Another question from the book "William the Baptist" that I am currently reading through.
In the book the author states that baptism replaced the "act" of circumcision but not the "covenant" of circumcision and that the covenant of circumcision is still in effect. The sign of the covenant has however changed from circumcision to baptism. For some reason, I am having a hard time understanding this. It was always my assumption that the covenant of circumcision is no longer in effect. I could understand if he was speaking of the covenant in a sense of inclusion into the church but to still used the term covenant of "circumcision" seems odd. Can some presbyterians please explain this to me. Is not baptism the sign of being in the covenant of grace instead of the covenant of circumcision?
P.S. Since I placed this in paedobaptist answers, I am assuming that those who answer believe that baptism has replaced circumcision.
In the book the author states that baptism replaced the "act" of circumcision but not the "covenant" of circumcision and that the covenant of circumcision is still in effect. The sign of the covenant has however changed from circumcision to baptism. For some reason, I am having a hard time understanding this. It was always my assumption that the covenant of circumcision is no longer in effect. I could understand if he was speaking of the covenant in a sense of inclusion into the church but to still used the term covenant of "circumcision" seems odd. Can some presbyterians please explain this to me. Is not baptism the sign of being in the covenant of grace instead of the covenant of circumcision?
P.S. Since I placed this in paedobaptist answers, I am assuming that those who answer believe that baptism has replaced circumcision.