Monday, November 01, 2004
Here we go Jon... OK I'm quoting reymond but I would have come up with something similar...
Why do we baptise female infants if only the males were circumcised? In fact why was circumcision chosen as a sign if it could obviously only be administered to males?
Robert Reymond in his systematic theology deals with this fairly briefly but I think they are helpful thoughts... ones which can be expounded upon at a later date... Here they are:
"It is often asked why God selected a covenant sign in Old Testament times which could be applied only to male infants. In response, it must be noted that the world of the Old Testament was a patriarchal world. Originally its patriarchy was a perfect patriarchy, reflecting the federal headship of the male in the pre-Fall Edenic condition. After the Fall patriarchal culture continued to prevail by divine design (see Gen 3:16) but with many injustices occuring towards women due to mankinds fallen state (Gen 6:2, 12:11-20, 16:3, 20:2-18, 26:6-7 etc.) Nevertheless, God continued to honour the original patriarchal arrangement of Eden, even in its corrupted character, and assigned to the male rite of circumcision the role of being the sign of his covenant with Abraham. It should be noted that the sign of circumcision, by the very limits to its applicability, allowed for the sign that replaced it (baptism in the New Testament age) to signify by its capacity for application to both genders the universality and extension of grace to all nations and the further enlarging of Christian liberty, the greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and the fuller communication of the Spirit of God."
He goes on but that is really the basis of his argument. Admittedly most of you will not be persuaded by the argument and therefore lambast me about adhering to Paedobaptism... feel free, I am convinced of my way, however poorly I can argue it and you are convinced of yours. But lets not let an issue like this divide the reformed church... The world looks at us and so often sees us debating and arguing over small points of doctrine when perhaps when it looks at us it should see Jesus Christ. Although obviously these are important issues :-p
Robert Reymond in his systematic theology deals with this fairly briefly but I think they are helpful thoughts... ones which can be expounded upon at a later date... Here they are:
"It is often asked why God selected a covenant sign in Old Testament times which could be applied only to male infants. In response, it must be noted that the world of the Old Testament was a patriarchal world. Originally its patriarchy was a perfect patriarchy, reflecting the federal headship of the male in the pre-Fall Edenic condition. After the Fall patriarchal culture continued to prevail by divine design (see Gen 3:16) but with many injustices occuring towards women due to mankinds fallen state (Gen 6:2, 12:11-20, 16:3, 20:2-18, 26:6-7 etc.) Nevertheless, God continued to honour the original patriarchal arrangement of Eden, even in its corrupted character, and assigned to the male rite of circumcision the role of being the sign of his covenant with Abraham. It should be noted that the sign of circumcision, by the very limits to its applicability, allowed for the sign that replaced it (baptism in the New Testament age) to signify by its capacity for application to both genders the universality and extension of grace to all nations and the further enlarging of Christian liberty, the greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and the fuller communication of the Spirit of God."
He goes on but that is really the basis of his argument. Admittedly most of you will not be persuaded by the argument and therefore lambast me about adhering to Paedobaptism... feel free, I am convinced of my way, however poorly I can argue it and you are convinced of yours. But lets not let an issue like this divide the reformed church... The world looks at us and so often sees us debating and arguing over small points of doctrine when perhaps when it looks at us it should see Jesus Christ. Although obviously these are important issues :-p
Comments:
So infant baptism isn't a continutation of circumcision then? Because you've just stated that they are in fact administered in different ways... I'm not going to lambast you... merely pray for your soul ;-)
But I guess it doesn't matter....
Well I think it does and so do you. It may not ultimately matter but at the end of the day our sin doesn't matter because the blood of Jesus covers it... but God still abhors it and it still stains our relationship with God. There must be a difference between arbitary matters and matters that have a great effect on the Christian life. If I didn't believe that paedobaptism didn't have an inverse effect on the believer... I wouldn't argue against it.
But I guess it doesn't matter....
Well I think it does and so do you. It may not ultimately matter but at the end of the day our sin doesn't matter because the blood of Jesus covers it... but God still abhors it and it still stains our relationship with God. There must be a difference between arbitary matters and matters that have a great effect on the Christian life. If I didn't believe that paedobaptism didn't have an inverse effect on the believer... I wouldn't argue against it.
I think that there is slightly more redemptive historical significance to circumcision than Reymond draws attention to. It seems to me that we need to understand the meaning of circumcision against the background of the narrative of Genesis 15-17.
Abraham was promised seed. He had already tried to obtain seed by his own power. However, God refuses to regard Ishmael as the promised seed. Rather he must look forward to another promised heir. This heir is an heir of promise and not of the flesh. As a seal of the promise of seed, Abraham is instructed to circumcise himself and his household. In so doing he is declaring his own impotence, his insufficiency to bring forth the promised seed.
As he submitted to God by faith in such a manner, life came forth out of death (see Romans 4 for commentary on this). We see a similar dynamic in the virgin birth. God brings forth the promised seed apart from the initiation of the man.
The seed-centredness of the OT narrative helps us to understand the shape that the rite of circumcision takes. The emphasis is always upon God's initiative in bringing forth the promised seed for the woman and not upon man. Circumcision on the eighth day is trust in God's future sovereign act of new creation, apart from human initiative.
When Christ comes, the seed is no longer still awaited. Consequently, the shape of the rite of Baptism is quite different. By Baptism we are ingrafted into the promised Seed (Galatians 3:27-29). Circumcision, practiced upon the male sex organ, trains Israel to look away from its own power to bring forth seed — and lead to the birth of the age to come — to the promise of God.
Baptism is not focused upon the male sex organ, because the focus is no longer upon the promise of seed, but upon being accounted as seed. Baptism is associated with new birth and regeneration, not with the appropriate posture that the man (who perceives himself as the initiator within sexual intercourse) should take towards the promise of future seed.
I don't think that all of this wounds the practice of infant Baptism in the slightest, although I would the legitimacy of many of the comparisons that have been drawn between Baptism and circumcision by paedobaptists. They are usually far too closely related and the redemptive historical factors are not given enough play.
The question that is answered above is not, IMHO, the really important one for paedobaptists to answer. The important question has to do with why in the NT Baptism is performed by the Church rather than by heads of families (as circumcision was performed in the OT). I have addressed the problem of familialism that results from drawing too close an analogy between circumcision and Baptism on my blog in the past. See here, here and the comments on this post.
Besides, from what I gather, this discussion has its roots in Fred Malone's book, a book that I have found singularly unpersuasive and have critiqued at length in the past.
Abraham was promised seed. He had already tried to obtain seed by his own power. However, God refuses to regard Ishmael as the promised seed. Rather he must look forward to another promised heir. This heir is an heir of promise and not of the flesh. As a seal of the promise of seed, Abraham is instructed to circumcise himself and his household. In so doing he is declaring his own impotence, his insufficiency to bring forth the promised seed.
As he submitted to God by faith in such a manner, life came forth out of death (see Romans 4 for commentary on this). We see a similar dynamic in the virgin birth. God brings forth the promised seed apart from the initiation of the man.
The seed-centredness of the OT narrative helps us to understand the shape that the rite of circumcision takes. The emphasis is always upon God's initiative in bringing forth the promised seed for the woman and not upon man. Circumcision on the eighth day is trust in God's future sovereign act of new creation, apart from human initiative.
When Christ comes, the seed is no longer still awaited. Consequently, the shape of the rite of Baptism is quite different. By Baptism we are ingrafted into the promised Seed (Galatians 3:27-29). Circumcision, practiced upon the male sex organ, trains Israel to look away from its own power to bring forth seed — and lead to the birth of the age to come — to the promise of God.
Baptism is not focused upon the male sex organ, because the focus is no longer upon the promise of seed, but upon being accounted as seed. Baptism is associated with new birth and regeneration, not with the appropriate posture that the man (who perceives himself as the initiator within sexual intercourse) should take towards the promise of future seed.
I don't think that all of this wounds the practice of infant Baptism in the slightest, although I would the legitimacy of many of the comparisons that have been drawn between Baptism and circumcision by paedobaptists. They are usually far too closely related and the redemptive historical factors are not given enough play.
The question that is answered above is not, IMHO, the really important one for paedobaptists to answer. The important question has to do with why in the NT Baptism is performed by the Church rather than by heads of families (as circumcision was performed in the OT). I have addressed the problem of familialism that results from drawing too close an analogy between circumcision and Baptism on my blog in the past. See here, here and the comments on this post.
Besides, from what I gather, this discussion has its roots in Fred Malone's book, a book that I have found singularly unpersuasive and have critiqued at length in the past.
I think Al is right in what he says... I was merely answering a complaint of Jons. I agree what you say about the seeds and the difference between the rite of circumcision and of baptism. The point still has to be made that children are included within the convenant of grace and are to receive the sign.
I want to know the inverse effect that paedobaptism has on a believer...
I want to know the inverse effect that paedobaptism has on a believer...
Of course there are consequences of belief either way. I just want to know what you think the inverse effects of paedobaptism are.
Post a Comment
