Baptism and Circumcision Compared

[kenrapoza]

I found this summary posted over at the Puritan Board and figured I would put the link here since it's kind of a helpful concise Scripture list covering the Reformed/Presbyterian view of the connection between Old Covenant circumcision and New Covenant baptism. It's not exhaustive but it's a decent start.

http://www.puritanboard.com/content/circumcision-baptism-compared-60/

 

[hedrick]

One surprising omission is that review is the role of circumcision and baptism as sealing our membership in the covenant community.

 

[Judson]

Ken, have you considered the differences between the two? there are problems to making too close a connection between the two. For example, does Ishmael and Esau's circumcision suggest that they were included into the covenant people of God? Also, consider the ill-treating that circumcision gets in the New Testament.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Ken, have you considered the differences between the two? there are problems to making too close a connection between the two. For example, does Ishmael and Esau's circumcision suggest that they were included into the covenant people of God? Also, consider the ill-treating that circumcision gets in the New Testament.

On the other hand, does the baptism of anyone suggest that they were included in the covenant people of God? It seems to me that the analogy holds on that particular point. The writer of Hebrews certainly did not accept the idea that the entire 'Jewish' community was the Israel of God.

On the second point, one should consider how the word circumcision is used in the New Testament. It's not necessarily speaking of the act itself, but rather of a certain group of people. This might also have an analogy in that there are those who insist upon baptism as a necessary condition of salvation.

In deference to your caution though, i happen to think that it is a good warning for all. No analogy is perfect. If one insists on a literal interpretation of the parables that Jesus told, the parables will break down and can be used to teach things that Jesus would have never implied.

 

[Judson]

Let's go to Scripture:
Col 2:11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

It's clear here that the new testament parallel, or fulfillment, is the circumcision done without hands. It is a spiritual circumcision that works through faith (v. 12). This faith is the instrument by which covenant participants are buried and raised with Christ, of which baptism is the picture.

We should remember where the practice of baptism arose from: John the baptizer. He did not baptize infants, or view baptism as a kind of second circumcision.

Paedobaptists often say how they read the scriptures from beginning to end, and seeing the parallels between the old and new and applying the themes likewise. Baptists are charged with starting with the new testament and interpreting the old in light of the new. I think the baptists have it right. Baptism and circumcision are very different things and we should pick up our cue regarding baptism from the NT accounts of them primarily.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

We should remember where the practice of baptism arose from: John the baptizer. He did not baptize infants, or view baptism as a kind of second circumcision.

Absolutely absurd. The practise of baptism certainly did NOT begin with John the Baptist. The practise of baptism existed in Israel long before John.

The comment concerning whether or not infants were baptised by John is pure speculation and argument from silence. The text does not say yea or nay.

 

[Judson]

Absolutely absurd. The practise of baptism certainly did NOT begin with John the Baptist. The practise of baptism existed in Israel long before John.

The comment concerning whether or not infants were baptised by John is pure speculation and argument from silence. The text does not say yea or nay.

I'm talking of Christian baptism, not Jewish proselyte baptism. But now that you bring it up, would it not be incumbent on the paedobaptist to show that circumcision and ancient Jewish baptism were parallel before we talk of its use in the NT? As to the slience of infants being baptized by John, you are right that it is speculative, but it is still heavily in favour of nay. The ONLY examples are of people bringing THEMSELVES forward to be baptized by John. The silence is not equal on both sides.

You have also not interacted with the text, which I believe to be key pivot point

cheers.

 

[kenrapoza]

Well - I was going to respond to the original challenge, but in reading the susequent exchange it's obvious that we need to be careful. This is not a debate forum, it is a Presbyterian forum. The very purpose for the different Christian traditions to have their own forums is so that they can discuss their own matters amongst themselves without being called into question by Christians from different traditions who disagree with their doctrine. There is a statement of faith posted here, and while you are free to fellowship and ask questions about our doctrine for greater mutual understanding, this is not the place to deny it.

Either way - I do appreciate your challenge Judson. Yes, I have certainly considered the differences, this is a subject that I have studied quite a bit. In my studies I've also interacted with the points you've mentioned, and when properly understood they do not in any way conflict with Covenantal Infant Baptism. Jewish proselyte baptism, while it may have been practiced, is not really a part of the NT theology of baptism.

 

[Judson]

Sure Ken. Let me change my posture to one of asking questions to better understand the covenantal perspective. The way I see it, Presbyterians make a distinction between the covenant established and the covenant administered, and you get this from viewing the OT and NT as mirror images of each other. Fair enough. Have you considered the implication, though, of viewing a person, who might be reprobate, and naming him within the pale of covenant membership and privileges? Does this not imply that God would covenant with someone he does not intend to save? If other words, what privilege does the covenant in Christ offer if not salvation?

 

[kenrapoza]

Sure Ken. Let me change my posture to one of asking questions to better understand the covenantal perspective. The way I see it, Presbyterians make a distinction between the covenant established and the covenant administered, and you get this from viewing the OT and NT as mirror images of each other. Fair enough. Have you considered the implication, though, of viewing a person, who might be reprobate, and naming him within the pale of covenant membership and privileges? Does this not imply that God would covenant with someone he does not intend to save? If other words, what privilege does the covenant in Christ offer if not salvation?

Okay - good question, thank you for asking. This is where the negative side of the sacrament comes into play. Presbyterians actually agree with our Reformed Baptists brothers that ultimately and eschatologically, the Covenant of Grace is only with the elect, those who are "in Christ" and have him as their federal head. Where we disagree is the place of covenant children in God's covenant community prior to the consummation and the separation of the sheep and the goats.

This side of glory, the ekklesia is a mixed multitude (I'm using that term instead of "church" because I'm being more general and also including the Old Covenant assembly). It is certainly true that not everyone who is baptized is regenerate, just as it is equally obvious that not all who were circumcised were regenerate. In this instance their mark is a witness against them. Paul says that Abraham believed the same gospel that we do, and God gave him a gospel sign that was a sign of the righteousness that comes by faith because he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. To someone who receives the mark but does not place faith in the gospel, to them it is a sign of judgment. Abraham was then commanded to administer the mark to his children, not because they made a profession of faith, but because of God's promise to be a God unto him and to his children. This is not to say that it is guaranteed that all his descendents would be true believers, but that God places a high value on the covenant family to bring the children to faith and instruct them in the ways of the Lord. Scripture does not seem to view covenant children as heathens in a believing home, but rather as gifts from God who are to be loved, instructed and catechized - which is not something you do to someone who denies the gospel.

So what do Presbyterians say about those who turn out to be believers? To those who were circumcised and yet rejected God and His promises, their circumcision is a witness against them, that they will ultimately be cutoff in judgment and will not enter into the ultimate Sabbath rest in the Kingdom. Similarly, those who are baptized and then effectively repudiate their baptism through unbelief are judged by their baptism. They are drowned in the waters of God's judgment. Remember that the sacrament of entry into God's covenant people is not necessarily that the very person receiving the sacrament will inherit the gospel promises. The sacrament is a sign that believers will receive the gospel promises unbelievers will be under the curse of God. But entry into that people brins one near to the preaching of the gospel and the means of grace. They have more light and opportunity than those who are far from the administration of the gospel. Reformed and Presbyterians also tend to view apostasy in this manner.

Does that help shed any light? I'm just shooting from the hip here.

 

[hedrick]

Ken, have you considered the differences between the two? there are problems to making too close a connection between the two. For example, does Ishmael and Esau's circumcision suggest that they were included into the covenant people of God? Also, consider the ill-treating that circumcision gets in the New Testament.

Yes, Ishmael and Esau were members of the visible covenant people at the time they were circumcised. Baptism is a means of grace. With it we enter into the visible Church, which is a community established by God to help us. It is not a badge that we are saved.

Circumcision is not treated badly in itself. Those who want to force Gentiles to submit to the Law of Moses before they can be united with Christ are treated badly. Circumcision has also been replaced, of course. That doesn't remove the importance of circumcision. But Baptism is the sign of a new and more complete administration of the covenant. Why would we want someone to submit to the old one when a more complete one is available?

 

[Judson]

Abraham was then commanded to administer the mark to his children, not because they made a profession of faith, but because of God's promise to be a God unto him and to his children.

Off the top of my head, we are not really told why exactly he was to administer it to his children, but it can't be as simple as being their God. Was he the God of Esau? No, I think that his naming of himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, excludes Esau at least implicitly. As well, if he is the God of Ishmael, then we are of the same stock as Muslims, which is problematic. I think it's more of a matter of identification with Abraham (and his faith).

This is not to say that it is guaranteed that all his descendents would be true believers, but that God places a high value on the covenant family to bring the children to faith and instruct them in the ways of the Lord. Scripture does not seem to view covenant children as heathens in a believing home, but rather as gifts from God who are to be loved, instructed and catechized - which is not something you do to someone who denies the gospel.

So, does this mean that someone can be included into the family of God by natural descent? How does this then fit in with John 1:12-13, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." ? As for children, we both agree that they are gifts from God and should be instructed in the Lord - there is no point of conflict there.

Remember that the sacrament of entry into God's covenant people is not necessarily that the very person receiving the sacrament will inherit the gospel promises. The sacrament is a sign that believers will receive the gospel promises unbelievers will be under the curse of God.

It is not merely that presbyterians view infants as receiving a sacrament or a mere sign. What about the "sealing"? Where in Scripture is one sealed only outwardly, but not spiritually? There is a very clear declaration at baptism (perhaps not in so many words, but implied) that an infant IS IN the covenant, IS a Christian, IS a rightful member of the Church, and IS in the family of God.

But entry into that people brins one near to the preaching of the gospel and the means of grace. They have more light and opportunity than those who are far from the administration of the gospel. Reformed and Presbyterians also tend to view apostasy in this manner.

I've heard it taught by presbyterians that children who are baptized who do not end up believing are judged with greater severity than those who are not, as if they are paying a greater price for somehow wriggling out of God's sealing of them. How does that work?

 

[kenrapoza]

Off the top of my head, we are not really told why exactly he was to administer it to his children, but it can't be as simple as being their God. Was he the God of Esau? No, I think that his naming of himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, excludes Esau at least implicitly. As well, if he is the God of Ishmael, then we are of the same stock as Muslims, which is problematic. I think it's more of a matter of identification with Abraham (and his faith).

Hmmm…I think I’m going to have to disagree on the point that we are not told why Abraham was commanded to administer circumcision to his children. We are told right in Gen. 17:7 when God says that He is establishing the covenant with him and his offspring after him. God continues the explanation in vv 9 and 10 with "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep between me and you and your offspring after you. Every male among you shall be circumcised." In other words, what I'm saying is that God instituted household circumcision as an illustration of the nature of the gospel being a promise attached to representation by a federal head ("in Christ" vs "in Adam") and that this promise is to be taught in the home to the children as a primary vehicle for the extension of the kingdom. But - the promise was always conditioned upon faith in God. It is not a blanket declaration that all of his descendants will be saved. It has always been impossible to please God without faith (Heb. 11:6) and it has always been the case that the righteous shall live by faith (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11).

It wasn’t a mystery to Abraham or to his descendants why they were to continue to circumcise their infants, the children of Israel knew that it was because of the promise given to Abraham. These promised generational blessings were reiterated throughout the OT. They knew that they were God’s covenant community. They understood the concept of household and head of household.

Esau was part of the external covenant community, but he was presumably unregenerate given his actions. Not everyone in the assembled covenant community possesses a true inward spiritual relation to the covenant. In other words, everyone who was circumcised in the flesh wasn’t necessarily circumcised in the heart. Like I said before, Esau’s circumcision was a witness against him. It was a sign of judgment. And with Ishmael, he was not the child of promise, his lineage does not affect us and does not imply that we are of the same stock as Muslims. Abraham circumcised him as part of his household in obedience to God’s command. We are not told of Ishmael’s spiritual state, but we can assume that Abraham would have taught faith in the one true God to his children. The fact that his descendants may have gone apostate is merely a reflection of the covenantal warning given in Gen. 17.

So, does this mean that someone can be included into the family of God by natural descent? How does this then fit in with John 1:12-13, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." ? As for children, we both agree that they are gifts from God and should be instructed in the Lord - there is no point of conflict there.

Ah – thank you for asking this question, as it allows me to clarify what I was saying. Certainly we cannot rely on our physical descent to guarantee our salvation. As I’m sure you recall that was one of the great sins of the Pharisees that both Jesus and John the Baptist railed against. What I was saying was that God works through means and one of His greatest means for building the church and extending His kingdom is through the ordinary covenant family. God uses Christian parents who are faithful in their vocation to train their children in the way they should go (Prov. 22:6) and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) to bring the gospel to the next generation. In other words, God’s intention for a Christian family is to raise up a godly seed (Mal. 2:15).

Now – what I mean is that it is the gospel that brings the children to salvation. As they are brought to church to be taught the gospel, as they see their parents’ personal lives formed and shaped by the gospel, then they are being faithfully brought near to the means of grace (the gospel) wherein salvation lies (the gospel). This is to say that they do not become true believers simply because their parents are, but because God blesses them with the gift of faith through the gospel that they are being saturated in.

It is not merely that presbyterians view infants as receiving a sacrament or a mere sign. What about the "sealing"? Where in Scripture is one sealed only outwardly, but not spiritually? There is a very clear declaration at baptism (perhaps not in so many words, but implied) that an infant IS IN the covenant, IS a Christian, IS a rightful member of the Church, and IS in the family of God.

I've heard it taught by presbyterians that children who are baptized who do not end up believing are judged with greater severity than those who are not, as if they are paying a greater price for somehow wriggling out of God's sealing of them. How does that work?

I’d like to respond to both of these segments at once because I think that they are dealing with the same thing at root. Again I would like to say that I really appreciate what you’re saying here. Your comments are clear and sharp and they really help advance the discussion and dig deeper into the issue at hand. We're getting some good iron-sharpening here! One thing that must be kept in mind is that the Reformed view of the sacraments is one that is God-centered, not man-centered. In other words, they are signs and seals of God’s covenant, along with the attached promises and sanctions; they are not seals of anything in the recipient per se. Although this may not sound very profound, it is completely at odds with how most Christians view Baptism, even if it is only implicit in their understanding and not realized. Perhaps a quote will help explain the distinction a bit better. From Thomas M’Crie:

Baptism is not an assurance of salvation to any, or a pledge of sonship. In this sense it is the Spirit alone that is the seal of God's people. It is in [this] sense only, namely, in that of the confirmation of a deed, that we use the term in relation to baptism. It is the seal which God has been pleased to append to the charter of his covenant…Thus, while baptism viewed as a symbol has a relation to the grace of the covenant, viewed as a seal it stands related to the covenant itself…Baptism is the sign, but it is not, properly or directly, the seal of regeneration; it symbolizes the blessing, but it seals the covenant. By keeping this distinction in view, you will save yourselves from a world of confusion. By not attending to it our views have been sadly misrepresented…In accordance, therefore, with the very design of a sacrament, as well as with the uniform doctrine of the primitive church and of our reformers, we maintain that baptism is not merely a symbol of spiritual grace, but is the seal of God's holy covenant. And remember it is God's seal. It is not the baptizer's, nor the baptized's, but God's only. Its validity is independent of man's act. God delivers the promise signed and sealed, presenting it to all, and saying, "Here is my salvation: behold the seal of the King!" And there it stands, sealed and sure, whether we accept or reject it. "If we believe not, he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself.

In other words, though baptism has symbolism in accordance with covenant blessings and sanctions, in the sense of being a seal – the seal is one of confirmation and authenticity. If the Presbyterian churches you’ve been to haven’t explained this or clarified it when they performed baptisms, then that is unfortunate. These things should be made absolutely clear by the minister so that there is no confusion about what we are and aren’t doing.

Now – there is a sense in which the child is in. They have a status in the visible church as a covenant child. They are brought each week to sit under gospel proclamation to hear of Christ and him crucified. But their status in the invisible church (their spiritual state) is left up to God and His grace and His promises. It is not guaranteed by their baptism. Nor is its validity dependant upon the time that the covenantal conditions are met. The seal is simply God’s pledge that when the covenantal conditions of faith are met, the promised blessings will apply. This is what the WCF teaches in WCF 27.6: "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time." Viewing the evidence in the NT, it certainly seems that children were included in the church in some way and weren’t viewed as heathens in their midst (1Cor. 7:14; Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20; Matt. 19:14; Mark 10:14-16; Luke 18:15-17; Acts 2:37-39). We raise our children in the church and teach them the gospel, we rely only on God’s grace for regeneration, and we would consider later sustained unbelief to be a repudiation of their baptism and their upbringing.

 

[RefCath]

J. V. Fesko's Water, Word and Spirit is a good book on this issue.

 

[kenrapoza]

I've heard excellent things about that book - have you had a chance to read it?

 

[Judson]

Ken, thanks for your incisive answers. I'm getting a grasp on the presbyterian view of covenant children. Let's continue sharpening our discussion of Abraham.

First. Your Genesis 17 argument is correct insomuch as the OT account is all we have to go on with regard to the covenant made with Abraham. Galatians 3:16 must be taken into account, and perhaps with greater force, because the inspired Paul is presenting the Christocentric interpretation of the Genesis promise: "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ."

One cannot deny what Paul is saying here regardless of how much it differs from the Genesis context - his (re)interpretation for the new covenant community still stands as fully authoritative. What is he saying? That the promise - in actuality - is NOT for Abraham's physical children, but for Christ and those who are in Christ by faith. He states it plainly from v.26ff, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise."

Second, it is important to note that the "promise" is not given to us or our children per se, but to Christ, and Abraham as the archetype of our faith. We are: 1) recipients of the blessings of the promise (Gal 3:14); and 2) heirs, according to (ie. resulting from) the promise (v. 29).

Another NT illumination on the topic is found in Romans 9:8 "it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." This is significant. Paul tells us who the real "offspring" are - they are a spiritual covenant people. We know that the entire point of that passage is to argue that not all who are descended from Israel are children of promise. It's clear here that Esau was no child of the promise, only of the flesh. To say he was included externally really has no meaning at all and it places doubt on God's fidelity to promise. I don't see a point in being an external member; there is no hope or encouragement in such a status.

It seems, then, that covenant, promise, and membership in true Israel (invisible Church) are all elective realities with no regard to external and natural administrations. The Presbyterian system creates an elegant parallel with Abrahamic circumcision, but only on its dependence on a pre-Pauline interpretation of the covenant.

 

[kenrapoza]

Hi Judson,

Your post raised some great points that I respond to below. I think you went right where the discussion needed to go, by bringing in the relevant New Testament discussions about Abraham. We actually agree on much concerning the passages in Galatians and Romans. I will elaborate on that below, as well as our disagreements, and I point out why I think they are significant for the Presbyterian view of baptism.

Ken, thanks for your incisive answers. I'm getting a grasp on the presbyterian view of covenant children. Let's continue sharpening our discussion of Abraham.

First. Your Genesis 17 argument is correct insomuch as the OT account is all we have to go on with regard to the covenant made with Abraham. Galatians 3:16 must be taken into account, and perhaps with greater force, because the inspired Paul is presenting the Christocentric interpretation of the Genesis promise: "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ."

One cannot deny what Paul is saying here regardless of how much it differs from the Genesis context - his (re)interpretation for the new covenant community still stands as fully authoritative. What is he saying? That the promise - in actuality - is NOT for Abraham's physical children, but for Christ and those who are in Christ by faith. He states it plainly from v.26ff, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise."

Second, it is important to note that the "promise" is not given to us or our children per se, but to Christ, and Abraham as the archetype of our faith. We are: 1) recipients of the blessings of the promise (Gal 3:14); and 2) heirs, according to (ie. resulting from) the promise (v. 29).

Another NT illumination on the topic is found in Romans 9:8 "it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." This is significant. Paul tells us who the real "offspring" are - they are a spiritual covenant people. We know that the entire point of that passage is to argue that not all who are descended from Israel are children of promise. It's clear here that Esau was no child of the promise, only of the flesh. To say he was included externally really has no meaning at all and it places doubt on God's fidelity to promise. I don't see a point in being an external member; there is no hope or encouragement in such a status.

It seems, then, that covenant, promise, and membership in true Israel (invisible Church) are all elective realities with no regard to external and natural administrations. The Presbyterian system creates an elegant parallel with Abrahamic circumcision, but only on its dependence on a pre-Pauline interpretation of the covenant.

Certainly Paul’s words in Galatians must be taken into account, but I think you’re actually pitting Paul against himself. Although Paul is bringing out the Christological significance of the Abrahamic covenant in Gal. 3, he also makes clear in Rom. 4:18 that the promise includes physical descendents. He does this because the Hebrew word for “offspring” is a collective noun with both singular and plural senses. He uses the singular sense in Gal. 3 and the plural sense in Rom. 4. My point is that the original promises given to Abraham clearly include physical descendants “as the dust of the earth” (Gen. 13:16) and the “number of stars” (Gen. 15:5) which includes “many nations” (Gen. 17:4) and Paul doesn’t obliterate that in Gal. 3. New Testament typological uses of the Old Testament do not contradict the original meaning but illuminate the original texts with the light of Christ’s saving activities. The original text does not mean that all of Abraham’s descendants will be believers who enjoy all the promises of the gospel. We are agreed that Paul is making the point that only those who are united to Christ by faith partake of the full benefits of the gospel and enjoy eternal life with God.


Paul’s strong emphasis of the Christological aspect of the promise given to Abraham is in response to the heresy of the Judaizers who claim that Paul is teaching a man-made gospel (1:10-12). They are saying that Paul is wrong and that Gentiles need to be circumcised and become Jews in order to be real Christians. They also need to obey the Law of Moses. The Judaizers were abusing circumcision and abusing the Law. They were considering circumcision to be nothing more than a national boundary marker, a sign of descent from Abraham. But it is clear from what Paul says here and elsewhere (Rom. 4) that circumcision was more than that. Paul’s response is that nobody will be justified by the law, but only by grace through faith in Christ (2:16). Paul points out that the Abrahamic covenant of promise preceded the Mosaic Law-based covenant and therefore it is not annulled by it. In verses 15-17 he uses a human contract as an example and makes it clear that because it is ultimately Christ who was the child of promise, the Abrahamic covenant will never pass away and the gospel will never be eclipsed by the Law. The very purpose of the Law was to point us back to the need for God’s grace as displayed through the Abrahamic promise.


Paul calls this Abrahamic promise “the gospel” (Gal. 3:8). He also says that the widening of the gospel to the Gentile nations is “the blessing of Abraham coming to the Gentiles who receive the Spirit by faith” (Gal. 3:14). This is huge – it means that us Christians believe in the very same gospel that Abraham believed in. We know that Abraham was counted righteous before God because of faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6). We also know that the just have always lived by faith because that was stated under the Old Covenant administration (Hab. 2:4) and repeated under the New (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). We also know that it has always been impossible to please God without faith (Heb. 11, especially v. 6). It's not as if Abraham is now the father of those who believe, but before he was the father of those who don't believe. The whole Galatians passage stresses the continuity that the New Covenant Christian enjoys with Abraham and the gospel promise given to him in pre-incarnation form.


So now, given what I have argued above, here is my sub-main point: Ultimately, the promise has always been for those who believe in the gospel. It was never for those who could merely claim physical descent from Abraham without the faith of Abraham. If that were not the case then the distinction between being a Jew outwardly (with physical circumcision) and a Jew inwardly (with circumcision of the heart) wouldn’t have made any sense.



Now here is my real main point: It was in that very promise given to Abraham, which Paul calls the gospel, that God commanded the sign of that gospel, a sign of righteousness through faith (Rom. 4:11), to be given to his sons in infancy. When we administer that sign to our infants, it is not a declaration that they are saved, but that they need salvation. It is a sign that this child is born in sin and needs to be cleansed from that sin by grace through faith in Christ. In other words, children were given the sign because of the gospel, not in spite of it. Isaac was circumcised as a seal of God’s promise and a sign that he needed saving faith himself in God’s promise (given to Abraham) for salvation. So, as Presbyterians, we see a clear command from God regarding our children that also signifies a “status” of the child in the visible community that seems to be confirmed many times in the New Testament. We would need a clear declaration from God that this has changed, that all of a sudden our children are not to be given the covenant sign in order to justify denying the sign to our covenant children. But that would go against the grain of God’s redemptive work. Don’t our children still need to be cleansed from sin? Don’t they still need to believe in Jesus? Isn’t God’s intention for a family still to raise up a Godly seed (Mal. 2:15), or has that changed also?



We cannot decide for ourselves what has changed in the coming of Christ; that must be given to us from God in Scripture. It is clear that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial aspects of the Law and that His gospel shoots through the entire Old Testament. It is also true that the form of the promise has changed in the momentous redemptive-historical advance that was made with Christ’s life, death and resurrection (hence the change from bloody sacraments to non-bloody sacraments); but the essence of the promise has not changed. We believe in one Lord who does not change (James. 1:17; Heb. 13:8), and one gospel through one savior, the only name under heaven by which men might be saved (Acts 4:12).

 

[Judson]

Ken,
You correctly point to Romans 4 as Paul’s affirmation that the promise still has descendants in view, thus Paul is not completely dispensing of centuries of progressive revelation. However, here as in elsewhere, those descendants are not physical. We’ve already seen in v. 11, that he is the father “of all who believe.” He reiterates in v 16, “Therefore, the promise comes by FAITH, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring … He is the father of us all.” That “US” is clearly speaking of the faith-full. The discourse ends with yet another clear indication as to who Paul is referring to, in verse 23f. “The words ‘it was credited to him’ were written not for him alone, but also for us, who BELIEVE in him …” The promised nations that were in Abraham’s loins are descendants indeed, but Paul is clear that this offspring are the those who believe. I can see no where where the promised offspring, in Pauline, or any New Testament thought, is physical. So, I would disagree that his argument in Galatians and Romans is bifurcated between physical and spiritual seed.

For the most part, though, you had me agreeing with you all the way up until your main point of trying to connect Abraham’s circumcision, received as a sign of his faith, and the mark given to infants. It’s a non-sequitur to say that circumcision (signifying faith) parallels infant baptism (for those who do not yet have faith). If baptism is a sign that they “need salvation”, then it ought to be administered to everyone, whether believers or pagans. If this were the meaning of infant baptism, then it offers nothing unique for those in the covenant of grace. Whether or not to give the covenant sign to our children comes to the question of what baptism is. Does it parallel circumcision as much as paedobaptists think it does? It seems that the Credo-baptist framework makes for an even clearer and meaningful parallel, in that the sign goes to the one having faith – Abraham received circumcision upon faith; the believer receives baptism upon faith. As to why circumcision was applied to male descendants, we would both agree that the Messianic hope has much to do with that. It was first and foremost a reminder of Abraham’s faith, and it was also sent down the line in anticipation of the promised seed, who is the object of that faith. Once the Seed arrives, that’s where your change occurs. Paul’s spiritual interpretation of “offspring” closes off the concept of covenant by means of natural descent. Offspring that was once thought of as natural is now spiritual; blessings that were once thought of as physical are now spiritual. To send the covenant mark down the generations once again is no longer necessary, for the Messiah has come and is covenanting with those who are of the faith of Abraham – the nations who have been promised. This is not to say children of believers are as wretched as possibly can be. Scripture says otherwise. Just as the spouse of a believer does not baptism to be considered "holy" by God; baptism does not need to be given to an infant to grant them a special status.

Here’s a thought-provoking question, which I have not a reasonable answer to: why is the mark given only to INFANTS of believing households? What if the family came to faith very late in life and their children are fully grown? Is the promise still for them and for their children? Should they all receive baptism? I’ve actually seen this practiced. A couple became Christians and forced their unconverted son, well into his thirties to get baptized (they were Korean, so submission was expected). Thoughts?

 

[kenrapoza]

Hi Judson,

One thing that I have to admit that I'm envious of is your ability to make your points concisely. I'm trying not to be as verbose as humanly possible, but I know I still am. I fear that this post will be just as prolix as my previous ones, so please bear with me.

Ken,
You correctly point to Romans 4 as Paul’s affirmation that the promise still has descendants in view, thus Paul is not completely dispensing of centuries of progressive revelation. However, here as in elsewhere, those descendants are not physical. We’ve already seen in v. 11, that he is the father “of all who believe.” He reiterates in v 16, “Therefore, the promise comes by FAITH, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring … He is the father of us all.” That “US” is clearly speaking of the faith-full. The discourse ends with yet another clear indication as to who Paul is referring to, in verse 23f. “The words ‘it was credited to him’ were written not for him alone, but also for us, who BELIEVE in him …” The promised nations that were in Abraham’s loins are descendants indeed, but Paul is clear that this offspring are the those who believe. I can see no where where the promised offspring, in Pauline, or any New Testament thought, is physical. So, I would disagree that his argument in Galatians and Romans is bifurcated between physical and spiritual seed.

Yeah – we’re pretty much agreed on that, the promise of the gospel is for those who believe. I kind of feel like we’re talking past each other on some points. The point that I’m bringing out is that it is clear from Rom. 4:12 that Abraham has always been the father of those who believe. The descendants of Abraham will ultimately be those who are of the faith of Abraham from before and after Christ. That is not a point of discontinuity between the Old Testament administration and the New Covenant administration, but rather a point of continuity. Justification has always been by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. There certainly is a physical aspect to the covenant, which is ultimately the promise of the resurrection of the body as guaranteed by the physical resurrection of Christ!

For the most part, though, you had me agreeing with you all the way up until your main point of trying to connect Abraham’s circumcision, received as a sign of his faith, and the mark given to infants. It’s a non-sequitur to say that circumcision (signifying faith) parallels infant baptism (for those who do not yet have faith). If baptism is a sign that they “need salvation”, then it ought to be administered to everyone, whether believers or pagans. If this were the meaning of infant baptism, then it offers nothing unique for those in the covenant of grace. Whether or not to give the covenant sign to our children comes to the question of what baptism is. Does it parallel circumcision as much as paedobaptists think it does? It seems that the Credo-baptist framework makes for an even clearer and meaningful parallel, in that the sign goes to the one having faith – Abraham received circumcision upon faith; the believer receives baptism upon faith. As to why circumcision was applied to male descendants, we would both agree that the Messianic hope has much to do with that. It was first and foremost a reminder of Abraham’s faith, and it was also sent down the line in anticipation of the promised seed, who is the object of that faith. Once the Seed arrives, that’s where your change occurs. Paul’s spiritual interpretation of “offspring” closes off the concept of covenant by means of natural descent. Offspring that was once thought of as natural is now spiritual; blessings that were once thought of as physical are now spiritual. To send the covenant mark down the generations once again is no longer necessary, for the Messiah has come and is covenanting with those who are of the faith of Abraham – the nations who have been promised. This is not to say children of believers are as wretched as possibly can be. Scripture says otherwise. Just as the spouse of a believer does not baptism to be considered "holy" by God; baptism does not need to be given to an infant to grant them a special status.

Here’s a thought-provoking question, which I have not a reasonable answer to: why is the mark given only to INFANTS of believing households? What if the family came to faith very late in life and their children are fully grown? Is the promise still for them and for their children? Should they all receive baptism? I’ve actually seen this practiced. A couple became Christians and forced their unconverted son, well into his thirties to get baptized (they were Korean, so submission was expected). Thoughts?

I have several major concerns about how you’re using Galatians 3 to deny the initiation of covenant children into the visible covenant community. It’s not that Paul is re-interpreting the Abrahamic promise in a new spiritualized way, he is illuminating what has always been true. The Abrahamic covenant is clear that the promised blessings are conditioned upon faith, and that ultimately the true seed is the promised Messiah, and then by adoption as sons all those united to him by faith. That’s why I am pointing out that Paul was responding to those Judaizers who denied that reality, even though should have known it. It’s not as if the Judaizers would have been correct if they lived prior to the coming of Christ because Abraham has never been the father of those who don’t believe. Paul’s point in Gal. 3 is very important because he is stressing the very thing that the Presbyterian view of baptism is stressing, that we are saved because of the promise given to Abraham (Gal. 3:14). It seems to me that this is Paul’s very point – that the Law of Moses came 430 years after the gospel promise of Abraham, therefore the Law does not annul the promise and it was never intended as a means to salvation; it actually points us back to our need for the gospel. The continuity between New Covenant believers who are united to Christ by faith in the gospel as taught by Paul and previous believers who were united to Christ by faith in the gospel as revealed through the Abrahamic promise cannot be overstated. Embedded in the Abrahamic promise was God’s economy of placing great importance upon the institution of the family as a means for propagating that gospel. Therefore, covenant children were initiated into the visible administration of the Covenant of Grace. The real non-sequitur here is this: Both Christians and faithful Jews are children of Abraham through faith, therefore the status of covenant children has radically changed with the coming of Christ without any specific statement in the New Testament. The New Testament never uses the Christological aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant to remove the children from the visible assembly as a supposed “blessing”. To use Paul’s defense of the gospel against the Judaizers in that way is not consistent with the text or the rest of the New Testament. To interpret the Galatians text in that way denies the very point it is making for if Paul is saying that the big change is now that the promise is only for those who are faithful, therefore only professors of faith are to be baptized, then it would cast aspersion on the God-ordained practice of infant circumcision. You seem to agree that circumcision is a sign of faith (Rom. 4:11), but you must also take into account that it is not a seal of “faith” but a seal of the “righteousness that comes by faith” (Rom. 4:11). You say that the Baptist view makes a better parallel between circumcision and baptism because it sees the Christian as receiving the sign of prior faith just as Abraham did. But of course I have to ask, did Isaac or Jacob receive the sign of circumcision because of a profession of faith? Of course not. I know that you locate the reason for them receiving circumcision in the fact that the Messiah had not yet come, but that ignores much of the Biblical data regarding the sign of covenant initiation.

I’ve noticed that Baptists tend to have a very reductionistic view of both circumcision and baptism. In order to come to the Baptist conclusion regarding the practice of infant initiation, I would have to strip away a large portion of the meaning of the sacrament. It is not just a sign that the Messiah hadn’t yet come, but it was also a sign of cleansing from sin, of regeneration, of righteousness by faith, of union with Christ, of covenant initiation for being in a believing household set apart from the Lord, and of judgment for being a covenant breaker. If your view of circumcision is correct then the Jews and Christians wouldn’t have been able to make sense of being circumcised in the heart. So what about baptism, what is it? It is a sign of cleansing from sin, or regeneration, of righteousness by faith, of union with Christ, of covenant initiation for being in a believing household set apart from the Lord, and of judgment for being a covenant breaker. Yes, the parallel is as close as he paedobaptist claims. Besides, both Paul and Peter make that very point. If Paul’s comment to the Judaizers really implies that our children no longer receive the covenant sign, then he is out of step with the rest of the New Testament that implies continuity in the status of our children, not a curtailing of it in the midst of widening the gospel to all the nations.

Not only that, but surely if that were the case then the Jewish opponents of the gospel would surely have seized on that as a way to attack the new Christian movement. Are we really to believe that while they made a huge stink about the new Christians not obeying the dietary laws and not ceremonially cleansing themselves in the rabbinic method, that they wouldn’t have made a peep about the radical change in excluding the children? Would they have said something like “How can you claim to be Biblical when you’re eating that pork chop? Oh, but you’re now reversing the sign that indicates God’s faithfulness to generations of those that love Him – yeah, that’s okay we’re cool with that.” This would have had them in an uproar, but yet there is not a hint of it in the New Testament.

The New Testament locates discontinuity when it compares the New Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant, one that was transient and law-based as opposed to one that is an everlasting promise.

Regarding your point that if baptism is a sign of the need of salvation then we should be baptizing pagans, that is completely out of step with God’s promise and the covenant family. Abraham didn’t go and circumcise the Chaldeans, he circumcised those of his household because that’s where God’s promise was operating.

 

[Judson]

Hey Ken,

yes, perhaps we are talking past each other somewhat, but hey I am learning a lot and your challenging my thinking, so praise God. I am stressing that Paul's interpretation of Abraham in light of the New Covenant turns upon the hinge of faith. We are descendants of Abraham and heirs of the covenant because we are of the faith of Abraham and we believe in the Seed that was promised to him. I am confident that we agree on this. The departure is happening due to your argument that circumcision marks off those who have an interest in the covenant promises. As for children being the usual means for propagating believers, I don't have a problem with that. We can agree on this. My problem is that the texts in question do not address this and should be used to argue for it, and it's not enough to say that it's "embedded" somewhere in the Abrahamic context. Paul is not making any point regarding covenant children and their status. In fact, I would argue that every time Paul, and the NT, speak of Abraham's children, he is usually making the point that some are children of promise, some are not; some are included, others are not.

Again, what is circumcision? Gen 17:11, "You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you." It is a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (and ultimately, the promised Seed). Paul gives further insight that it was the confirmation of the righteousness that comes by faith. Presbyterians are looking for the "big abrogation" in the way God deals with his covenant people, when all that is necessary is to note what was going on from the beginning. Circumcision was in NO way an indicator that the individual had an interest in the covenant promises (Ishmael, Gen 17:23). Those who bore the sign were not promised that the Messiah would descend through him, or that they would receive the land, or that God would walk with them. It always pointed back to the transaction that God made with Abraham and held no power to secure covenant blessings to the one who received it. There is a distinction that is often missed in covenant theology between the circumcision Abraham received in his flesh, and the circumcision received by his household. Abraham was circumcised as a result of God's promises to him. His household was circumcised because of their affiliation with Abraham. The Presbyterian view lumps circumcision altogether as a single symbol, as if to say, 'if you are marked, then you are in covenant with God.' If you want to speak of God's economy, it has always been his intention to actually save, successfully establish promises, to efficaciously circumcise the heart, not to make promises to entire families but not make good on those for most of them.

Therein is my confusion with the Presbyterian view. On the one hand, they make it sound as if it holds inherent spiritual authority to mark off those who are included in the covenant of grace, with real promises and blessings to those belonging to that household, and with grave consequences for those who step outside of it. On the other hand, when it becomes clear that not all who are marked are in the real covenant, then it conveniently becomes an external administration, a mere physical illustration of the gospel that says nothing about the person receiving it.

This is very different from NT baptism. Baptism by water and by the Spirit were essentially united. People were baptized because it was assumed that the Spirit had regenerated their hearts, buried them in Christ and raised them through faith; it was perceived that they were circumcised in heart. We have no evidence that the Apostles baptized people saying, "This is merely a picture of the gospel, of what may happen to you if you believe," or, "You're externally and conditionally in the covenant for now; we'll see if God actually saves you."

Back to the application of the Korean family that I mentioned earlier ... it is not that the church was baptizing pagans. The parents had become Christians, albeit late in life. They were baptized in a Presbyterian church which apparently practiced its theology faithfully: Only the mother and father were believers, but the son, well into his thirties but still living at home and showing no signs of personal faith was "forced" into baptism - after all, why should he not come under the external administration of the covenant as a result of being in the family of faith? Those in Abraham's house were circumcised regardless of the age, why not the same for baptism? They actually performed their household baptism to a Tee! That we should reel against this practice shows the inconsistency in Presbyterian thought, that is, it is fine for an infant to be baptized prior to faith, but the rules change when he is grown and able to believe for himself.

In the end, Presbyterian thought suggests that one can lay claim to the covenant through a family line. But this is expressly shot down even in the OT in the case of Abraham's and Isaac's own children. But hear me again, this is not to deny the importance of raising godly children, or of the plan that God has for them in propagating the gospel. Those are all fine and dandy.