Making little headway,
I am, on the overall topic, but questions are frequently as good as answers. A fundamental question is the issue of implied continuity. The classic scenario is Jewish parents listening to Peter's sermon which told them "this promise is for you and your children . . . ." didn't they recognize the Ab. covenant promise in those words. The Ab. covenant would need to have its mechanics rescinded somewhere along the line. Without an explicit command to cease and desist from giving the sign to your children, it should continue, no?
Anyway, many see it this way today but I suspect many drop the "if you don't apply the sign, their soul will be cut off. . ." part. Why is implied continuity gladly employed as a defense of the idea that baptism is NT circumcision but the warning is conveniently forgotten. Shouldn't implied continuity apply there as well?
A second question is what is suggested by this warning. I offer the following: the sign and that which it signifies are more intimately tied together than those who say its only a sign and nothing more will be comfortable admitting. Doesn't this warning imply that baptism (of infants, don't forget - Baptists can check out on this since they don't buy any connection at all between circumcision and baptism. I guess it is clear that as soon as you admit a connection - equivalence- between circumcision and baptism exists, the you must allow that infant baptism is not just scriptural but commanded) does something. Apparently withholding it has a profound affect on the child. I am not sure it is sufficient to say "you don't have to be baptized to be saved" unless you fully address this warning verse.
Maybe this is all obvious to everyone but me. If so, and if time permits, these questions and others will get answered.
For me, gone are the days when I could just say that I know I am saved so these details are irrelevant. My faith is not strong enough to make it from day-to-day without hearing and engaging the word. (If that sounds pietistic, I assure you I have no piety - just ask my wife - it's more like I am a shark, constantly on the move looking for more food). The result is that I become a pain in the neck for not a few people.
5 comments:
It's news to me that Baptists don't associate NT baptism with OT circumcision. Don't they believe that baptism plays the same role in the Spiritual economy as circ in the Earthly economy, a la Col 2:11-14?
I guess I was putting words in their mouth. But I would be surprised if a Baptist would want to take them out. We need a Baptist to chime in and clear up any confusion.
Are you saying that children that have not been baptized are lost? That's seems to be what's implied with this thinking. Maybe I missing something.
Here's a thought. If baptism is necessary for infants to keep them from being "cut off" then that goes against the truth that we are saved by grace not by works or something (baptism) we do.
I think its like any other warning given in Scripture. Of course, we are not saved by any conditions (i.e. following the law, partaking of the Lord's Supper, Baptism, etc.) However, if we persistantly disobey the commandment of Scripture then that is evident that we don't believe it in the first place. This obviously presents a problem for our Credobaptist brethren. Yet, I too, would not be willing to consign them to being cut-off from the Church catholic. Thus, we get into the issue of how much false teaching/heresie is permissable, which is another topic in itself.
They just need to repent and submit to God's Word.
Post a Comment