Reformed Baptist and circumsision

Status
Not open for further replies.

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
I know that most dispensational Baptist do not agree that circumsision is a sign of salvation in the old covenant, but do reformed baptists?

What about this:
Romans 4:11 And he received the [b:51cb4d36ac]sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith[/b:51cb4d36ac] which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by raderag]
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
I'll get this discussion moving.... Perhaps.

Allow me to put the emphasis where context shows should more likely fall...
Rom 4 :11
11[b:99c3c82863]He[/b:99c3c82863] received the sign of circumcision [i:99c3c82863]as a seal of the righteousness that [/i:99c3c82863] [b:99c3c82863]he had [/b:99c3c82863] [i:99c3c82863]by faith[/i:99c3c82863] while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well


While I will grant that circumcision was a reminder of Abraham's faith and the unique covenant position they were in because of their relationship to him, I vehemently reject the notion that circumcision, per se, was a sign of THEIR salvation. It was a reminder that righteousness comes through faith and that those who are righteous, by faith, are those who are like Abraham... that is a far cry from insinuating that circumcision was a sign of salvation.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by SolaScriptura]
 

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:f3d801966e][i:f3d801966e]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:f3d801966e]
Circumsisional regeneration?

Ouch

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by A_Wild_Boar] [/quote:f3d801966e]

No, you are totally missing the point. Circumsision is the sign of regeneration, not the cause of it.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:3492a7b031][i:3492a7b031]Originally posted by raderag[/i:3492a7b031]
Circumsision is the sign of regeneration, not the cause of it. [/quote:3492a7b031]

... A sign of [b:3492a7b031]Abraham's[/b:3492a7b031] regeneration.
To say more goes beyond the text.
 

raderag

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:58770e07bc][i:58770e07bc]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:58770e07bc]
[quote:58770e07bc][i:58770e07bc]Originally posted by raderag[/i:58770e07bc]
Circumsision is the sign of regeneration, not the cause of it. [/quote:58770e07bc]

... A sign of [b:58770e07bc]Abraham's[/b:58770e07bc] regeneration.
To say more goes beyond the text. [/quote:58770e07bc]

Fine, but don't straw man my position. Besides, I really want to get reformed Baptists views here rather than argue. There are plenty here more capable of giving a good argument for infant baptism.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:23541eb601][i:23541eb601]Originally posted by raderag[/i:23541eb601]

I really want to get reformed Baptists views here rather than argue. [/quote:23541eb601]

Ok, so now you've got one reformed Baptist's view.
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:0ca410c8d7]
... A sign of Abraham's regeneration.
To say more goes beyond the text.
[/quote:0ca410c8d7]

This type of inane reasoning would only have verity if Abraham were the only one ever circumcised.


Gen 17:7-11
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their [b:0ca410c8d7]generations for an everlasting covenant,to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.[/b:0ca410c8d7]
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, [b:0ca410c8d7]and thy seed after thee in their generations.[/b:0ca410c8d7]
This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Not to mention that a child uncircumcised was cut off from the covenant.

That does not mean, by the way, that they could not come back to it later on. But then, they would be circumcised on their profession of faith (express interest in being membered in the covenant community.)

It is quite a stretch to remove circumcision from salvation. It does not mean that we are saying everyone who was circumcised was saved, but it means that the sign accompanied those in the visible church who were being saved.

In Christ,

KC
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:b1bf0038e7][i:b1bf0038e7]Originally posted by raderag[/i:b1bf0038e7]
[quote:b1bf0038e7][i:b1bf0038e7]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:b1bf0038e7]
Circumsisional regeneration?

Ouch

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by A_Wild_Boar] [/quote:b1bf0038e7]

No, you are totally missing the point. Circumsision is the sign of regeneration, not the cause of it. [/quote:b1bf0038e7]

I understood the point, I decided to make a little fun. Something that does not sit well with many here.

But if circumsision were the sign of regeneration, then I would have to say no. It is a sign that the parents did as scripture explicitly commanded them to do. It does not mean that the child, or adult was regenerated. Was everyone who was circumsized truly regenerated? and if so, by what means were they?

If an infant were circumsized as prescribed, and it is a sign of regeneration as you say, then when exactly was the infant regenerated? Or how? Because the parents kept an ordinance the child was regenerated? I dont understand. Was it the parents thats caused the regeneration? or the circumsision?

Its obvious I dont know too much about the subject. Maybe someone can point me in the right direction?
Also is this subject directly related to paedo vs credo baptism? (Duh I guess its in the CT section) if it is, then this is where I get my baptismal regeneration minunderstanding from.



[Edited on 3-5-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:a5e2199985][i:a5e2199985]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:a5e2199985]
[quote:a5e2199985][i:a5e2199985]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:a5e2199985]
[quote:a5e2199985][i:a5e2199985]Originally posted by raderag[/i:a5e2199985]
Circumsision is the sign of regeneration, not the cause of it. [/quote:a5e2199985]

... A sign of [b:a5e2199985]Abraham's[/b:a5e2199985] regeneration.
To say more goes beyond the text. [/quote:a5e2199985]

the Bible portrays circumcision as a sign of a circumcised heart....for everyone, not just Abraham. Just as in baptism, though, not everyone who has the outward sign has the corresponding inside heart change.

p.s. how have you been?

-Paul [/quote:a5e2199985]

I knew I could get this thread moving. :lol:

Interestingly, I believe that herein lies one of the differences between circumcision and baptism... though I will admit that this difference doesn't necessarily disprove infant baptism... I think the text of Rom 4:11 - on the face of it- that circumcision was given as a sign of Abraham's faith. Thus all who were given circumcision bore on their bodies a reminder of Abraham's faith - a reminder of someone else's faith.

P.S.
I've been fine... busy... but fine... I'm trying to get all my paperwork done so that I can go do training this summer for the army chaplaincy. In addition, I'm trying to work on 3 papers for school. One on church government (I'm arguing for a plurality of elders within an overal congregational system ) one on a plan for evangelism in the local church and the other is a 10 page review of a book. Words can't describe the fun. How've you been?
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:a7a0aada17][i:a7a0aada17]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:a7a0aada17]
[quote:a7a0aada17]
... A sign of Abraham's regeneration.
To say more goes beyond the text.
[/quote:a7a0aada17]

This type of inane reasoning would only have verity if Abraham were the only one ever circumcised.


Gen 17:7-11
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their [b:a7a0aada17]generations for an everlasting covenant,to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.[/b:a7a0aada17]
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, [b:a7a0aada17]and thy seed after thee in their generations.[/b:a7a0aada17]
This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. [/quote:a7a0aada17]

Hmmm.... and you called [i:a7a0aada17]my[/i:a7a0aada17] reasoning inane?
It is perfectly possible that a reminder of someone else's righteousness could be passed on to other people.
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:29e71551bb]
It is perfectly possible that a [b:29e71551bb]reminder[/b:29e71551bb] of someone else's righteousness could be passed on to other people.
[/quote:29e71551bb]

Typical baptist/gnostic tendancy to remove all the mystery of God's holy use of means to effect salvation ,by reducing it to a dull and pathetic mere "remembrance". At least you are consistent and committed enough to do the same thing with the Eucharist.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Visigoth]
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:04f02d73bc][i:04f02d73bc]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:04f02d73bc]
Typical baptist/gnostic tendancy to remove all the mystery of God's holy use of means to effect salvation ,by reducing it to a dull and pathetic mere "remembrance". At least you are consistent and committed enough to do the same thing with the Eucharist.
[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Visigoth] [/quote:04f02d73bc]

I'm no gnostic. It isn't gnosticism to say that circumcision is not a "means to [b:04f02d73bc]effect [/b:04f02d73bc] salvation." On the contrary, I think it borders on heresy to say that it [i:04f02d73bc]is[/i:04f02d73bc] a means to [b:04f02d73bc]effect[/b:04f02d73bc] salvation! Salvation is by grace through faith. Not grace through sacraments.

Now, if you are talking about baptism - who says that [i:04f02d73bc]I [/i:04f02d73bc] understand it to be a "dull and pathetic mere remembrance?"
Likewise, where have I written that I "do the same thing with the Eucharist?"
(On the contrary, I do believe that I wrote somewhere about the two being quite more than that....)

But at anyrate, to say that any ordinance/sacrament is a means to effect salvation is to depart from [i:04f02d73bc]sola fide[/i:04f02d73bc].
Away with the Popish doctrines!
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:4ab232445f]
Salvation is by grace through faith. Not grace through sacraments.
[/quote:4ab232445f]

Faith demands the administration of the sacraments. The means of grace. When Moses failed to circumcise his son, it was a sin.
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:65d6558f37][i:65d6558f37]Originally posted by SolaScriptura[/i:65d6558f37]
[But at anyrate, to say that any ordinance/sacrament is a means to effect salvation is to depart from [i:65d6558f37]sola fide[/i:65d6558f37].
Away with the Popish doctrines! [/quote:65d6558f37]


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

i am still learning though.
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:d40e8b592e]
Typical baptist/gnostic tendancy to remove all the mystery of God's holy use of means to effect salvation ,by reducing it to a dull and pathetic mere "remembrance". At least you are consistent and committed enough to do the same thing with the Eucharist.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Visigoth] [/quote:d40e8b592e]

Wow arent you a sweetheart. One thing that burns me about theologans more than anything is the coldness that comes off in debates. Yeah we may be "informed" but in many cases it sure drowns out the evident love.

Now you presume that a Baptist is a neo gnositc? we reduce it ? Typical is the word you used and by doing that you prove yourself to be a bigot. Typical? Strong word, or should I say accusation?

When I was Baptized it was a most wonderful event, MUCH more then a mere rememberance. It was a confession of faith that I cannot explain. Really, words do it no justice. And why do you assume Baptist have a "mere rememberance" of communion? Everytime I partake I tremble with guilt and conviction. Again, those are only words, the experience is beyond mere rememberance.

I know your post was directed at another person on this board but I could not help jump in. I had a feeling this board
(or some of its members) was semi hostile towards credo baptists, but I had no idea it was a premeating and may I add hostile presence.

I may get banned for this. I hope not of course.



[Edited on 3-5-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:b3a43b25c7]
Everytime I partake I tremble with guilt and conviction.
[/quote:b3a43b25c7]

Another dilution. Passover was a hopeful feast. Not a guilt ridden self examination. Corinthians is usually taken as the main text to define the Eucharist instead of Christ's own institution. That is a grave error. Paul is correcting abuse of the meal.

I used to be a Baptist. I am not a bigot. It is in my opinion neo-gnosticism.

(I am attacking the theology not the people who embrace it.)

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Visigoth]
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:8fd2aa96c0][i:8fd2aa96c0]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:8fd2aa96c0]
[quote:8fd2aa96c0]
Everytime I partake I tremble with guilt and conviction.
[/quote:8fd2aa96c0]

Another dilution. Passover was a hopeful feast. Not a guilt ridden self examination. Corinthians is usually taken as the main text to define the Eucharist instead of Christ's own institution. That is a grave error. Paul is correcting abuse of the meal.

I used to be a Baptist. I am not a bigot. It is in my opinion neo-gnosticism.

(I am attacking the theology not the people who embrace it.)

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Visigoth] [/quote:8fd2aa96c0]

Ok I understand, I got a little emotional. My guilt and conviction comes from no teaching per say, just me. I dont know of anyone in my church that teaches it as a dillution as you claim, they actually treach it as a celebration. It is I who makes the mistake.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:3de78319f2][i:3de78319f2]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:3de78319f2]
Passover was a hopeful feast. Not a guilt ridden self examination. Corinthians is usually taken as the main text to define the Eucharist instead of Christ's own institution. That is a grave error. Paul is correcting abuse of the meal.
[/quote:3de78319f2]

You are correct on two points and wrong on at least one.
You are right in noting that passover was not a "guilt ridden self examination" (But then again, no self examination was prerequisite at all!)
Second, you are right in noting that Paul was correcting an abuse of the meal. (But then again, since his correction includes instructions to examine oneself, we can deduce that not examining oneself led to part of the problem... thus the need and requirement of examinging oneself.)

You are incorrect, however, in implying that one text should be used over and against another. As if one is "more right" than another.
Jesus' words of institution introduce the Lord's Supper as an ordinance in general. Paul's words show how it should be practiced in the local church.

You accuse him of "dilution." You could be accused of "exaggeration."
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:df8db2b0cd]Originally posted by Paul manata
and where is this taught in the OT? so you have people "remembering" something that they didn't know? [/quote:df8db2b0cd]

Actually... you may well be on the path to dispensationalism! :eek:
Where is it taught in the OT that circumcision is a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith? Hmmm....
If we were to stick with nothing other than the OT text we would say that it was primarily an ethnic thing, or perhaps, since circumcision was practiced on the priests of many of the pagans in the area - the Philistines the noted exception- it could at most be interpreted as symbolising the entire nation's "priestly status."
But a sign and seal of righteousness that comes by faith? That's NT interpretation, my friend.

But the Jews were used to visual reminders... (eg Josh 4) this would certainly fit the paradigm.

Try to throw up all the argumentation you want. It doesn't get around the fact that Rom 4:11 expressly says that circumcision is a seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith while he was uncircumsised. Thus every time they, er, looked at themselves, they were reminded of Abraham's faith. Now, you may certainly draw the implication from this that the point of them remembering all this was to hit it home that they too would only be declared righteous if they had faith like Abraham... but nonetheless, the sign itself remained a symbol of Abraham's faith.
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:eff4ceddd4]
You are incorrect, however, in implying that one text should be used over and against another. As if one is "more right" than another.
Jesus' words of institution introduce the Lord's Supper as an ordinance in general. Paul's words show how it should be practiced in the local church.
[/quote:eff4ceddd4]

Excellent eisegesis brother. I never said one passage was more true than the other. One is the institution of the meal, the other a correction of abuses of the meal.

Jesus did not have the disciples examine themselves. Why ? ?? Even Judas ate the meal with them.

(The answer is also why I affirm paedocommunion, but we have argued that to death on this board already)
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:cfe12d0797][i:cfe12d0797]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:cfe12d0797]
Ben, that wasn't the point. The point was: [i:cfe12d0797]if your interpretation is correct...that circumcision was to be a reminder of ONLY Abraham's faith, show me this. It seems silly to say THAT"S what it was, when that knowledge did not good for thousands of years.[/i:cfe12d0797]

-Paul [/quote:cfe12d0797]

They would not have thought of it as a sign of salvation, per se, either. The NT is the final interpreter of the OT and what it says, it says authoritatively.
Also, there is a distinction to be made between what they did know (who knows what the average Jew thought) and what they should have known, which, is- I would reckon- to be found in Paul's words. Just like his discussion about Abraham's seed being singular... it should have pointed them to the Messiah.
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:a5220ac660]
Circumsision is the sign of regeneration, not the cause of it. [/quote:a5220ac660]

I am still wondering how this works. I am not trying to start a flame or anything, I just dont see how it works that way. What caused the regeneration? the circumsision? or the parent obeying an explicit command to circumsize the infant.

If the ciscumsision is the sign or proof of regeneration, then what exactly caused it?

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:8ace2e1305]
I am still wondering how this works. I am not trying to start a flame or anything, I just dont see how it works that way. What caused the regeneration? the circumsision? or the parent obeying an explicit command to circumsize the infant.
[/quote:8ace2e1305]

What casues the demonic cenobites to be summoned forth with their abominable razor sharp hooks and adamantine chains ??
It is the solving of the puzzle box itself ? ? Or the black incantations that were muttered in the dark when the forbidden cube was forged ? ? ?

Ah yes. . . . wheels within wheels my friend.

We simply obey the sacred scriptures and administer the sign. God will apply the blessings of His covenant and the blood of His Son in whatever myterious ways He chooses.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Visigoth]
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:62da0d73a9][i:62da0d73a9]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:62da0d73a9]

Excellent eisegesis brother. I never said one passage was more true than the other...
[/quote:62da0d73a9]

Just as I never said that baptism or the Lord's Supper are all those things you attributed to me...
But be that as it may... I didn't say you said that one was more true... just that your understanding would lead one to think that is what you mean. And yes, the Holy Spirit's command, through Paul, to examine oneself is obligatory upon us all. To not do so is sin.
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:e0652a0045]
We simply obey the sacred scriptures and administer the sign. God will apply the blessings of His covenant and the blood of His Son in whatever myterious ways He chooses.

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Visigoth] [/quote:e0652a0045]

I think I am getting it now. Baptizing an infant is more of a command of obedience than it actually causing salvation. It is a means like preaching the Gospel is a means that God uses.

Baptism is a means but not necessarily a cause?

I know you guys make many reference to circumcision in this regards yet I hear its not related from the same folks. Circumcision explicitly mentions infants and prescribes when and how to do it. Baptism on the other hand is a bit more vaugue as to its exact whens and hows, even though both credo and paedo seem to have their own prescriptions how to do so.

other than the paedo vs credo debate what other diferences are their in Baptist and Presbyterian theologies?

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:69b15a5327]
other than the paedo vs credo debate what other diferences are their in Baptist and Presbyterian theologies?
[/quote:69b15a5327]

Continuity. Baptists Believe the God of the New Testament is different and does not include children in His promises like the God of the Old Testament. :lol:

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Visigoth]
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:4ece9275b9][i:4ece9275b9]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:4ece9275b9]
[quote:4ece9275b9]
Also, there is a distinction to be made between what they did know (who knows what the average Jew thought) and what they should have known, which, is- I would reckon- to be found in Paul's words
[/quote:4ece9275b9]

first, I know the NT interprets the OT.

Second, I am addressing your statement that circumcision was for them to remember... (1) how could they know THIS was what circumcision was for (2) How can 8 day old infants "remember?" Your argument would prove, according to baptistic thought, CREDO circumcision. The credo Jew could have said, Guys, circumcision is to make us REMEMBER and infants can't remember. You seem to have a very underdeveloped view of circumcision.

-Paul [/quote:4ece9275b9]

Actually, your logic is flawed. Your stuck with the whole baby notion. Babies couldn't relate to the stone is Josh 4 either... but they could when they got older. I am amazed it how, having eyes, you cannot see the obviousness of the fact that the OT era (I would use dispensation in the correct sense, but that word has unpleasant connotation because of Dispensationalism...) was full of visible reminders to the people. This would have been a perfect reminder. Remember: people only stay babies for so long... then they grow up! Why, by the time my son was 2 yrs old he was wondering why his privates were different from his baby sister's.

Look, if I have an "underdeveloped" view of circumcision it is simply because that is what it was. It was primarily- in the minds of the Jews as evidenced throughout their own actions in history- a symbol of their ethnicity.
It is not that I - or any Baptist- has an "underdeveloped" view of circumcision. On the contrary, paedobaptists have an "overinflated" view of it.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
[quote:a0f2c291f4][i:a0f2c291f4]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:a0f2c291f4]
[quote:a0f2c291f4]
Babies couldn't relate to the stone is Josh 4 either... but they could when they got older. I am amazed it how, having eyes, you cannot see the obviousness of the fact that the OT era (I would use dispensation in the correct sense, but that word has unpleasant connotation because of Dispensationalism...) was full of visible reminders to the people. This would have been a perfect reminder.
[/quote:a0f2c291f4]

well, same with babies and Baptism, then. And, the logic is fine. Baptists will use what they call "adult language" in the NT and say that presupposes that ONLY adults where meant to be receipients...now, when I use THE SAME "adult language" you balk. Again, I can be a better baptist then the baptists.

-Paul [/quote:a0f2c291f4]

You misunderstand me. I'm not balking at "adult language." I'm balking at your apparent insistence that whatever baptism meant, it had to have been understandable to the infant, as an infant (which, by the way would exclude any meaning to baptism at all since infants wouldn't know anything about it as an infant). The sign of Abraham's faith was a sign for Abraham's physical descendants to remember his faith, and that righteousness comes by that kind of faith.

By the way... if you can be a better Baptist than most baptists... you should become one! The water is fine! From someone who was convinced of paedoism for a period of time... I know!
:saint:

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by SolaScriptura]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top