If baptism replaced circumcision at the Great Commission and Acts 2, why was there a Judaizer controversy? Why did it go on so long, even after the Council at Jerusalem? Why didn’t the Apostles, after trying to show the limitations of the Law, just go ahead and answer the Judaizers - “Look, baptism fulfills circumcision; are you satisfied?”

I could go on. I don’t think there’s an answer. Based on this, someone could say, “Baptism must have meant something different in the minds of the Apostles. Maybe more of the accent was on cognitive discipleship or something. Therefore, I will delay my children’s baptism until their old enough to want it for themselves.” (I think Vern Poythress makes some argument like this.)

As it is, I was thrown back on saying, What is the difference in the symbolism between circumcision and baptism? (Now, this is a spirituality of the new covenant argument.) There are similarities. They are both initiation rites of sorts. They both carry symbolism of repentance and purification. But, according to the NT, circumcision is a symbol of death - of cutting off of the flesh and the flesh dies. As such, it represents the OC and the purpose of the Law (Mosaic Law) as a tutor. This seems to be what Paul is saying in Colossians 2 - (the only place the two are mentioned together) “United to Christ, you have received the fulfillment of circumcision, not a circumcision made with hands, but a putting to death of the flesh (sinful nature), by the putting to death (circumcision) of Christ - buried with him in baptism, in which also you were raised with him through faith.” This passage (in my mind) can’t be used to equate baptism and circumcision (that wasn’t Paul’s point). Paul is drawing pictures of the implications of union with Christ. Circumcision is a symbol of being put to death. Baptism is a symbol of being buried, but also (”in which also” a symbol of being brought to life.

This drove me into saying - well, this accords with a baptist understanding of the NC. You say, baptists overemphasize the already at the expense of the not yet. I say, presbyterians (in this one area, based on tradition more than exegesis, or based on good and necessary consequence from the OT and not the NT) overemphasize the not yet at the expense of the already. Do baptists know there is a “not yet” to the New Covenant? Of course. But we believe the accent of the NT is on New Covenant reality - being really united to Christ. I believe the paedobaptist view of baptism incurs the judgment of Paul. If the paedobaptist view of baptism and circumcision is the same, then it seems to me that Paul would say, “If you accept baptism, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts baptism that he is obligated to keep the whole law…for in Christ Jesus neither baptism nor unbaptism counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” I think John the Baptist would say, “Don’t say, in coming to baptism, that your parents are Christians (Abraham is your father), but bring forth fruits of repentance…”

All this is to say, that such things obviously determine one’s respective views on continuity/discontinuity…thus you will have things being “brought over” that someone with my views will not.

However (and this is why I wasn’t begging the question) the question is, what about the Abrahamic Covenant? But it all depends on how we see the Abrahamic, Old, and New Covenants relating to each other. As I tried to outline in post on May 4th at 12:39 pm (and taking my view strictly [I hope] from God’s New Covenant treatment of the same - particularly Galatians), I see the Abrahamic covenant thus; in its immediate, contextual setting, it has reference to literal, “natural” promises (largely to national Israel). That’s not to say that Abraham had no sense of an ultimate, spiritual fulfilment. But the New Covenant, founded on the death and resurrection of Christ, is this fulfilment, which is the teleological “pinnacle“. Paul writes in Galatians that the promise (using typology on the original “to you and you [naturally promised] seed” to deliver the antitype) - is fulfilled in Christ and those “in him” by faith. The Abrahamic promise was a gospel promise, in a teleological sense. It was the fundamental covenant that revealed what God was going to do in his Son for mankind. The Old Covenant Law added nothing to the promise (that was to be fulfilled on grace terms). But it did, in an ancillary sense, provide the circumstances for its outworking (e.g. Rom11), served a pedagogical and custodial purpose for those “under it”, and serves as typologically attesting to the New Covenant which is the fulfilment of its types and shadows. The New Covenant is thus truly new…and its everything! It will only be bettered, so far as it is consummated in a new heaven and earth. Abraham did not receive the fulfilment of the promises like believers are privileged with today (Heb11v39,40). Likewise, the Old Covenant believers had not received the privileges of sons (Gal3,4), but were under the strict pedagogue of the Law, “heirs in waiting” to be delivered into the glorious liberty that was experientially theirs in the New Covenant. Nonetheless, they were justified by faith alone on account of a faith that was forward-looking in expectation of these things, and was an answer to a sense of God’s kindness and goodness. But they couldn’t have had the content of faith that New Covenant believers have.

Circumcision, then, and its place or any equivalent, must be determined by New Covenant treatment. It’s treated in the New Testament as a reference to its antitype - as post-Pentecost regeneration, a “new heart” indwelt by the Spirit, sanctifying according to such gospel privileges. Baptism is treated somewhat similarly as well, yet it also clearly has some signification as a physical symbol. But (and also in view of the fact that NT examples are not necessarily a public sign to a visible church, which as an association with circumcision would seem to be necessary), the purpose of the symbol must be based on what it signifies spiritually. Its signification clearly refers to believers.

Wrt “means of grace” - I don’t like the phrase - I think its unhelpful. It conjures up the idea of some sort of synergistic cooperation with God, whereby I do such and such that is commanded in a formal enactment, and he will give me some grace uniquely in that formal setting, on that basis. I presume this is “sacramentalism” ?. It ties grace too much to the “doing” of some formality - rather than baptism, or the Lord’s supper, being symbols that help the gospel faith I already have to see the grace I already have and thus receive grace on grace, on that basis. Rom 4’s reference to the “sign and seal” is historical - used in a proof of Abraham’s coming into right standing with God by faith alone, not his genealogy. (The same goes for those who’s faith patterns the faith of Abraham.) We can’t base any argument for baptism’s replacement of circumcision, or its reference to unbelieving children, on this reference. Again, in Rom10, an official enactment of monologue preaching before a gathered congregation is not uniquely what Paul has in mind. He’s just saying that people have to hear the truth to understand it, that they may believe it. Again, such texts must be eisegeted with the presuppositions that one brings from elsewhere. The system that is (logically consistent) covenant theology (“Westministernarian”) drives one’s expectations. Thus one sees what one wants to see, and the system is reinforced in a cyclical fashion.

But, it is surely more “reformed” to derive one’s hermeneutic solely from texts of scripture. If the NT says “this is how this is to be viewed”, then I had better view it in that way, as that’s what God intends me to do. It’s to my loss if I don’t. And I should not raise questions that scripture doesn’t answer. I should make sure I stick with just the questions and answers it gives. Covenant Theology flattens out progressive revelation - it flattens out the bible. Thus, when you (rightly - unlike the classic dispensationalist who doesn‘t have a unity of scripture - a “single” purpose of God in history - and thus can’t see the New Covenant as the ultimate fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham) come to the Old Testament with (some) New Testament understanding, you tend to 1)lose the literal sense of the Old Testament (which obviously - and rightly - rattles the dispensationalists!) by reading the New Testament into the Old (as if - to borrow another’s illustration - the Old Testament Israelite sat in his tent with a copy of John Murray’s “redemption applied”!; and then 2) read this understanding of the Old into the New, and limit the newness of the New Covenant. And you never get out of that cycle, and always appeal to the confessions as the authoritative expression of that same cycle!…The fact that we have such a thing as progressive revelation is clear from, say, Heb 1v1,2, 1Pe1v9-12, Eph3v1-6.

I guess, as I have seen John Reisinger say - my views on the newness of the new covenant make me doctrinally to be somewhat in the line of both “Reformed” people, and “Anabaptists”(?)Though that’s incidental. I guess - as I indicated - “New Covenant Theology” - and while not entirely monolithic - shares some of its doctrine/epistemology with “covenant theology”, and some with “dispensationalism“. But again, that’s not by design - but by virtue of attempting consistent, “sola scriptura” exegesis - from which a redemptive-historical hermeneutic naturally “falls out”… as I understand it, similar treatment was to be found in the early church…and its often said that the 1st London Baptist confession - without the covenant theology basis that the 1689 Baptists took hold of - is more in line. But quoting the confessions as authoritative does the handling of these issues no good! It’s question begging! Also - and I know that you’re the historian - am I correct that, while the seeds of covenant theology are present in reformers such as Calvin, it was not “worked out” as a system until Ursinus et al? Thus it would seem that some of the principles that the earlier worthies never fully got away from, become evident in their crystalline form in the system that becomes CT. But then to define them by the fully worked out implications of Ctism - and the term “Reformed” by those same (and later) implications - seems to be a bit stretched. Still, that’s one for the historians, not for the biblical theologians.(Not that cannot be one and the same person, just that the two should never contradict, because the one has the pre-eminence!)

Please, sir…in the interests of biblical theology - more so - Christ and his gospel - engage with the arguments (of others better than myself) on the level of exegesis and not the confessions. I for one, like I gather Charles Hodge said - can’t wait till names and parties and labels are buried for good. I wish it were today.

Forgive the long post. Just some thoughts from one who knows very little - and less still of what I know, I “know.” I’ll leave you be,now.

- Phil

Now we don’t know who is an Evangelical anymore. From this standpoint is taken. I guess Reformed Baptists need to fight for this one.

Is one truly Reformed if Calvin and Luther would disagree on such a huge issue?”

One might just be truly Lutheran.

Seriously though, since when did the definition of a tradition come down to what one or two men “thought about an issue”? Again, the question reveals how different ecclesiologies are at work here, one churchly/public/institutional and one individualistic/private. One appeals to a patchwork quilt of individuals (their stature notwithstanding), the other to a systematic and churchly confession.

The sola’s are a necessary but not a sufficient condition to be Reformed. One can’t be Reformed without them but holding them doesn’t make one Reformed.

I take it that you were or are a Marine. A coastie has a uniform and takes an oath but he or she is not a Marine. We don’t send Coasties to take hills or assault positions. Oaths and uniforms are necessary but not sufficient to being a Marine.

The Reformed churches confess much more than just soteriology an the authority of Scripture. Your standard reduces the Reformed confession from 7-8 loci to 2 loci.

We confess a doctrine of the church and sacraments. Our Baptist friends disagree with us. Okay, but how can they be Reformed and disagree with fundamental Reformed doctrines and practice?

Is Zwingli Reformed? Well, he died before the French, Belgic, Heidelberg, and Canons or even the Second Helvetic were formed and adopted. He was an early Reformed theologian. He had significant problems (e.g. Christology, sacraments) but is usually regarded as a Reformed theologian. Would we ordain him today with the views he held at death? I don’t know. He was pretty vague on justification. Did he probably agree with us? Probably but I would query him closely on the supper. Was he broadly Reformed? Sure. Our churches, however, are more than broadly Reformed. Reformed theology in the 1560s and in 1619 and in 1647 was more mature than in 1531-32.

does it matter that the Reformed confessions are public, ecclesiastical documents and that you, as a private person, are offering your own, private, idiosyncratic definition?”

Perhaps, but I would submit you’re swimming in the same waters. I’m using the “Solas” as a plumbline. You’re using “confessions” as such, but one wonders which confession, since they are necessarily not uniform.

Why not use the Reformers themselves? Why hold to, for example, a view of Sabbath (e.g., WCF) that the Reformers did not?

Is one truly Reformed if Calvin and Luther would disagree on such a huge issue?

Again, what about Zwingli? Would he still be allowed to be considered Reformed by your definition?

There is a form of Baptist theology that rose from the English Reformation, that takes its form of theology from the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration.

Still, from what you’ve said, a Baptist who holds to that confession and believes in the Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Grace, the perpetuity of the Decalogue (including the Sabbath), the Regulative Principle of Worship, the unity of Old Covenant Israel and the New Covenant Church, Christ’s real presence in the Lord’s Table, and the Five Solas somehow is not Reformed. I simply don’t think it follows.

I understand and agree with Covenant Theology, I simply do not agree that the inferences that lead to infant baptism are necessary inferences; I don’t reject the theological structure.

As you may know, on the campus of WTS-CA is the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies headed by Dr. Jim Renihan. If you have some time and interest, perhaps you could talk with him and explain to him how he isn’t Reformed. Jim is a patient and learned man and I think the discussion would be helpful for both of you. (Gee, I hope he doesn’t mind that I just volunteered him!)

Oh, and by the way, I am not happy with how the term Reformed Baptist is applied these days. Any Baptist who is a Calvinist seems to fit, even Dispensationalists. That simply isn’t right. However, I don’t think it is accurate to throw out all Baptists as a rule.

Any sacramental system that unbaptizes the entire Reformed church ipso facto cannot be “Reformed” any more than any system that deposes the Pope can be Roman Catholic. There are some elements of Romanism and some elements of the Reformed theology, piety, and practice that are essential to being Reformed.

If we say that those who deny infant baptism are Reformed, even though the Reformed churches confess that Scripture explicitly and implicitly requires it and even though the Reformed churches explicitly denounce the Anabaptist error of denying infant baptism, then there is no objective definition of “Reformed.”

Either the Reformed churches get to define the adjective Reformed, over against the Anabaptist radicals, Rome, the Remonstrants, and our Lutheran cousins, or they do not.

If those who deny that our children are baptized are to be regarded as “Reformed,” then why aren’t the Remonstrants Reformed? Why is predestination more important to being Reformed than the sign and seal of the covenant of grace?

I’m pretty sure I’m repeating myself. Time to move on.

You keep begging the question! When the NT says “the law” in such contexts, it isn’t referring to Abraham. Yes, when it says, “the law and the prophets” and the like, that’s a synechdoche for “The typological revelation from Genesis to Malachi” but usually “the law” refers to the Mosaic covenant. It’s a synonym for “the old covenant.”

As to the vehicle of blessing, I agree that the only instrument of justification and sanctification is faith. Sola fide. You must have missed the last 9 years of argument against the FV and NPP etc.

The question is whether the Scriptures and the Reformed faith teach “the means of grace,” and they certainly do. Rom 4 calls circumcision a “sign” and “seal.” Rom 10 says that the Spirit operates through the preaching of the holy gospel to bring sinners to faith. See also HC 65 and WSC 88.

We’re not Quakers or Anabaptists.