Question: Romans 2:25-28

[charliejunfan]

HELP! Romans 2:25-28

I am newly Paedo so...
I was wondering if one of you could help me understand these verses(at the bottom) in light of paedo baptism,

Does this mean that
1. Those who became uncircumcised by unrighteousness were once considered by God as actually circumcised?

or

2. That those who became uncircumcised by unrighteousness were never considered circumcised by God at all?

and secondly

If a baby is baptized but they never believe, does that mean that they were never seen as baptized in God's eyes?

or

Is it that they are seen as legitimately baptized until the end of their life when they never believed in Christ?

I hope my questions are understandable

(ESV) 25For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29But 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.

and if there are any Credo Baptists reading this, lol

 

[charliejunfan]

Help! Please?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

One has to keep the macro-structure of Paul's argument in view in order contextualize his statements properly.

The way to understand the first few chapters of Romans is:
Prologue (1:1-17)
"Wrath Revealed" (1:18)
"Righteousness Revealed" (3:21).

Thus, 2:25-28 falls right in the heart of the overall statement about the natural, sinful, wrath-deserving condition of men.

Therefore, we approach the statement Paul is making in the context of his rebuke to the self-righteous Jew: the one putting his confidence in his law-keeping, as exemplified in the fact that he is circumcised. The attitude is, "well, even if I do break individual laws sometimes, my identity as God's Chosen (as apparent from my circumcision) is unassailable."

Part of Paul's response to this bravado is to say that outward forms of religion are of strictly limited value. The outward circumcision only has any testimonial value if it is accompanied by obedience; disobedience makes the circumcision into a lie.

Conversely, one can point to a Gentile's obedience to law, and note the disparity between his behavior and his lack of circumcision in the flesh. If the former instance reveals a lack of truth in the witness (circumcision), then the latter instance must also reveal the truth, absent the claim of the witness.

A person was circumcised/is baptized--these are just raw facts of the body. God sees them as well as you or I do. Better, in fact, because he can see if it is a false witness or not. A false-witness is another sin. A false-witness is in a worse condition than someone who just refuses to talk, or to lie, or who admits the fact he wants no part of baptism.

The issue is not how did God view them previously relative to or because of their profession, but what is the judgment of God toward them at the time appointed for judgment.

In other words,, God sees person X baptized--that's a simple physical fact. He alone knows what that person's condition is, if he is elect or reprobate, and he knows it from all eternity. It is either an eternally lying statement or an eternally true one. A lying claim or a false hope in mere ritual is blameworthy, more blameworthy than if it was never made.

In our view, baptism is not "legit" or "illegit" based on the individual's intent. Baptism is a statement by the church, an ecclesiastical act: "God will save from sin those--for example, this person here for his baptism--who put their faith in him alone." If this person being baptized is not elect, then he doesn't and never will have that faith. Doesn't mean he isn't baptized, but that God will not consider the meaning of his baptism as true. He had no connection to the reality or the substance, no baptism/washing of the Spirit of regeneration uniting him to Christ.

Hope this helps.

 

[charliejunfan]

thank you bruce, this does help