Circumcision and church office

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unoriginalname

Unoriginalname

Puritan Board Junior
So I tend to avoid debates simply because I do not know enough to go on for very long. However a person was attempting to cast doubt on the idea that only ministers should baptize and he tried to get me to debate him. I eventually bailed out of the debate when it was clear that he rejected things like the concept of the local church. But while debating him a couple questions came to mind, who could preformed a valid circumcision in the old testament? And does that even affect who can preform a valid baptism in the new covenant?
 
Interesting question Eric. I see no stipulation on who could perform circumcisions, anybody could do it. I don't know if that has any bearing in the new covenant, Jesus gave the commision to his apostles, but there were lay people who baptized. The WCF specifies a minister, but there's probably allowance for unusual circumstances.:2cents:
 
What goes for Passover/Lord's supper goes for circumcision/baptism. Which is why lots of the FV types, who have, in their great discernment, found a logical error in what the Church as taught for the last 2000 years, and allow heads of households to serve the Lord's supper.
 
Zipporah's circumcision of Gershom is (it practically goes without saying) an extraordinary circumstance.

Actual circumcisions recorded are rare in Scripture. But when someone is named under ordinary circumstances, like Abraham, he is a clear mediatorial figure.

"Joshua" is said to have circumcised all Israel, Jos.5:2-3. Obviously, he didn't do the whole job. But he oversaw it. And the only persons who would have had the authorization to assist would be those already circumcised (just one criteria, not a "sufficient condition"). And there is no doubt about it--the Levites, unlike the rest of the nation, were most certainly circumcised in the wilderness. No service at the Tabernacle could have gone on without performance by the ceremonially clean. And we know that the sacrifices were not suspended, the holy things were toted about the waste with the people on the move.

Luke 1:59, "So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him by the name of his father, Zacharias." Who are they? Covenant representatives; I suspect that the priests were the designated circumcisers, although we can speculate about some other person (perhaps a Levite?) was delegated to this duty.

Bottom line, circumcision was an official act, and official acts are to be performed in the name of the polity. Extraordinary circumstances excepted. "Exceptions do not make the rules."
 
TimV said:
What goes for Passover/Lord's supper goes for circumcision/baptism. Which is why lots of the FV types, who have, in their great discernment, found a logical error in what the Church as taught for the last 2000 years, and allow heads of households to serve the Lord's supper.
Click to expand...

Are you actually advocating that, or are you being sarcastic?
 
Old Testament circumcision was performed by spiritual leader types. Even so, one thing to keep in mind is that although there are some strong connections between circumcision and baptism, not everything about one has to apply to the other. If we're attempting to define who should perform baptisms, we should give the most weight to biblical instruction about baptism itself.

This goes even for paedobaptists. We can accept some differences between the administration of circumcision and that of baptism without jeopardizing the paedobaptist position, as the evidence for that position is bigger than just its connection to circumcision.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top