Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
The following was recently posted in the Sabbath forum:
In this week's Sabbath-related post, the Irish Presbyterian, Thomas Witherow, explains the link between infant baptism and Sabbatarianism. In Witherow's day, he addressed this argument to Sabbath observers who denied infant baptism; in our day, we find ourselves addressing the same argument to paedobaptists who reject Sabbath observance. If you are interested in reading more of Witherow on these subjects, you will find both Scriptural Baptism and his pamphlet on The Sabbath reprinted in the recent volume, I Will Build My Church. Anyway, here he is on this issue:
... He maintains that the change from the seventh to the first day of the week does not interfere with the great unrepealed principle of one day’s rest after six days’ work, and he concludes, therefore, that the law of the Sabbath is a perpetual ordinance: and we maintain that the change of the initiatory rite from circumcision to baptism does not interfere with the great unrepealed principle of infant membership; and we conclude, therefore, that infant membership in the Church of God is a perpetual ordinance.
He insists that if men do not discover sufficient authority in the New Testament for the change of day, this does not free them from the law of the Sabbath, but binds them to keep it on the seventh day instead of the first and we insist that if men do not see sufficient authority in the New Testament for infant baptism, this does not free them from the law of infant church membership, but binds them to acknowledge that membership by circumcising instead of baptizing them. In short, the mode of proof is the same exactly in the one case as it is in the other. ...
----------------------------------------
Moderating; just word in advance; if anyone wants to debate the point, do so in Baptism forum.
------------------------------------------
Simply put, this is category confusion (and seemingly a novel argument even among Reformed divines).
The Sabbath principle remains in effect because it is part of the irrevocable Moral Law, and a creation ordinance. The conduct of the NT church justifies the observance being moved from the seventh to the first day of the week.
Circumcision and Baptism are each positive institutions in their own right. The requirement for circumcision is specifically done away with in the NT. The requirement for Baptism is specifically initiated.
So now we’re back to the age-old difference in understanding whether or not baptism is the direct replacement/organic evolution of circumcision. Both sides are being true to the RPW in accordance with what they believe Scripture instructs on the matter.
Last edited: