Comments on: Confusing the Continuity of Sacraments Between the Testaments

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 02 May 2007 00:05:44 +0000

Hello. This is a very good blog but I disagree with Gabe on his point. I am not saying I don’t agree on the fact of baptizing girls or not because I think that is what the Bible is telling us.
Households do not always solidify that both the men and women were baptized in this part of the Bible. Many things could be described by this word. The author might be using it because in that time the men were the head of the house which could make them the Household.
Second of all the translation from Hebrew to English could have also taking the text out of context. This can happen as many Hebrew words have more than one word or phrase in the English language. That’s all I have to say but do agree on most other stuff listed.

By: Christine

Christine — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 02:17:00 +0000

I never thought about this (communion being the sign) until reading Reisinger’s book, but his idea is interesting. Concerning the Lord’s Table he says, “What is the emphasis in the words our Lord gave us when he instituted the remembrance sign and service of the New Covenant? What should we think when we read or hear the following words? (quotes 1 Cor 11:25–26)” P. 78
He apparently sees communion as the sign of the NC.
Then he contrasts the Old and New Covenants:
“Old:
Points to Creation
Emphasizes Lawgiver and Judge
“This (keep Sabbath) do…
in remembrance” of your duty

New:
Points to Calvary (God’s new creation)
Emphasizes Christ as Redeemer
“THIS (remember my death) do…
in remembrance of ME.”

I know Col. 2:12 makes a connection between circumcision and baptism, but is it really saying, “Baptism is the sign of the NC”? Paul is not really saying anything about physical circumcision at all, but claiming that heart circumcision is what matters. Maybe I’m missing something huge, but is it clear that baptism is the NC sign?

The other question, or really, my confusion is this:
In your explaination of the paedobaptists’ position you show how they want to baptize their babies to have a NC parallel to the sign of circumcision from the OC. But circumcision was not the sign of the OC (though the OC did command it).
Covenant Theologians are making a parallel between circumcision (sign of the Abrahamic Covenant) and baptism (possibly the sign of the NC) but saying that they are making a parallel between the OC (sign is really the Sabbath) and the NC. If they say the circumcision/baptism continuity is what they are going for, they should say they are linking the the Abrahamic and New Covenants, not the Old and New covenants. Does that make sense?

I kinda think the intended parallel is between circumcision (of the flesh) and real circumcision (of the heart). But this is how the Abrahamic Cov. relates to the NC, not how the OC relates to the New. But I’m not sure how the sign fits in then…

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:04:33 +0000

Uh…I’m not quite sure what your question is, but the “sign” of entering into the new covenant is baptism as circumcision related to entering into the old covenant and that is why paedobaptists justify their position. But the New Covenant consists of “all will know me” (Jer 31:31–34), and baptism is a symbol of regeneration.

Communion replaced the Hebrew Passover. The Hebrew Passover looked back to the 10th plague and its sign of redemption, but New Covenant communion looks back to Christ and His sign of redemption.

By: Christine

Christine — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:26:08 +0000

Is it possible that the sign of the New Covenant is communion and not baptism?
â??This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.â? 1 Cor. 11:25

Also, I know that the law commanded circumcision, but it had it’s own official sign:

â??You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, â??Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the Lord, sanctify you.” Ex. 31:13

So why do paedobaptists say they are baptizing children in order to continue (replace) the sign of the Old Covenant? They are replacing the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant.

By: Gabe

Gabe — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:07:49 +0000

Chris, I came across your blog while roaming aimlessly through the blogsphere. From a quick perusal, it looks very good. I have to disagree with you, though, about paedobaptism. The arguments in favor of it are much more compelling than the quick 3 points you laid out. As it happens, I've written a defense of paedobaptism here. It's rather lengthy, so I understand if you don't have the time to read it. A couple quick points: I don't find your argument about girls not being circumcised very compelling. Households are baptized (male and female) because this is the apostolic practice. The fact that paedobaptists believe that membership in the New Covenant is rightly extended to the infants of believing parents does not mean that they think there are no differences between circumcision and baptism. Also, I'm not quite sure what your point about Abraham is. It is almost certainly not true that Abraham was the only adult to be circumcised as a means of entering God's covenant community. There are provisions in the Law for such occurances. To declare that circumcision was only a sign of faith for Abraham sounds a little too arbitrary and a little too convinient to me. I agree that Abraham is our father by faith, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the meaning of circumcision. It's not as if paedobaptists believe that getting baptized saves you. I have lots more to say, but I don't want to write you a thesis, so I'll stop here.

By: Christina

Christina — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:39:29 +0000

I was sort of having a conversation similar to this to this last night, except we were much less informed and used much smaller words. :-) The way you put it makes a lot of sense, and it’s nice to finally have a more solid understanding of this issue.

By: Abs

Abs — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:52:06 +0000

where do you get all this information?