Scot
Puritan Board Sophomore
O.K. guys, take it easy on me here. Don't bombard me with too much info. or chastisement!
First of all let me say that I believe that we are to baptise our children. I believe the sign is to be placed on them because they are set apart in the sense that they are in a christian covenant family. It seems though that when looking at the word "seal", I'm closer to the Baptist view. Let me explain:
When looking at how the reformed confessions explain baptism and the Lord's supper, I have a problem with the usage of the word "seal". When reading commentaries on the sacraments from reformed authors, it is always stressed that the sacraments DO NOT bring salvation. Yet, I believe scripture uses that word "seal" as something that's guaranteed. Everyone that I've asked can only give me Romans 4:11 or they quote from other authors. I've not seen a good biblical study yet that takes you through scripture to prove that the sacraments are "seals".
They say that the sacraments are "signs AND seals". I believe they are "signs OF the seal". They are pictures pointing to the substance. Here's a short explanation why I believe this is so. Any comments are welcome from both sides.
The greek word translated "seal" in Romans 4:11 is "sphragis" which means - a signet (as fencing in or protecting from misappropriation); by impl. The stamp impressed (a mark of privacy, or genuineness)
Wouldn't it be correct then, to say that the seal fences us in, protects us from theft and is a mark of genuineness? We could also say that it is God's mark of privacy, showing that we belong to the Lord. Is this not what happens when someone is given the Holy Spirit not when someone is sprinkled with water?
I cannot find any references speaking of the Old Testament ordinances being seals. I do however, see them spoken of as shadows in Colossians 2:17 and Hebrews 8:5.
The greek word for shadow is "skia" meaning - shade or a shadow (darkness or an adumbration).
Adumbration means to foreshadow, to give a sketchy representation, to suggest or disclose partially. There is nothing that I can find that shows these ordinances had any substance. They were pointing to the substance.
There are versus that show that a seal does have substance.
Ephesians 4:30: And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
John 6:37: ...which the son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. - our salvation is guaranteed in Christ who was sealed by God the Father
I believe that if we look at Romans 4:11 in the following way that it harmonizes better with the rest of scripture -
Romans 4:11:
"And Abraham received the sign of circumcision (the sign of spiritual circumcision which was the physical), which (spiritual) circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had when he was uncircumcised (that is, which he had before he was physically circumcised in the flesh)."
Could we not view the second "circumcision" in this passage as spiritual circumcision not physical circumcision?
It seems to make more sense to me to view it in this way. Keep in mind that I don't claim to be a master theologian and I realize that I haven't exhausted the study on this subject.
So what am I? I think I'm somewhere in between a Presbyterian and a Baptist. A Bapterian!
In Christ,
Scot
First of all let me say that I believe that we are to baptise our children. I believe the sign is to be placed on them because they are set apart in the sense that they are in a christian covenant family. It seems though that when looking at the word "seal", I'm closer to the Baptist view. Let me explain:
When looking at how the reformed confessions explain baptism and the Lord's supper, I have a problem with the usage of the word "seal". When reading commentaries on the sacraments from reformed authors, it is always stressed that the sacraments DO NOT bring salvation. Yet, I believe scripture uses that word "seal" as something that's guaranteed. Everyone that I've asked can only give me Romans 4:11 or they quote from other authors. I've not seen a good biblical study yet that takes you through scripture to prove that the sacraments are "seals".
They say that the sacraments are "signs AND seals". I believe they are "signs OF the seal". They are pictures pointing to the substance. Here's a short explanation why I believe this is so. Any comments are welcome from both sides.
The greek word translated "seal" in Romans 4:11 is "sphragis" which means - a signet (as fencing in or protecting from misappropriation); by impl. The stamp impressed (a mark of privacy, or genuineness)
Wouldn't it be correct then, to say that the seal fences us in, protects us from theft and is a mark of genuineness? We could also say that it is God's mark of privacy, showing that we belong to the Lord. Is this not what happens when someone is given the Holy Spirit not when someone is sprinkled with water?
I cannot find any references speaking of the Old Testament ordinances being seals. I do however, see them spoken of as shadows in Colossians 2:17 and Hebrews 8:5.
The greek word for shadow is "skia" meaning - shade or a shadow (darkness or an adumbration).
Adumbration means to foreshadow, to give a sketchy representation, to suggest or disclose partially. There is nothing that I can find that shows these ordinances had any substance. They were pointing to the substance.
There are versus that show that a seal does have substance.
Ephesians 4:30: And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
John 6:37: ...which the son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. - our salvation is guaranteed in Christ who was sealed by God the Father
I believe that if we look at Romans 4:11 in the following way that it harmonizes better with the rest of scripture -
Romans 4:11:
"And Abraham received the sign of circumcision (the sign of spiritual circumcision which was the physical), which (spiritual) circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had when he was uncircumcised (that is, which he had before he was physically circumcised in the flesh)."
Could we not view the second "circumcision" in this passage as spiritual circumcision not physical circumcision?
It seems to make more sense to me to view it in this way. Keep in mind that I don't claim to be a master theologian and I realize that I haven't exhausted the study on this subject.
So what am I? I think I'm somewhere in between a Presbyterian and a Baptist. A Bapterian!
In Christ,
Scot