Baptism and Circumcision Compared

kenrapoza

I Like Ice Cream
Aug 20, 2006
2,529
134
Massachusetts
✟11,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
The main difficulty that I’m having with your argument is that it seems to be saying this:

- God instituted the administration of a covenant sign to be given to a people whom He has selected

- This sign has nothing to do with the visible administration of the covenant or the community to whom it is given

I see these as self-refuting statements, it is an oxymoron. You may not wish to call it a covenant community, that is fine, but the idea is still there. When people joined, they were circumcised. Their circumcision was a sign of the promise that was being primarily administered with the Hebrew people. As I said in my previous post, I don’t see any way around this without denying what is plain and clear. When I refer to circumcision as the sign of the promise that God made to Abraham and it being the sign marking off the covenant community, I am saying the same thing. Abraham was commanded to give it to his sons and their descendants because of the promise to “be God to him and his seed after him.” In other words, there is a clear familial aspect of the administration with a clear ultimate reference to Christ. I imagine we agree on a lot of that.

Here’s something I need to understand from your side: If circumcision is a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac, and Ishmael is not a part of that covenant, then why was he circumcised?

I realize that you’re trying to get to the logical outworking of my argumentation, but that’s exactly what I’m doing also. I realize that you regard circumcision to be a Christological sign, but when you say that Ishmael’s circumcision was a sign of some favor with God based on his physical relationship with Abraham, and it is not related to the gospel promise, then you have emptied it of its Christology. Here is my point: We both agree that circumcision pointed to Christ because he is the ultimate seed of Abraham and ultimately the covenant is with him. If circumcision is a sign of that covenant, then its meaning cannot change from person to person, it must be consistent. If God commanded that Ishmael receive circumcision upon the establishment of the Abrahamic administration of the covenant, then he must have received it as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant. That’s what Abrahamic circumcision was. If he received the sign of the covenant, that is just another way of saying he was part of the visible administration of the covenant (i.e., the covenant community). His later circumstances were unique and are not normative for how we implement God’s commands. That is not in accordance with the historic Protestant hermeneutic of the analogia fide whereby we interpret more difficult and anomalous passages through the clear didactic ones.

We agree that the covenant is established with Isaac because he is in the chosen line from which Christ would come, but upon what exegetical basis do you conclude that Ishmael was excluded? What about the rest of the 300 in Abraham’s household? They were circumcised, but they weren’t Isaac – were they also excluded?

Regarding Ishmael’s descendants, I disagree with your logic because blind circumcision does not equal covenant faithfulness and therefore does not lead to the conclusion that circumcised Arabs are somehow part of the administration of the Abrahamic covenant if indeed circumcision signifies some connection with that covenant. The Old Testament clarifies the nature of circumcision as illustrating faith and regeneration. As I mentioned in my previous post, Abraham understood this. Unbelieving Jews were sharply chastised by God. Continuing the outward physical rite while jettisoning the content of the religion makes one covenantally unfaithful. This was the error of the Pharisees and Judaizers that Jesus and Paul railed against because they turned circumcision into an ethnic boundary marker while rejecting the Messiah to whom it pointed. Speculating about the nature of the households that proceeded from Ishmael and the extent to which they believed the gospel and for how long is not germane to the discussion and is beyond the scope of what scripture reveals to us. We know the end result and that is enough because that is what scripture gives us. Your syllogisms contain assumptions that I don’t agree with.

However, we do see some interesting tidbits about Ishmael and other descendants of Abraham in the Old Testament. Recall that Ishmael joined Isaac to bury Abraham in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 25:9). What was the nature of their relationship that they were had contact with each other? We don’t know. We also note that Moses’ father-in-law Jethro was the priest of Midian, a man who knew God and was a descendant of Abraham. Obviously Abraham taught the faith to those in his household and it took hold enough that many generations later we see some of them pop up later in Scripture as believers in the one true God. Interestingly we see the terms “Ishmaelites” and “Midianites” used interchangeably later on (Gen. 37:25-28).

The narrative of Scripture focuses on the history of Abraham’s descendants through the line of promise from whom the Messiah would come. Regarding those outside, we just don’t know enough about them because Scripture isn’t clear. How many were believers from Abraham’s descendants that weren’t through Isaac? We can’t go beyond Scripture.

Another way of understanding this is to point out that it’s not the idea of the “covenant community” per se that serves as the basis for infant initiation into the covenant, it is the fact that God commanded it. The logical order is this way:

1.) God instituted a covenant wherein He promised to be God to Abraham and to his seed after him

2.) God then gave a physical, administrative mark to serve as a sign and seal

3.) God then commanded that the mark be administered to infants in the household who couldn’t yet profess the faith

4.) The natural result of that is the formation of a people (an ekklesia) who are called out from the world for God’s redemptive purposes

You see the logic – when we get down to the nuts and bolts of it, the basis for infant baptism isn’t presumption of their covenantal standing, but it is God’s command to institute infant initiation into the covenant. Now, we understand that there is an equivalency, but ultimately it is grounded in God’s command. The idea of the covenant community is secondary, it is a consequence. Ignoring it and focusing on circumcision as a sign of the promise will get you to the same place because we are talking about a distinction without a difference.
 
Upvote 0

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟7,746.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
The main difficulty that I’m having with your argument is that it seems to be saying this:

- God instituted the administration of a covenant sign to be given to a people whom He has selected

- This sign has nothing to do with the visible administration of the covenant or the community to whom it is given

Not exactly. I can accept that the covenant sign was commanded to be given by all. I'm just not sure it all means the same thing to the recipients and to God. The second point, I think it has something to do with the covenant community, but it is nuanced and requires differentiation.

Here’s something I need to understand from your side: If circumcision is a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac, and Ishmael is not a part of that covenant, then why was he circumcised?
The term "covenant" is causing the confusion. I don't see it as a sign of the covenant in that all who receive it become members per se, but a sign that testifies to one's relationship with Abraham whom God transacted with. It's like having the same last name as a famous person, because he actually IS a distant relative. But it doesn't mean that you are famous, or that he knows you, or that you have any claim on his estate.

If he received the sign of the covenant, that is just another way of saying he was part of the visible administration of the covenant (i.e., the covenant community). His later circumstances were unique and are not normative for how we implement God’s commands.
God must have known, and in fact, he did permit for Ishmael to be sent away. Note also, that God gave a different set of promises regarding Ishmael. This is significant. If he were already administered in a covenant with excellent promises, then why give him a unique set all to himself? that means that he received double covenantal blessings! That's more than Abraham! Noteworthy also, is that Abraham exclaims "O that Ishmael would walk before you!" as if he also knows implicitly that Ishmael is not a beneficiary in the promises. It seems to me that God has always considered Ishmael out of the covenant from the beginning (and he tells Abraham up front), but gave him a "consolation prize", as it were, for Abraham's sake. This seems most reasonable, and it was my point when I said that Ishmael receives some blessing as a result of being Abraham's son, but it's not the THE covenant promises.

We agree that the covenant is established with Isaac because he is in the chosen line from which Christ would come, but upon what exegetical basis do you conclude that Ishmael was excluded? What about the rest of the 300 in Abraham’s household? They were circumcised, but they weren’t Isaac – were they also excluded?
You're right that we can't go beyond scripture on this. We can only presume that those who remained as slaves in the family were incorporated into Israel, and therefore graduate into national covenant status. The sending of Ishmael away was providential, just as the stripping of Esau's birthright by Jacob was providential.

Regarding Ishmael’s descendants, I disagree with your logic because blind circumcision does not equal covenant faithfulness and therefore does not lead to the conclusion that circumcised Arabs are somehow part of the administration of the Abrahamic covenant if indeed circumcision signifies some connection with that covenant …
There is a confusion there. We should not be talking about covenant "faithfulness" just yet. We are still on the topic of the outward administration, not the inward transformation. Here's what I'm arguing flatly: circumcision does not mean administration in the covenant. Would you agree with this? "Blind circumcision" is a good term, indicating a distinction in degrees of covenant-ness, which is my point. I would say that such circumcisions take place when there is no special revelation to accompany it. Now, are there "blind baptisms" then? Could someone be baptized but not be actually administered in the covenant?

However, we do see some interesting tidbits about Ishmael and other descendants of Abraham in the Old Testament. Recall that Ishmael joined Isaac to bury Abraham in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 25:9). What was the nature of their relationship that they were had contact with each other? We don’t know. We also note that Moses’ father-in-law Jethro was the priest of Midian, a man who knew God and was a descendant of Abraham. Obviously Abraham taught the faith to those in his household and it took hold enough that many generations later we see some of them pop up later in Scripture as believers in the one true God. Interestingly we see the terms “Ishmaelites” and “Midianites” used interchangeably later on (Gen. 37:25-28).

Here it seems you still want the sign to have a one-to-one relationship with visible administration, by saying that full covenant membership may been in tact with Ishmael's descendants up until Moses' time. We both agree that at some point, they drop out and are no longer included. Your argument is that Arabs were not faithful, but how can they be faithful when they were not given revelation to begin with? it seems that the covenant sign was always accompanied by the Word, and I argue this comes by election.

Thus, if we take all the data available and deal with them sensitively, and we still want to retain the language of administration, we need to suppose that there are degrees of visible covenant membership: 1. Ishmaels and Esaus; 2. national Israel; 3. spiritual Israel. it's a continuum from reprobate (at least in the case of Esau confirmed) to elect. Perhaps this is how we should look at it, but it doesn't seem right, and covenant theology doesn't deal with this.

You see the logic – when we get down to the nuts and bolts of it, the basis for infant baptism isn’t presumption of their covenantal standing, but it is God’s command to institute infant initiation into the covenant. Now, we understand that there is an equivalency, but ultimately it is grounded in God’s command. The idea of the covenant community is secondary, it is a consequence. Ignoring it and focusing on circumcision as a sign of the promise will get you to the same place because we are talking about a distinction without a difference

To admit that covenant community is "secondary" is to suggest that there may be a disjunction between the recipient of the command and the status it signifies. I have always understood the Reformed position to be that they are interchangeable: circumcised = covenant community (visibly) and vice versa. This unity of terms is what makes one say that a baptized infant is a part of the church, the visible covenant community. Thus the 1 Cor passage is always quoted, "your children are holy." This is presumptive status. they are not holy because of baptism as that would be ex opere operato; they are holy because they are your children. in other words, it's ok within Reformed theology to presume that the status of your children is automatic from birth.

Let's recap where we agree:

- the sign was commanded for all of Abraham's offspring and household
- it indicates covenant status FOR CERTAIN in the case of Isaac's line.
- The sign is inherently Christological
- modern day Arabs are not joined to the covenant

Here's the big question I want to ask you:

does circumcision have a one-to-one correlation to the visible administration of the covenant? or, are there exceptions?
 
Upvote 0

kenrapoza

I Like Ice Cream
Aug 20, 2006
2,529
134
Massachusetts
✟11,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Judson,

I'm amazed at how much we can go round and round on this topic. I think that we're each understanding each other, but we're working from different presuppositions.

Circumcision in and of itself does not necessarily convey any covenantal significance does, but Abrahamic circumcision does. Administering the sign of the covenant is a covenantal administration. As much as I read your post I don't see that your argument is able to logically get around something so evident. People who weren't born as a physical son of Abraham but joined the community and the faith of Abraham were circumcised as a sign of that faith. How do you distinguish between their "relation" to Abraham and their participation in the covenantal administration? What is the difference? I can't agree with importing the ideas of different "levels of covenant-ness" and circumcision (in the Abrahamic sense) meaning different things to different people or different things to people and to God. What are these different levels and who defines them? Where does Scripture explain them? This is complicating the matter in order to justify a theological presupposition when the Biblical text is much clearer.

Scripture describes circumcision in the flesh as a sign of the covenant and circumcision of the heart as a work of the Holy Spirit. The only "nuance" is circumcision done in faith or in unbelief. Some people aren't "closer" than others. God says that circumcision is a sign of the covenant - He says this exactly. He commands Abraham to administer circumcision to his entire household because of the promise to use his family and descendants to grow the kingdom.

What I mean by non-Abrahamic circumcision is a rite practiced by an apostate group or for other non-religious purposes, such as the preponderance of males circumcised in the United States at infancy for cultural/medical reasons. Is baptism into an apostate group a valid baptism? This (along with the first part of the post) is part of my response to your last question
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I agree with everything Ken says in #43. But as I read the discussion, the question isn't about this, but about the extent of the covenant. I think we have a pretty clear Scriptural answer to that: It is Abraham and his family, and it passes to later generations only through Isaac. Both of these things are said explicitly.
 
Upvote 0

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟7,746.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Hi Ken,

we going in circles somewhat, but the issues are important and can be fleshed out if we keep to the right categories.
Circumcision in and of itself does not necessarily convey any covenantal significance does, but Abrahamic circumcision does. _Administering the sign of the covenant is a covenantal administration._
The obvious question is: How is the sign administered? through circumcision. (Of course, I'm speaking of Abrahamic circumcision, properly practiced according to prescription). Administration is not some invisible, abstract reality that happens in the mind of God; it is the visible, external act performed by people, as I understand it. So I agree, we can only speak of Abrahamic circumcision.

How do you distinguish between their "relation" to Abraham and their participation in the covenantal administration? What is the difference?
Exactly. So there must be a one-to-one relationship between circumcision (properly done) and covenantal administration, right? But then extrapolate this principle to Abraham's descendants through Ishmael and we find this cannot be true of them any longer. At some point, as you argue, the nation as a whole disbelieves the covenant promises and are out. Your post indicated that perhaps up to the time of Moses, Ishmaelites had some sort of affinity with Israelites. That may be so. But certainly any covenant status after that has dissolved and is not recoverable. But, I ask, on what grounds does their administration according to Abrahamic circumcision become void? Unbelief cannot be the answer, because this confuses the sign with the inward reality. Even unbelieving Jews were still considered within the visible covenant community, so it has to be the same for Arabs, no? They are Abraham's children too. Besides, I don't see how we can charge them of unbelief, who are not privy to the revelation at Sinai and onward which the covenant people were obliged to believe. This is the problem facing the current model of covenant theology.

Is baptism into an apostate group a valid baptism?
Good question. I believe one is not baptized into a group, or a church, or person, or denomination. The Donatists were shown to be wrong because of this. One is ultimately baptized into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and as long as the group falls in line with that category, it is valid.
 
Upvote 0

kenrapoza

I Like Ice Cream
Aug 20, 2006
2,529
134
Massachusetts
✟11,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
But, I ask, on what grounds does their administration according to Abrahamic circumcision become void? Unbelief cannot be the answer, because this confuses the sign with the inward reality. Even unbelieving Jews were still considered within the visible covenant community, so it has to be the same for Arabs, no?

Regarding a confusion of the sign and the inward reality, my response is: no, not at all. God's covenant cannot be administered apart from God's word. If a group of people do not worship the one true God in spirit and in truth (i.e., "unbelief") then they are not practicing a valid covenantal administration. I realize that you are not advocating nor claiming that I advocate a view of ex opere operato, but your questions/comments seem to be assuming it, and that is what I'm trying to get you away from. Here is what I mean: the idea that we can bifurcate the the covenant in such a way that we can say that it is still being administered visibly without the true word of God which creates the covenant. Obviously outward practices have no spiritual power unless God chooses to bind them to His word in a meaningful way. Just as God continuously sustains His creation in a mysterious way, so does His covenant require His active and personal ratification. But the covenant is a specific gospel promise which requires that very gospel to be present in order for it to be the covenant. This is God's presence through His living and active Word.

Good question. I believe one is not baptized into a group, or a church, or person, or denomination. The Donatists were shown to be wrong because of this. One is ultimately baptized into the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and as long as the group falls in line with that category, it is valid.
Recall that the Donatist controversy was actually a different situation. The concern there was the validity of baptisms administered by lawfully ordained clergy in the catholic church who later defected in the face of severe persecution. That is different than a cult who denies the gospel and the God of the Bible but still uses the triune formula in its baptism like a magical incantation. We certainly are baptized into union with the Triune God as you mention, but we are also baptized into a body, the body of Christ.

The view you are proposing raises several significant questions:

- What is the "nuance" between the relation of the covenant and the sign of the covenant? Can you define it?

- What are these different "levels of covenant-ness"? Who defines them and where are they found in Scripture?

- How many different types of covenant relation to Abraham are there and how do we discern which one is being administered at any given moment?

- Do all these various meanings point to Christ?

- How does a meaning of circumcision that does not relate to the gospel (in the case of Ishmael) fit with its Christological nature?

- In Scripture, circumcision is given as a picture of regeneration. If it has different meanings for different people, how does this affect its nature as a sign?

So it seems that we are left with two different schemes for understanding the relation between the covenant, its signs/seals, and its participants.

1.) The view you are proposing (which I recognize from the argumentation of Paul King Jewett), which says that when one is given the sign of the covenant, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are participating in the administration of the covenant in any particular way, but the truth is more "nuanced" for different types of recipients.

2.) The Reformed view, which says that the meaning of the covenant sign is stated in Scripture, fixed by God, and consistently objective regardless of the recipient. The difference is between those who have an "internal" relation to the covenant and those who only have an "external/outward" relation to the covenant in terms of participating in the visible administration but not from the heart.

I think that the Reformed view better reflects the view of Paul here:

"But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." (Rom. 2:29)

And Moses here:

"Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn." (Deut. 10:16)

And John here:

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." (1 John 2:19)

The difference is not a "nuance" of difference in the meaning of God's sign, but those who are circumcised outwardly and those who are circumcised in the heart. You've gone beyond the witness of Scripture to bring in these additional categories to make your system work. I really think that if all of the relevant Biblical data were laid out and we used that as our sole basis, we would come to the same conclusion that the reformers did.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Judson

Junior Member
Dec 6, 2009
106
3
✟7,746.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for that clarifying post, but I have more questions!

The link you make between the sign and the word was helpful. I'll drop my Jewettesque interpretations for now. They were only suggestions in light of what seems untenable in the Reformed position, that is, if the sign meant external inclusion, then in what way were Ishmael's descendants in the covenant. I think you're making the argument that the sign does not necessarily mean visible inclusion, am I right? The sacrament must be bound to the word and faith. i still think it might be presumptuous to say that Ishmael's descendants did not apply the sign in faith, but I'll drop it for now.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, the sign is only meaningful if it is accompanied by the gospel word. That's how I read your quote, "Obviously outward practices have no spiritual power unless God chooses to bind them to His word in a meaningful way." I think what you mean here is that the sign will not be a means unto saving grace unless that infant is elect. But what does it mean as a physical sign itself? Are you saying that the sign itself may not be a valid administration into the covenant if the word is not present? If so, I would no longer have any problems with the paedobaptist position.

The problem with this is that infant baptism does not seem to have all these conditions attached to it. The infant is usually presumed to be holy, a covenant member, and a church member, thus he/she is baptized. Remember, I'm only still focussing on the external relationship to the covenant - please stick to that, cause that's where I'm having difficulties pinning down its meaning. We are fully agreed on the internal. I have always understood visible, external administration to be equal with the baptismal act - am I wrong on this? Is the visible administration invalid if the parent does not have real faith?
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for that clarifying post, but I have more questions!

The link you make between the sign and the word was helpful. I'll drop my Jewettesque interpretations for now. They were only suggestions in light of what seems untenable in the Reformed position, that is, if the sign meant external inclusion, then in what way were Ishmael's descendants in the covenant. I think you're making the argument that the sign does not necessarily mean visible inclusion, am I right? The sacrament must be bound to the word and faith. i still think it might be presumptuous to say that Ishmael's descendants did not apply the sign in faith, but I'll drop it for now.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, the sign is only meaningful if it is accompanied by the gospel word. That's how I read your quote, "Obviously outward practices have no spiritual power unless God chooses to bind them to His word in a meaningful way." I think what you mean here is that the sign will not be a means unto saving grace unless that infant is elect. But what does it mean as a physical sign itself? Are you saying that the sign itself may not be a valid administration into the covenant if the word is not present? If so, I would no longer have any problems with the paedobaptist position.

The problem with this is that infant baptism does not seem to have all these conditions attached to it. The infant is usually presumed to be holy, a covenant member, and a church member, thus he/she is baptized. Remember, I'm only still focussing on the external relationship to the covenant - please stick to that, cause that's where I'm having difficulties pinning down its meaning. We are fully agreed on the internal. I have always understood visible, external administration to be equal with the baptismal act - am I wrong on this? Is the visible administration invalid if the parent does not have real faith?

I may have a different position than others, but I would argue that God's covenant was with Israel, as a whole. Those within Israel who did not have faith were accountable for that, but as violators of the covenant. As Paul says in Romans, those within Israel who sinned are judged by the law, those outside in other ways. I get the impression that members of the covenant people who did not have faith would be judged somewhat more harshly.

Paul says that although being circumcized doesn't automatically mean one is saved, it is still of great value, because it places you within the community to whom God gave the Law and the Prophets.

Similarly Paul says that children of a Christian are holy, not just elect children. I believe that all baptized infants are members of the Church, but some are unfaithful, and are therefore pruned.

In discussions about the visibility of the Church, I have argued it is in many respects visible, although also in some respects invisible. The Church is a means of grace, much as being part of the Law was a means of grace. Salvation isn't automatic, but being part of the visible Church is still an important thing. Of course there is also an invisible Church, which consists of just those who have faith. But that doesn't deny the existence of the visible Church, nor the importance of being part of the visible Church in terms of offering us support for being Christian. Baptism is the rite of entry into the visible Church, except for Baptists. Those we have to treat using something like the Catholic idea of "baptism of intent," that their children are in practice part of the visible Church, because they are growing up in Christian homes, whose parents would have baptised them had they realized it was necessary.
 
Upvote 0

kenrapoza

I Like Ice Cream
Aug 20, 2006
2,529
134
Massachusetts
✟11,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for that clarifying post, but I have more questions!

The link you make between the sign and the word was helpful. I'll drop my Jewettesque interpretations for now. They were only suggestions in light of what seems untenable in the Reformed position, that is, if the sign meant external inclusion, then in what way were Ishmael's descendants in the covenant. I think you're making the argument that the sign does not necessarily mean visible inclusion, am I right? The sacrament must be bound to the word and faith. i still think it might be presumptuous to say that Ishmael's descendants did not apply the sign in faith, but I'll drop it for now.

I think we agree that Scripture just doesn’t tell us those specifics and we can only draw inferences from what is revealed. It seems as though at some point the gospel was lost – and that lack of gospel proclamation and belief would render their practice of circumcision invalid as it had become decoupled from the promise to which it points. Again though, we don’t want to speak dogmatically about Ishmael’s descendants and rely upon our inference as the basis for doctrinal formulation – though it may supplement it.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, the sign is only meaningful if it is accompanied by the gospel word. That's how I read your quote, "Obviously outward practices have no spiritual power unless God chooses to bind them to His word in a meaningful way." I think what you mean here is that the sign will not be a means unto saving grace unless that infant is elect.
[FONT=&quot]

Right. And even then it is still the presence of God through His Word and Spirit that convey grace.[/FONT]

But what does it mean as a physical sign itself? Are you saying that the sign itself may not be a valid administration into the covenant if the word is not present? If so, I would no longer have any problems with the paedobaptist position.


That’s exactly what I’m saying. In the Reformed world we often speak of the ministry of “Word and Sacrament”, and those are not intended to be divorced from each other. We cannot choose to administer baptism in our own way apart from the gospel or attach it to something else and expect it to be valid in God’s eyes.


The problem with this is that infant baptism does not seem to have all these conditions attached to it. The infant is usually presumed to be holy, a covenant member, and a church member, thus he/she is baptized. Remember, I'm only still focussing on the external relationship to the covenant - please stick to that, cause that's where I'm having difficulties pinning down its meaning. We are fully agreed on the internal. I have always understood visible, external administration to be equal with the baptismal act - am I wrong on this? Is the visible administration invalid if the parent does not have real faith?
In my church, whenever we administer baptism, whether it is a believer or the child of a believer, we always make this clear. It is always accompanied by the proclamation of Christ and him crucified and resurrected. The presumption is not that the child has an internal relation to the covenant, but that the witness of Scripture instructs us to administer the sign of the gospel covenant to our children. In essence, we are saying that they are to be raised as Christians, inside the visible church. They are to be catechized and instructed in the gospel to the end that when they mature they will be able to make a credible profession of faith themselves. They are in the church, but they are not communicant members. We would not generally administer baptism to the child of a parent who cannot make a credible profession of faith, because the baptismal vows entail the duties of the parent to provide spiritual leadership and instruction.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Penn

New Member
Jun 25, 2017
1
0
70
TOLEDO
✟8,001.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
One surprising omission is that review is the role of circumcision and baptism as sealing our membership in the covenant community.
I agree. But as I've been reading again from gen, to Joshua, I thought. This has to be tied to the gen 6 passage. Forgive me if I'm off center, but, it struck me as I'm was missing something more to this. The more I thought about it, gen 6 is displayed as a read that the writer thought the reader would already now about this. Before the flood, the fallen angels made woopy with the girls, woman. Since Noah was penned as perfect, I see this as a gene problem. Gen 3:15, the prophecy. And 1 Enoch come together perfectly. The flood was for gene splicing. Not generally for sin. Satan hated us because we are made in the Lord God Almighty image. And he tried to corrupt zgods plan. Blessings
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums