A credobaptist friend of mine posed these questions and I want to know how to correctly answer them. He tends to be a "chapter and verse" type of guy who will seldom settle for anything other than explicit scriptural support.
Is baptism and circumcision related in any way? If so, how so?
Secondary question: what is the sign and seal of the covenant in the New Covenant?
Thanks ahead of time for any input. I've only been paedobaptist for less than a year and I'm still learning every day.
WHY has he posed the questions? That's my question. Is this about a friendly discussion and debate? Is it about information exchange? Is it about him trying to play "gotcha?" Or about you and your own efforts to change his mind or clear your doubts?
My question is sincere, because the best answer for you is really contingent on the background to the inquiry, and not bound up in the issue at the surface.
Assume the questions reflect simple curiosity about what your church teaches. Then you might reply to the first question, "Our understanding is that the Bible teaches that baptism for God's people in the New Covenant has approximately the same function and meaning as circumcision did for God's people under the Old Covenant, and even before the Old Covenant (Sinai) going back to the Abrahamic covenant."
As for where this might be taught in Scripture, Col.2:11-12 makes a fairly clear verbal and theological connection between the two covenant signs. However, the Baptist generally has some response to this assertion. His explanation makes sense to him, just as ours does to us; thus proving that the mere connection Paul makes there is not alone sufficient to prove that the second has come in and replaced the first by something quite close to one-for-one.
You would need to show, independently, how it is that these two signs do 1) teach and represent basically the same things, so making Paul's argument a "rope" connection, rather than a single thread; and 2) that the subjects of baptism should be substantially the same under the New Covenant as for circumcision before the coming of Christ. There are numerous texts in the NT that support the second thesis, but appealing to them piecemeal tends not to sound convincing to Baptist brethren. For example, the several household baptisms that are mentioned in Acts and the Epistles we take as supportive of the basic idea in (2); but the Baptist brings other presuppositions to those texts, and they can be taken in a way that does not compromise him.
Therefore, it has to be shown in order (1) then (2) on a comprehensive basis. And this is where the differences between Presbyterian and Baptist hermeneutics comes in. Presbyterian conclusion on (2) is the product, the end result of a
theology of baptism; it is not strictly speaking the following of a "pattern" or exemplars in Scripture. Classic covenant theology is, firstly, an interpretive "pou stow" (Gk for a place to stand), a starting point; and a governor--like a straightedge or a dialed-in lens for seeing most clearly for doing work.
The sacraments are both seals of the same New covenant (WCF.27:1, WLC.176). Whereas only baptism is specifically called a "sign" (sign and seal) in our Standards, both sacramental descriptions use exact terminology of
signification (on the Lord's Supper specifically, see WCF.29:8). The New Covenant is the current exhibit, the present administration of the Covenant of Grace--God's saving intent from before the foundation of the world, shown in and through his covenant-dealings with man since the fall. One plan, one covenant; several distinct expressions of that covenant culminating in the New Covenant to which all the former are promises, and are subject.
This, once again, is a "way of looking at God's Word," the Scriptures as a whole. It is the proper way, one we think God intended to embed in the Bible itself, to guide us as we interpret his grand intention. But, I think your Baptist friend will quite possibly think he has a more proper, more correct way, perhaps one that (in his view) takes more account of how differently God dealt with the world and his chosen nation in the Old Testament era, than he does now--which impacts how he thinks the Bible should be read.
