As I study the subject of "baptism", I'm becoming more and more convinced that understanding the "Abrahamic Covenant" is key!
Over the past few weeks I have been seriously studying the "baptism" issue, and I must admit, I have begun to see the whole issue in a new and compelling light. When I began to understand the "Abrahamic Covenant" from the paedobaptist point of view, many verses in the Bible began to look very different to me. For example, God's protection of families (Noah, Lot, Rahab, etc.), the many verses that mention "you and your children", Jesus' blessing of the children, the household baptisms, a verse that mentions children of a Christian parent as being 'holy' (1 Cor. 7:14), verses that seem to show that someone that belongs to Christ can be removed (John 15, Romans 9, and Hebrews 10, etc.), external and internal aspects of the covenant, and more. I am convinced that your interpretation of the "Abahamic Covenant" and its implications will determine whether you are paeodobaptistic or baptistic. The verses and passages mentioned above can only be used as proof texts when the meaning of the "Abrahamic Covenant" is read into them, therefore, it seems to me, the best way to resolve the "baptism" issue is to understand the "Abrahamic Covenant". To study the other verses and passages that seem to support or refute infant baptism, without first understanding the Abrahamic Covenant, is just a waste of time (in my opinion).
With this in mind, I want to start this thread with one question in mind. Here's my question:
When infants were circumcised, was it a confirmation that one was in the covenant or was it the token of God's covenant promise to Abraham?
Ligon Duncan expresses the Paedobaptistic position in the following quote:
Arthur Pink expresses the Baptistic position in the following quote:
The question again is:
When infants were circumcised, was it a confirmation that one was in the covenant or was it the token of God's covenant promise to Abraham?
Ligon Duncan, representing the paedobaptist position, says "circumcision was a confirmation that one was in the covenant", and Arthur Pink, representing the baptist postion, says "circumcision was a token of God's covenant promise to Abraham".
Which is right? I believe your answer to this question will determine which side you come down on with regard to the baptism issue!
I'm leaning towards the baptist position but I would like to be challenged on this and therefore would like to see your responses!
Mike
PS - I was hoping to put this question in a poll but I don't know how to use it. Can anybody help me to figure how to do it?
Over the past few weeks I have been seriously studying the "baptism" issue, and I must admit, I have begun to see the whole issue in a new and compelling light. When I began to understand the "Abrahamic Covenant" from the paedobaptist point of view, many verses in the Bible began to look very different to me. For example, God's protection of families (Noah, Lot, Rahab, etc.), the many verses that mention "you and your children", Jesus' blessing of the children, the household baptisms, a verse that mentions children of a Christian parent as being 'holy' (1 Cor. 7:14), verses that seem to show that someone that belongs to Christ can be removed (John 15, Romans 9, and Hebrews 10, etc.), external and internal aspects of the covenant, and more. I am convinced that your interpretation of the "Abahamic Covenant" and its implications will determine whether you are paeodobaptistic or baptistic. The verses and passages mentioned above can only be used as proof texts when the meaning of the "Abrahamic Covenant" is read into them, therefore, it seems to me, the best way to resolve the "baptism" issue is to understand the "Abrahamic Covenant". To study the other verses and passages that seem to support or refute infant baptism, without first understanding the Abrahamic Covenant, is just a waste of time (in my opinion).
With this in mind, I want to start this thread with one question in mind. Here's my question:
When infants were circumcised, was it a confirmation that one was in the covenant or was it the token of God's covenant promise to Abraham?
Ligon Duncan expresses the Paedobaptistic position in the following quote:
Now that is interesting language. The covenant is the relationship which exists between Abraham and the Lord and it has existed since Genesis 12. And yet now, in Genesis 17, God is saying, look at the words again, you can look in your Hebrew text there, especially in verse 10, this is the covenant. "œThis is My covenant, which you shall keep between Me and between you and your seed after you. To be circumcised every male among you." Isn´t that an interesting way to define the covenant. God says first in verse 9, you must keep My covenant. And then He defines the covenant, not in terms of the relationship that He has with Abram, but in terms of the sign of circumcision. Isn´t that an interesting way of speaking? In this context, the closest possible identification is made between the sign of the covenant and the covenant itself. The closest possible identification is made between the covenant sign, which is circumcision, and the covenant relationship. In fact, they are so closely related that the sign is said to be the covenant and the covenant is said to be the sign. This is My covenant that every male among you shall be circumcised.
Well, I don´t think that it would be improper at all to translate it by the way of dynamic equivalents, "œThis is My covenant sign, that every male among you be circumcised." But the literal language is, "œThis is My covenant, that you be circumcised." So what we have here is a relationship between a covenant and the covenant sign in which God is stressing the closeness between those two things. To be in the covenant is to be in the covenant sign. To reject the covenant sign is to reject the covenant.
...The sign provides an outward sign of entrance into the external covenant community. To receive circumcision, God makes clear in Genesis 17, is to be considered part of the covenant community. Now again, notice, receiving the sign of circumcision does not in and of itself make you even part of the visible covenant community. It confirms the fact that you are already part of the covenant community, whether you are an adult or child. (click here to see article)
Arthur Pink expresses the Baptistic position in the following quote:
The next thing we would observe is that circumcision was "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had." Again we would say, Let us be on our guard against adding to God´s Word, for nowhere does Scripture say that circumcision was a seal to anyone but to Abraham himself; and even in his case, so far was it from communicating any spiritual blessing, it simply confirmed what was already promised to him. As a seal from God, circumcision was a divine pledge or guaranty that from him should issue that seed which would bring blessing to all nations, and that, on the same terms as justifying righteousness had become his"”by faith alone. It was not a seal of his faith, but of that righteousness which, in due time, was to be wrought out by the Messiah and Mediator. Circumcision was not a memorial of anything which had already been actualized, but an earnest of that which was yet future"”namely, of that justifying righteousness which was to be brought in by Christ.
But did not God enjoin that all the males of Abraham´s household, and in those of his descendants, should also be circumcised? He did, and in that very fact we find definite confirmation of what has just been said above. What did circumcision seal to Abraham´s servants and slaves? Nothing. "Circumcision neither signed nor sealed the blessings of the covenant of Abraham to the individuals to whom it was by Divine appointment administered. It did not imply that they who were circumcised were accounted the heirs of the promises, either temporal or spiritual. It was not applied to mark them individually as heirs of the promises. It did not imply this even to Isaac and Jacob, who are by name designated heirs with Abraham. Their interest in the promises was secured to them by God´s expressly giving them the covenant, but was not represented in their circumcision. Circumcision marked no character, and had an individual application to no man but Abraham himself. It was the token of this covenant; and as a token or sign, no doubt applied to every promise in the covenant, but it did not designate the individual circumcised as having a personal interest in these promises. The covenant promised a numerous seed to Abraham; circumcision, as the token of that covenant, must have been a sign of this; but it did not sign this to any other. Any other circumcised individual, except Isaac and Jacob, to whom the covenant was given by name, might have been childless.
"Circumcision did not import to any individual that any portion of the numerous seed of Abraham should descend through him. The covenant promised that all nations should be blessed in Abraham"”that the Messiah should be his descendant. But circumcision was no sign to any other that the Messiah should descend from him,"”even to Isaac and Jacob this promise was peculiarly given, and not implied in their circumcision. From some of Abraham´s race, the Messiah, according to the covenant, must descend, and circumcision was a sign of this: but this was not signed by circumcision to any one of all his race. Much less could circumcision "˜sign´ this to the strangers and slaves who were not of Abraham´s posterity. To such, even the temporal promises were not either "˜signed´ or sealed by circumcision. The covenant promised Canaan to Abraham´s descendants, but circumcision could be no sign of this to the strangers and slaves who enjoyed no inheritance in it" (Alexander Carson, 1860).
That circumcision did not seal anything to anyone but to Abraham himself is established beyond shadow of doubt by the fact that circumcision was applied to those who had no personal interest in the covenant to which it was attached. Not only was circumcision administered by Abraham to the servants and slaves of his household, but in Genesis 17:23 we read that he circumcised Ishmael, who was expressly excluded from that covenant! There is no evading the force of that, and it is impossible to reconcile it with the views so widely pervading upon the Abrahamic covenant. Furthermore, circumcision was not submitted to voluntarily, nor given with reference to faith, it was compulsory, and that in every instance: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised" (Gen. 17:13)"”those refusing, being "cut off from his people" (v. 14). How vastly different was that from Christian baptism!
It maybe asked, If, then, circumcision sealed nothing to those who received it, except in the one case of Abraham himself, then why did God ordain it to be administered to all his male descendants? First, because it was the mark He selected to distinguish from all other nations that people from whom the Messiah was to issue. Second, because it served as a continual reminder that from the Abrahamic stock the promised Seed would spring"”hence, soon after He appeared, circumcision was set aside by God. Third, because of what it typically foreshadowed. To be born naturally of the Abrahamic stock gave a title to circumcision and the earthly inheritance, which was a figure of their title to the heavenly inheritance of those born of the Spirit. The servants and slaves in Abraham´s household "bought with money" beautifully adumbrated the truth that those who enter the kingdom of Christ are "bought" by His blood. (Read point # VIII here for more on this )
The question again is:
When infants were circumcised, was it a confirmation that one was in the covenant or was it the token of God's covenant promise to Abraham?
Ligon Duncan, representing the paedobaptist position, says "circumcision was a confirmation that one was in the covenant", and Arthur Pink, representing the baptist postion, says "circumcision was a token of God's covenant promise to Abraham".
Which is right? I believe your answer to this question will determine which side you come down on with regard to the baptism issue!
I'm leaning towards the baptist position but I would like to be challenged on this and therefore would like to see your responses!
Mike
PS - I was hoping to put this question in a poll but I don't know how to use it. Can anybody help me to figure how to do it?