Hopefully the following argument and/or meme will finally end the baptism debates in CFDD. :P By making Genesis 17 the primary justification for infant baptism, Calvin, Murray, and Marcel take three wrong steps. 1. First, Gen 17:12-13 shows circumcision was not only to be given to male children but also to other male household members. The paedobaptists, though, are not faithful to the scope of the covenant, since they do not argue for a wider inclusion of those baptized. 2. Second, each of them overspiritualizes the circumcision. Circumcision was a physical marker of ethnic Israel identifying them as distinct from other nations. Yet the paedobaptists do not consider Pauls negative judgement of circumcision in Rom 2:25-29. 3. Third, they fail to see the significance of the Abrahamic convanant, as the NT reads it. The significance is that Abraham exercised FAITH, and subsequently he received the sign of the circumcision. Thus, Paul says, Know then that it is those of FAITH who are sons of Abraham (Gal 3:7; see John 8:34-47). Similarly Rom 4:3, 9-12 shows that FAITH, not circumcision, is primary to Paul. Reformed paedobaptists pay inadequate attention to the NTs interpretation of the newness and the betterness of the new covenant (Heb 8:6). Reformed paedobaptists are convinced, however, that the parallel between the meaning of the sacraments across redemptive history is the one reason to continue the practice of paedobaptism. As we have seen, this leads Murray to note an anomaly, the tension that we see when the sign of the covenant (either circumcision or baptism), which represents ones union with God, is given to those who are patently unregenerate. This anomaly appears in the in the circumcisions of Ishmael and Esau, whom God knew were not the children of the covenant (Gen 17:23). Why should they receive the sign of covenant will all its spiritual connotations? Murrays recourse is Gods command to Abraham. This is the same ground as the practice of paedobaptism: Divine institution governs its administration. That is the ground. And that is what constitutes obligation to comply. We reply, however, that there is no anomaly. Abraham received a divine command to circumcise his male heirs to mark them as physical Israelites. There is no such instruction in the NT, for it teaches instead that the sign of the covenant (baptism) is reserved for those who have trusted in Christ due to the work of the Spirit. Similarly, the Reformed paedobaptist argument for a parallel between circumcision and baptism is unconvincing. For example, Col 2:11-12 does not support paedobaptism. Paul is speaking here to believers (1:1-6, 21-23) who are urged to follow Christ and not turn aside to false ways of thinking (2:6-8). Infants cannot fit this category of persons. Calvin, Murray, and Marcel do not elaborate on the nature of the relationship between the circumcision of Christ (2:11) and the circumcision of Genesis 17 and the Mosaic covenant. They assume continuity without demonstrating it. Yet their continuity thesis is opposed by Pauls insistence that the benefits of baptism are received THROUGH FAITH (2:12). In their use of Colossians 2 as support for baptizing infants, they do not even mention the necessity of faith. Colossians 2:11-12, then, refers to SPIRITUAL, not physical, circumcision, and hence the parallel between physical circumcision and Christian baptism FAILS. - Thomas Schreiner, Believers Baptism (pg. 238-239).
Posted on: Sat, 24 May 2014 15:57:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015