic assumptions by which they begin to read and understand the Bible), even when it isn't well defined, or even especially well constructed, or self-consciously chosen.

This is why I say, figure out what you think is the clearest understanding of how to read the Bible, and I think that a proper covenant-conception is going to be vital to that preparation.

 

[Particular Baptist]

Great advice, Rev. Buchanan, thank you!

 

[nnatew24]

although I would disagree with MacArthur on the strictly physical blessing and his definition of who is the church and Israel.

Just a side note here: despite where exactly you come down on the covenants, I'd encourage you to further consider whether inclusion of physical children is another error --just like MacArthur's Dispensationalism-- of confusing physical types with spiritual realities. To the Baptist, paedobaptism makes the same mistake as MacArthur.

 

[steadfast7]

No doubt there is much between the testaments that are unified, and we naturally want to seek out the single unifying theme. But there are significant divergences too. I'm a novice at best with these issues, but Rev. B's comments are astute and helpful. I don't see why someone could not have a fully orbed covenantal perspective and still practice bellievers-only baptism. The thing that must be resolved in my mind is whether baptism replaces circumcision, which I'm yet to be convinced of. I personally think paedobaptism takes covenant theology to a conclusion that scripture doesn't sufficiently address, whereas credobaptism preserves certain distinctions between old and new.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The Covenant of Grace is administered in the Covenant of Circumcision by promise. It is fulfilled in the seed. I am not so sure you are reading Coxe correctly. You might be. But the Covenant of Circumcision ended in the fulfillment of Christ. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Covenant of Promises given to Abraham in the promised seed (Christ). The Covenant of Circumcision is abrogated now as St. Paul writes in Galatians. It avails nothing now that Christ's work is finished and the Cup of the New Covenant has replaced it by fulfillment. The Covenant of Grace is present in all the Covenants after the Covenant of Works. It is administered and apprehended by faith as the scriptures testify, "the just shall live by faith." You can not separate the Covenant of Grace from the Covenant of Circumcision nor the Mosaic. The Covenant of Grace is the core of the Covenants of Promise. It is the premier Covenant.

 

[Peairtach]

remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Ephesians 2:12, ESV)

Yes all the covenants are related to one another. They are all covenants (plural) of the promise(singular). Even the Abrahamic Covenant can't be completely detatched from the Mosaic (Old) Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant from the New covenant.

There is sometimes a strong contrast in the New Testament between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant

(a) Because at the time of Moses a legal-typological cast was added to the Covenant, in God's grace to sinful people (the Israelites) not to morally perfect human beings like Adam, to help a Church which was underage. Apart from any moral principles and practical and spiritual and ecclesiastical lessons, this fell away at the time of the New Covenant, like stabilisers coming off a child's bike, like a stick used to keep a young plant upright, like the cocoon of a moth or butterfly, like the peculiar parental discipline and picture books of a young child.

(b) Because most of the Jews had turned the Old Covenant of Grace into a covenant of works, just as many Christians turn the New Covenant of Grace into a covenant of works. Those Jews often indicated this vis-a-vis Christianity and the teaching of the Apostles by insisting that not only the Pharasaic additions to the Old Covenant must be adhered to, but that things peculiar to the Old covenant must be adhered to now that Christ had come as necessary for salvation.

 

[eqdj]

It seems like there's a thread here every week that makes me want to create a "Frequently Asked Questions" on my site.

Spencer,
Nehemiah Coxe holds to one view of CT. You can find a list of other Covenantal Baptist views here
Covenant Theology & Baptism | Covenantal Baptist

 

[brandonadams]

But, that being said, I've also started a study in Hebrews, guided by A.W. Pink's Commentary on the book, and come across those passages which speak of Moses and Jesus being over the same house, as well as the fact that good news was spoken to Israel under the Mosaic administration. This has caused me to question all of the covenant theology that Coxe espouses and, if I'm correct, even Michael Horton to an extent, as well as my whole view of the covenant of grace throughout history. And, again, it's caused me to question my credobaptist beliefs. But, at the same time, I can't see any way to fit paedobaptism into the New Testament.

First of all, Pink agreed with Owen and Coxe that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works made with an entire nation. So reading Pink shouldn't dissuade you of that Make sure you read his excellent work "Divine Covenants"
Pink on Moses (& Republication) « Contrast
Pink and NCT « Contrast

Second - Of course the good news was spoken to Israel under the Mosaic "Administration" - but in no way does it necessarily follow that the Mosaic Covenant is the Covenant of Grace/New Covenant. The good news was spoken by all kinds of types and shadows. The good news was spoken by the bronze serpent. That doesn't mean the bronze serpent was Christ.

Are there any Baptists who view Chapters 12, 15, and 17 as being all one covenant of grace?

Yes, see A. W. Pink's "Divine Covenants":

The grand promises of the Abrahamic covenant, as originally given to the patriarch, are recorded in Genesis 12:2, 3, 7. The covenant itself was solemnly ratified by sacrifice, thus making it inviolable, in Genesis 15:9-21. The seal and sign of the covenant, circumcision, is brought before us in Genesis 17:9-14. The covenant was confirmed by divine oath in Genesis 22:15-18, which provided a ground of "strong consolation" (Heb. 6:17-19). There were not two distinct and diverse covenants made with Abraham (as the older Baptists argued), the one having respect to spiritual blessings and the other relating to temporal benefits. The covenant was one, having a special spiritual object, to which the temporal arrangements and inferior privileges enjoyed by the nation of Israel were strictly subordinated, and necessary only as a means of securing the higher results contemplated.
PART FOUR: THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT

Pink sees a dual fulfillment of the single Abrahamic Covenant: one earthly, one spiritual.
Jeffrey D. Johnson expounds a similar view in his recent book The Fatal Flaw
Owen has a helpful essay elaborating a similar view in the intro to his commentary on Hebrews: The Oneness of the Church – John Owen « Contrast
Meredith Kline also held a similar view (Two-Level Fulfillment) http://www.upper-register.com/papers/two_level_fulfillment.pdf

Also, are there any others who see the OC, the Mosaic Covenant, as being a dispensation of the covenant of grace who still hold to credobaptism? Or, is it even possible to hold to such a viewpoint and be theologically consistent within a covental framework?

Yes.
Walter Chantry
Baptist and Covenant Theology, Walter J. Chantry | The Reformed Reader
http://www.chapellibrary.org/pdf-english/cove.pdf

Sam Waldron
numerous writings, but in particular the section on Chapter 7 in his "Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith"

Greg Welty
Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

I believe Fred Malone as well.
Founders Ministries | A String of Pearls Unstrung

There are many others but this is off the top of my head.

Hope that helps!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I have a problem saying the Mosaic was a Covenant of Works. It is not fashioned like the first covenant in all ways. There is the grace of sin covering preached by the sacrificed lamb and repentance called for. It differs from the Covenant of Works in that. If you are going to insist it is a Covenant of Works the first offence would lead to death. It does expose the death of the (so called) innocent. Yes, there are elements in the Mosaic that lead to cutting off and death. But it is not purely a Covenant of Works. There was a call to repentance which implies a Covenant of Grace and renewal unlike the Covenant of Works. It is a mingled Covenant as I see it.

 

[MW]

Sam Waldron
numerous writings, but in particular the section on Chapter 7 in his "Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith"

7.2, 3, compared with 10.3, makes it impossible to exclude elect infants from the covenant of grace in any administration of it. Waldron's exposition of 10.3 makes it clear that the modern Baptist understanding of the covenants struggles to connect infant salvation with the covenant of grace.

 

[brandonadams]

I have a problem saying the Mosaic was a Covenant of Works. It is not fashioned like the first covenant in all ways.

Martin, neither I, nor any of the men I mentioned above, claim that the Mosaic Covenant is the Covenant of Works that was made with Adam. They simply recognize that it was a a covenant of works - meaning it was based upon a works inheritance principle. Yes, God was also merciful (different than grace) in allowing a sacrificial system, forgiving sins, and delaying the final curses, etc, etc. But it cannot be based upon works and grace. Its either/or (Rom 4:4; 11:6).

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

Matthew, I don't follow what you're trying to get at. Of course elect infants are not excluded from the covenant of grace. Waldron never suggests otherwise. However, that's an entirely different issue from whether or not all infants of believers are in the covenant of grace or even if all infants of believers dying in infancy are elect.

 

[MW]

Of course elect infants are not excluded from the covenant of grace. Waldron never suggests otherwise.

Please consult Waldron on 10.3, where he expresses regret at the positive assertion made by both Confessions.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I do also.

P.S. You won't mess with a more confessional man than Rev. Winzer. I pretend not to have his knowledge. I admire his gift as most recognized. It isn't from himself as he would assert. But I don't agree with him either. Be careful when treading the Rev. Winzer knowledge. Just my humble opinion. LOL He is the man.

 

[brandonadams]

Matthew, I did consult Waldron before I commented. I honestly still do not know what you are getting at or how it is relevant to this thread. Waldron does not say anything in his comments on 10.3 about the covenant of grace one way or the other. He simply, and wisely, notes that the Bible does not address the salvation of infants, so neither should a confession. If that's your biggest objection to baptist covenant theology, then I am quite happy.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I like the last the last post. It is reformed.

 

[MW]

Waldron does not say anything in his comments on 10.3 about the covenant of grace one way or the other. He simply, and wisely, notes that the Bible does not address the salvation of infants, so neither should a confession.

Yes, but this is consciously recognised to be contrary to the Confession he is expounding. My point is that Waldron's exposition of the Confession is at variance with the Confession on the subject of covenant membership and therefore cannot be accepted as presenting the confessional position.

Please allow me to show the problem with Waldron's exposition of the Confession. Waldron's comments on 7.2, 3, in accord with the Confession, are, "It is by this covenant with Christ that all who have ever been saved are saved" (p. 110). He further notes, "This covenant between God the Father and Christ the Redeemer is fully revealed in the New Covenant" (ibid., emphasis added). Now compare this with his objection to the Confession on 10.3. The first point he makes relative to infant salvation is, "the Bible is silent on this issue" (p. 150). But it can only be regarded as being silent on this issue if his previous teaching on the salvation of the elect is ignored. His second point is to draw attention to three general truths contained in Scripture -- the character of God, the sinfulness of mankind, and the saving purpose of God (ibid., 150, 151); but these three truths are all presented by the Confession in the context of covenant theology. His final point is to suggest that it is not wrong for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children in his saving purposes (p. 151). On what basis could they believe this if the Bible does not lead them to believe it or God's covenant of grace makes no promise to this effect? I submit that the Confession more consistently reflects its own federal teaching and that Waldron's exception should be duly noted.

 

[brandonadams]

Yes, but this is consciously recognised to be contrary to the Confession he is expounding.

Where are you getting these ideas from? The LBC does not say anything about covenant membership in 10.3. Bringing up 10.3 is a complete red herring. It is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Yes, of course, 10.3 refers to the covenant of grace, and covenant membership, insofar as it mentions the elect. All elect are members of the covenant of grace. Waldron does not deny that. Neither does he object to that in his comments. Our discussion is about whether or not the non-elect, and whether or not all infants of believers, are members of the covenant of grace, or more specifically, the New Covenant.

The first point he makes relative to infant salvation is, "the Bible is silent on this issue" (p. 150). But it can only be regarded as being silent on this issue if his previous teaching on the salvation of the elect is ignored.

You're missing Waldron's point. All that Waldron means is that the Bible does not talk about or mention the salvation of infants. The fact that all who are saved are saved by the Covenant of Grace does not change the fact that the Bible does not talk about or mention the salvation of infants.

His final point is to suggest that it is not wrong for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children in his saving purposes (p. 151). On what basis could they believe this if the Bible does not lead them to believe it or God's covenant of grace makes no promise to this effect?

On the exact basis that Waldron mentions: God's mercy and goodness to believers. On the basis of God's goodness and mercy to believers, we can believe that God might often save their infants dying in infancy - for the sake of the believing parent's. Waldron is simply saying that God may save the infants of believers who die in their infancy, and that it is ok for Christians to believe that God might do that for their child. Waldron is not arguing that all Christians who lose a child in infancy are warranted in being certain that their child is saved.

but these three truths are all presented by the Confession in the context of covenant theology.

Right. And so if an infant is saved, they are saved through covenant. Again, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

My point is that Waldron's exposition of the Confession is at variance with the Confession on the subject of covenant membership and therefore cannot be accepted as presenting the confessional position...I submit that the Confession more consistently reflects its own federal teaching and that Waldron's exception should be duly noted.

What precisely do you believe the London Baptist Confession teaches about membership in the covenant of grace? Are you suggesting that Waldron's and others' view that the New Covenant consists of the elect alone is a "modern deviation" from historic Reformed Baptist theology?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think Rev. Winzer thinks there's a difference between being "silent on the issue," and simultaneously stating that (under the Old Testament, anyway) salvation was most certainly claimed for some infants, as evidenced by their being considered fit-recipients for the covenant-sign, which was a spiritual testimony. Rev. Winzer is simply taking Rev. Waldron at his word in one section and in another.

I don't know which permutation on covenant-theology Rev. Waldron takes, or even if it matters, when he has clearly stated that the (or some) covenant with Abraham is the eternal covenant of grace. The sign he was given was a testimony to him--and to other believers of the same stripe--of the righteousness he had by faith, which is the case even if one finds a multiplicity of covenants in the Abrahamic narrative. They end up connected symbolically, through the sign, even if they are sundered into so many separate arrangements.

And the fact is that God promises to be God to him and to his children in the same context as he is instructed to apply that sign to sons 8-days old. If one of those sons dies in his faithful parents arms, are we to believe they do not have a promise on which to hope?

If they have a hope, so much for silence on the issue. Because salvation is only according to election unto faith. Rev. Winzer further noted that God's saving intents are, according to that Confession, "...more fully revealed" in the New Covenant. Ergo, if salvation (hence, election) of some infants was revealed in the Old Testament, then such a truth must be "more fully revealed" in the New Covenant.

 

[MW]

Our discussion is about whether or not the non-elect, and whether or not all infants of believers, are members of the covenant of grace, or more specifically, the New Covenant.

The word "all" is irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is relative to "elect infants" not "all infants of believers." According to the earlier section of the Confession all elect are members of the covenant of grace. The Confession recognises elect infants as a biblical concept whereas Waldron rejects it. The Confession therefore contains an explicit reference to elect infants as members of the covenant of grace. Modern Baptists might find this difficult to reconcile with their reconstructed covenant theology but it cannot be denied that this was part of the original framework.

You're missing Waldron's point. All that Waldron means is that the Bible does not talk about or mention the salvation of infants. The fact that all who are saved are saved by the Covenant of Grace does not change the fact that the Bible does not talk about or mention the salvation of infants.

You keep reverting to a statement of what the Bible teaches whereas I am looking at the subject in terms of historical comparison. If you would like to discuss what the Bible itself teaches I would simply point you to Paul's exposition of covenant theology and election in relation to "the children" in Romans 9. But my only concern is to show what the Baptist Confession teaches in conformity with the Westminster Confession and contrary to Waldron's exposition.

Waldron is simply saying that God may save the infants of believers who die in their infancy, and that it is ok for Christians to believe that God might do that for their child.

He is undoubtedly saying precisely that, but my point is that both the Westminster and Baptist Confessions tie such belief to revelation, not to speculation. In fact, 14.2 requires the authority of God's word for belief.

Right. And so if an infant is saved, they are saved through covenant. Again, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The covenant membership of elect infants in THE issue at hand.

 

[brandonadams]

Bruce, your opinion about the Abrahamic Covenant and its sign is irrelevant as to whether or not Waldron is contradicting his own confession. Please stop importing your own assumptions into other people's system of belief and then calling them inconsistent for not agreeing with you.

The Confession recognises elect infants as a biblical concept whereas Waldron rejects it.

Matthew, you have plenty of other things to argue about. Stop making an issue where this is not one. WALDRON DOES NOT REJECT THE CONCEPT OF ELECT INFANTS!

The Confession therefore contains an explicit reference to elect infants as members of the covenant of grace. Modern Baptists might find this difficult to reconcile with their reconstructed covenant theology but it cannot be denied that this was part of the original framework.

I honestly do not believe you know what you are talking about. Once again, I will ask you to state precisely what you believe the LBC teaches about the membership of the covenant of grace. Who is a member of the covenant of grace according to the LBC?

Please also include primary baptist sources that espouse the view you are attributing to the LBC.

If LBC 10.3 was based upon a view that the promise to Abraham included their children, they would have cited that as a reference. They did not. They only cited John 3:8. Their point is simply that it is possible for an infant to be regenerated and therefore to be saved. That is all LBC 10.3 says. It does not say there is any special promise to believers to include their children in the Covenant of Grace.

The covenant membership of elect infants in THE issue at hand.

No its not. Stop making problems where there are none. Stick to where there are actual disagreements and we'll all save ourselves a lot of trouble.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Brandon,
I was so far over on the side of letting a Baptist-covenantalist be himself, that I had to say practically three times as much as I needed to say. So, please, drop the condescension.

My one regret is not simply letting Matthew clarify his own point.

 

[nnatew24]

The Confession therefore contains an explicit reference to elect infants as members of the covenant of grace. Modern Baptists might find this difficult to reconcile with their reconstructed covenant theology but it cannot be denied that this was part of the original framework.

Rev. Winzer - as Brandon pointed out, the Confession doesn't appear to link elect infants with believing parents. So my question to you would be: what Confessional evidence do we have to assert that only infants of believers are possibly elect? Do we have any evidence to suggest that an infant of unbelieving parents cannot possibly be one of the elect?

Of course, even when we answer these questions one way or another, we will still disagree on whether or not to apply the baptism to an infant whom we cannot know is elect or not.

 

[Bethel]

Circumcision has been changed to baptism.

I'm relatively new to the reformed faith, so I'm in the same boat as Particular Baptist as I wrestle with paedo versus credo baptism. I understand the argument very concisely stated by Willem van Oranje above, but if that's the case, then I'm troubled with the conflict over circumcision in Acts 15. The apostles don't implicitly or explicitly state that circumcision has been changed to baptism. That would have been the ultimate reason to end all of the discussion about whether or not the new Gentile believers needed to be circumcised. Instead they talk about how it would bind them to the law of Moses which even the Jews couldn't do. These are just my thoughts as I study the Scriptures regarding infant baptism. If anyone can shed some light on this for me, I would greatly appreciate it!

Blessings,

 

[brandonadams]

I was so far over on the side of letting a Baptist-covenantalist be himself, that I had to say practically three times as much as I needed to say.

How humble of you.

Matthew, I would still appreciate a precise statement regarding what you believe the LBC teaches about membership in the covenant of grace. Your accusation that modern baptist views of the covenant of grace are deviations from historic particular baptist views is a serious charge that you have failed to backup. Until you do, I consider it nothing more than slander.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Circumcision has been changed to baptism.

I'm relatively new to the reformed faith, so I'm in the same boat as Particular Baptist as I wrestle with paedo versus credo baptism. I understand the argument very concisely stated by Willem van Oranje above, but if that's the case, then I'm troubled with the conflict over circumcision in Acts 15. The apostles don't implicitly or explicitly state that circumcision has been changed to baptism. That would have been the ultimate reason to end all of the discussion about whether or not the new Gentile believers needed to be circumcised. Instead they talk about how it would bind them to the law of Moses which even the Jews couldn't do. These are just my thoughts as I study the Scriptures regarding infant baptism. If anyone can shed some light on this for me, I would greatly appreciate it!

Blessings,

Beth,
Speaking as a paedo-baptist (a strange way to define myself, in my opinion, but old adjectives like Reformed and covenantal have been expropriated for wider use),

the reason why it would have been a bad argument for the church in Act.15 (to say: baptism replaces circumcision), is that the crucial question posed by the Judaizers would be diverted, not confronted. The answer to the charge "You need to become a Jew to be a true Christian" is not to point off to another ritual, one appropriate to the new era, and say "This one, not that one." Such a statement would not meet the charge at its fundamental point. The issue wasn't merely circumcision, but circumcision as the door to a whole slew of "obediences" that would be a necessary accompaniment of faith, for proving oneself unto God.

[BIBLE]Galatians 5:3 [/BIBLE]shows that the issue was seen by Paul as one that went far beyond the entrance-ritual. Hence, simply to posit a new ritual in place of circumcision would, at best, be a diversionary tactic. The Judaizers would have been only too happy to give up insisting on circumcision if they could get concession on the deeper issue they fought for (whole law-keeping, complete adherence to Moses) by just substituting the entrance-ritual. Adding law to grace was not just a matter of one little cut, but devotion to the rest of the practices that the cut implied.