Two editorial notes on the last Baptism Post
Posted By MSH on September 11, 2009
1) I meant to say my point was NOT that creeds are bad … (left out the negator!). That’s been corrected, and thanks to those who caught it. Guess I should write while watching football.
2) I should adopt some sort of phrase to distinguish the “circumcision-baptism” equation I’m targeting. As I note in the first post, there is *some* connection between the two. What I’m targeting is any position that makes a tight theological parallel between the two. Hence the following paragraph has been emended slightly:
“ALL denominations that practice infant baptism use a theological connection to circumcision as a fundamental argument for the practice. That is, they see tight theological parallels (or at least they explain the doctrine of baptism that way) between the two, justifying the very practice on the fact that Abraham circumcised his children as a sign of the covenant (Gen 17).”
My argument is (and is going to be) that if you’re using circumcision to justify the practice of infant baptism in a theological way, as though God intended the institution of circumcision to be a precursor to the sacrament of baptism, then you need to be consistent with the analogy. What you say about one should be said about the other. You can’t argue that there was divine intention to parallel the two and then abandon the parallel when things get dicey with respect to salvation / justification.
Comments
2 Responses to “Two editorial notes on the last Baptism Post”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
Do you mean you should NOT write while watching football?
sorry, I had to.
Much, much ado about nothing.
Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Do you think that Jewish circumcision had *anything* whatsoever to do with slicing sin off of the body? Paul is just desperate to have “Christ” be the end-all of the Jewish religion. He wants “Christ” to be seen in every Jewish figure. So here he creates an elaborate analogy. “As circumcision lops off some flesh, so God performed a lopping off of sins from your flesh, by your faith in Christ.” Or something like that. The elaborate “Reformed” notions of baptism being the new symbol of the new covenant are twisted and bizarre perversions of thought, as is easily demonstrated:
* the putting off of the flesh is not done by baptism but by faith, because it is done “without hands.” This is a way of saying “God does it” (as in Hebrews, where the temple is made without hands).
* Paul makes no mention of covenant, but rather of putting off sins from the flesh by faith.
* It is heinous to take a verse that says nothing about covenant and then to build a 60 foot structure on it, claiming that it is all **implied** by an unrelated verse. Such constructs are nauseating;
* You gentiles have **no interest** in the new covenant, as it was only made with the houses of Israel and Judah. See Jeremiah 1. (And by the way, all of the wranglings of preachers about how believers are “freed from the law” are the height of ignorance also, because the nations were never UNDER the law in the first place!
It is unwise to attempt to harmonize the 66 books of the Protestant canon (let alone the historic canon, which has 73 books) as if Paul and Matthew have the same things in mind. I mean, did passing through the red sea on dry land really baptize the Jews unto Moses? Was Jesus a rock following Moses? Did circumcision lob off sins from the flesh?
There were religious ideas and practices in Hellenistic Judaism that Paul et all appropriated to Christ in various ways. If you’re going down the “Reformed – baptism is the new covenant” path, then you are sitting hopelessly in the dark in a thick wood.
Sorry I’m not as nice a guy as you apparently are. I don’t know any other way to say it but straight out.