Why I am now a Baptist

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am stopping for now. I probably won't weigh in much more. I have to get ready for my return home from surgery and for the surgery itself.

You guys be Encouraged,

Thanks Reverend Winzer

 

[kceaster]

Since the Holy Spirit wrote the book of Acts, then He knows quite well how many He baptized that day, and what their ages were. I don't think we'll ever find that out this side of heaven. I'm not saying that we can't take this literally, but I'm also not saying that 3000 men were immersed in full view of the Jewish leaders, who 50 days before, murdered the One in Whom these persons were supposed to be baptized. It could have been a mass (small m), hyssop-sprinkling event. It could have been a dry baptism in which the Holy Spirit can and does work. In any case, I think the Holy Spirit wrote exactly (through Luke) who He baptized.

Regardless, the promise was to these men of Pentecost, and to their children, and to as many as would be called in the same manner as they. What promise? Same promise as introduced in Genesis 3:15, and the same promise as was more fully developed in Genesis 17:1-8, and the same promise as repeated over and over again. The same promise that in Christ is Yes, and Amen, as are all God's promises. We can try to come up with empirical evidence and irrefutable scriptural proof. But, we'll never end up with agreement unless and until the focus is shifted off the physical sign and placed squarely within the promises of God. After all, we do not have faith in the sign, but in that which the sign signifies. If we all do that, then we'll be much closer to understanding the purpose of God in Salvation. Christ didn't come to save persons, He came to save a people. Why shouldn't that people include children? More importantly, when did God stop including children?

In Christ,

KC

 

[staythecourse]

As an aside: How can 3,000 people be submerged by Baptism in one day? Only the Apostles had authority to baptize, and there were 12 of them. Each Apostle would have to baptize 750 people in one day? That in itself seems a bit far-fetched.

The 3,000 baptisms in a day is very feasible. It could be done between meals. 3,000/12 = 250 * 20-30 seconds/baptism = 5,000 - 7500 seconds = 83 minutes - 125 minutes

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Assembly Line!!!

Where were the tubs?

Did anyone get exhausted?

 

[Pilgrim's Progeny]

As an aside: How can 3,000 people be submerged by Baptism in one day? Only the Apostles had authority to baptize, and there were 12 of them. Each Apostle would have to baptize 750 people in one day? That in itself seems a bit far-fetched.

The 3,000 baptisms in a day is very feasible. It could be done between meals. 3,000/12 = 250 * 20-30 seconds/baptism = 5,000 - 7500 seconds = 83 minutes - 125 minutes

no offence, just struck the funny bone. I never thought someone would think to do the math.

 

[staythecourse]

 

[staythecourse]

Assembly Line!!!

Where were the tubs?

Did anyone get exhausted?

OK. The Pool of Siloam was within walking distance OK? (Never know!)

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Rob- you said this

The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism. Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.
Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.

Did you mean to say OLD COV by circumcision?

Then you said-

The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism.

This is still the main point of disagreement. Randy and Bill have pointed it out already. Only Spirit Baptism does this, water baptism does not.
The view you hold says it does.That is why if you look back at virtually every padeo post, They never mention the new birth,or the Spirit quickening the child.
Yes, when pressed into it they will say something like - of course it depends upon the Spirit's work. Yet when not prompted you rarely will see this highlighted. Salvation is set forth as a methodical step by step procedure,dealing with mental ascent to the idea that all of the "promise" that the sign pointed to, will be just sort of infused into the child- because we cannot tell when where or How the Spirit moves?

Randy correctly pointed out that no child is excommunicated because unless they are born of the Spirit they are not in. It is not physical birth the puts you in,like OT. It is new birth the puts you in in NT.

Hi Brother!

Circumcision in the Old Testament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. The sign and seal are applied to the recipient whether or not the recipient is a Believer or the child of a Believer - 8 days old.

Water Baptism in the New Testament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. The sign and seal are applied to the recipient whether or not the recipient is a Believer or the child of a Believer.

Just as the New Testament teaches that Water Baptism does not save you, so the Old Testament teaches that physical circumcision does not save you either:

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, Deut 10:16.

And the LORD thy God shall circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD thy God with all of your heart that thou mayest live Deut 31:6.

But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God, Rom 2:29; see also Jer 4:4.

Water Baptism does not save a person - but it is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant.

Physical Circumcision did not save a person either - but it was a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant.

Jesus angered the Jews because they claimed to be the descendents of Abraham, and Jesus acknowledged that they were physically descended from Abraham, but what did He say to them?

I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham, John 8:37ff.

Water Baptism and Physical Circumcision both needed the Work of the Spirit in order for the recipient to be a true child of Abraham. In the Old Testament language the one circumcised needed his "heart circumcised" which is analogus to being "Born Again."

I think there is a language barrier here: The New Covenant was promised to Adam and Eve after the Fall, Gen 3:14,15. It is found in the types and shadows of the Old Testament times until the coming of Jesus (the mediator of the New Testament). The types and shadows were then stripped away, and the New Covenant shown in all of its glory in the New Testament. The "Old Covenant" is the Covenant of Works - the "New Covenant" is the Covenant of Grace.

The Covenant of Grace is called the "New" Covenant because it came after the Covenant of Works - the "Old" Covenant.

They are called "Old" and "New" testaments because they deal with the death of the testator, Hebrews 9:16,17.

The testator of the "Old" Testament was the blood of calves and goats, Hebrews 9:19,20. But these could not redeem man because they had to continually be sacrificed, were temporary, and were types of the perfect. The Bible calls this the "first" testament we simply use the word "old".

The testator of the "New" Testament is Jesus Christ, Heb 9:14-15, 23-28.

This is, partly, why my investigation into Jeremiah 31 and Paul's interpretation of it in Hebrews chapters 8-10 convinced me the credo-baptist position is incorrect. Membership in the New Covenant in both the Old and New Testaments are believers and their children. We know this to be true because the "holy" status of the children of believers has never been recinded in the New Testament, and, it has, in fact, been assumed, and declared, to continue in the New Testament.

Just as Abraham was required to "Believe in God" and then he was circumcised, but his infant children were not required to "Believe in God" and be circumcised: So, the head of a household is required to "Believe and be Baptized," but such a requirement is not necessary for his infant children.

Because the law stating that the children of believers are members of the New Covenant has not been repealed.

Hope this clears things up,

CalvinandHodge

 

[CalvinandHodges]

As an aside: How can 3,000 people be submerged by Baptism in one day? Only the Apostles had authority to baptize, and there were 12 of them. Each Apostle would have to baptize 750 people in one day? That in itself seems a bit far-fetched.

The 3,000 baptisms in a day is very feasible. It could be done between meals. 3,000/12 = 250 * 20-30 seconds/baptism = 5,000 - 7500 seconds = 83 minutes - 125 minutes

 

[Herald]

Robert,

The reason I haven't responded to your earlier post is because this thread has taken off into a full scale baptism debate. I figured that would happen when Chris posted his change of position, but I forgot just how much I disliked the tone of the baptism threads once they got rolling. I haven't read a compelling argument on either side that I haven't heard before. I decided to jump off the moving train and take my lumps. I don't want you thinking I ignored you.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Robert,

The reason I haven't responded to your earlier post is because this thread has taken off into a full scale baptism debate. I figured that would happen when Chris posted his change of position, but I forgot just how much I disliked the tone of the baptism threads once they got rolling. I haven't read a compelling argument on either side that I haven't heard before. I decided to jump off the moving train and take my lumps. I don't want you thinking I ignored you.

Thank you kindly, Bill.

When I first saw this thread I said to myself, "Oh no, not again!" But the arguments do not run dull for me, and I hope, of late, my tone has not been offensive?

Fight the Good fight, brother,

CalvinandHodge

 

[bookslover]

The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular).

In fact, Matthew, doesn't the Greek text read "covenants of the promise"? I think that, of all the modern translations, only the NIV (ironically enough) preserves the definite article in its rendering.

 

[Herald]

Robert,

The reason I haven't responded to your earlier post is because this thread has taken off into a full scale baptism debate. I figured that would happen when Chris posted his change of position, but I forgot just how much I disliked the tone of the baptism threads once they got rolling. I haven't read a compelling argument on either side that I haven't heard before. I decided to jump off the moving train and take my lumps. I don't want you thinking I ignored you.

Thank you kindly, Bill.

When I first saw this thread I said to myself, "Oh no, not again!" But the arguments do not run dull for me, and I hope, of late, my tone has not been offensive?

Fight the Good fight, brother,

CalvinandHodge

Robert, your tone has been fine. Rest easy.

 

[MW]

The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular).

In fact, Matthew, doesn't the Greek text read "covenants of the promise"? I think that, of all the modern translations, only the NIV (ironically enough) preserves the definite article in its rendering.

Richard, it certainly does; not that I would make too much of it because the Greek tends to prefer the article on certain nouns, so its inclusion is not necessarily an indication of definiteness. But in connection with the singular it at least substantiates the point that a specific promise is in view here, namely, the promise of Christ; which runs counter to the claim that circumcision was merely a national sign concerned with temporal promises.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

[post #75] Hi:

In answer to JerusalemBlade - we are not looking at the Christian observance of the Feast of Weeks, but How the Jews celebrated it. Since they were the ones who were commanded to bring "all males" on the day, then it would follow that "all males" were there, c.f. Deut 16:16.

Rob, indeed all males were required to show up for this feast, as you noted. However, verses 10 & 11 in this chapter, talking of the feast of weeks / Pentecost, say,

10: And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God.... 11: And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place where the LORD thy God hath chosen you to place his name there.​

This feast was to be a festive one, and although it was mandated all the males were to be there, the entire family, including servants, were invited in this time of rejoicing in the city of Jerusalem, and at the temple in particular. There were women and children in the milling crowds. And listening to Peter.

--------

Justin (post #56),

In answer to your request, here are 2 books and an online pamphlet. They are all from the Protestant Reformed Church, which has a coherent view of infant baptism. First, the pamphlet, The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers - David J. Engelsma

Then there is the book by Herman Hanko, We And Our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism: Reformed Free Publishing Association

And lastly, Herman Hoeksema's: Believers and Their Seed [Check out the Standard Bearer book review at the bottom of the page.]

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Note: because I use the PRC's books, and some of their doctrines, does not mean I adhere to all their views.

-------

Bill, in your post #66 you said,

I have an equally difficult time in trying to understand how a paedo can look back at the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision), use that to defend the New Testament sign (baptism), but claim the rest of the Abrahamic promises (land promises to be specific) become spiritual promises in the New Covenant. The paedo reasoning rings hollow in my mind.

And then you quoted Malone:

It must be understood that just because there was an intermixture of physical and spiritual elements in the Abrahamic Covenant, it does not follow by implication that the same elements apply to the New Covenant. We all know that one became a member of the Abrahamic Covenant by physical circumcision, but God also called Abraham's seed to spiritually circumcise their hearts as well (Deut. 10:16). That the New Covenant emphasizes a spiritual circumcision does not automatically imply that there must be physical members in the New Covenant without such a heart. As Pastor Walter Chantry of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, has well said, "In the Old Covenant, all that was spiritual was identified with an outward nation. In the New Covenant, all that is outward is identified with a spiritual nation." Therefore, those who apply the Abrahamic inclusion of physical children to the New Covenant as a basis for the infant baptism of the Christian's children must also honestly deal with the "forever" implications of Canaan, circumcision, and household adult membership in the New Covenant as well. There is too much inconsistency here to make a valid argument.

I think this is an important objection, that is, the "land promises". Was the promise of the land of Canaan (Gen 12:7; 15:7, 18-21; 17:8) given as "an everlasting possession" without qualification? O. Palmer Robertson, in his book, The Israel of God, writes,

In the process of redemptive history, a dramatic movement has taken place. The arena of redemption has shifted from type to reality, from shadow to substance. The land which once was the specific place of God's redemptive work served well in the realm of old covenant forms as a picture of paradise lost and promised. But in the realm of new covenant fulfillments, the land has expanded to encompass the whole world. (p. 30, 31)​

Some Jews (of which people, according to the flesh, I am) and some Christians, assert that the physical land promise is Biblical basis for the Jewish state's dispossessing of the native Palestinians and establishing military hegemony over the region, and are fulfilling just these promises / prophecies. I have written elsewhere on this exegetical horror:

http://www.puritanboard.com/290145-post1.html

As pointed out by CalvinandHodge in post #75, Abraham, as well his seed Isaac and Jacob, looked for a city "whose builder and maker is God" (Heb 11:10, 16), "that is, an heavenly [country]". So they also looked beyond the type, to the eternal reality.

When David says, in Psalm 37:9, "For evildoers shall be cut off: but they that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth", he presaged what Jesus said in Matthew 5:5, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

If one says that the Jews living in Palestine now are doing so in prophetic fulfillment, consider the LORD's view:

But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou should take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee?" (Ps 50:16, 17)​

It is also written, "Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity!" (Habakkuk 2:12) Those who are cognizant of what happened in and around 1948 in Palestine should realize that the "land promises" have been appropriated by those precluded from them. The only meek and righteous in that land now are believing Arabs, Messianic Jews and other indigenous believers (not including visiting Christians).

Will there be a physical land of Israel in the new world? Where will the New Jerusalem be located? We know there will be no sea (Rev 21:1), and maybe the earth will not look like it does now. Will my beloved Woodstock (NY) still exist in any fashion?

The entire world will be the land of Israel, for this is the name of Him who is its King, the only Israelite worthy to stand before the Almighty God in His own merit: Jesus of Nazareth. Herein will the land promises be fulfilled to their utmost, in a glory undreamt of by all its inhabitants-to-be.

In sum: there is no inconsistency in the paedo view of the covenant, seeing as the exegesis of types and shadows into fulfilled realities and substance has apostolic warrant.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Ken, what you describe was also Al Martin's experience. He thought that John Murray would convince him of paedo-baptism, but John Murray actually convinced him of credo-baptism.

Chris, it takes principle to reverse your position after arguing publicly for another view. You are to be commended for your honesty, and I trust God will bless you with ever fuller understanding of His word.

Actually, I do not find that very surprising. Prof. Murray's views on the covenant of grace and the non-validity of the invisible/visible church distinction are very difficult to reconcile with infant baptism.

 

[Zenas]

I apologize to and ask forgiveness from any Baptists I may have offended in the past with my previous PB posts on baptism and Baptists.

Chris, all is fair in love, war and baptism threads.

I'm putting this in my quotes section on Facebook.

 

[Pilgrim]

he stated militated a clear proof that believer's baptism is clearly and necessarily inferred by Acts 2:41-42

That was his opinion, he wasn't requesting a debate. But anyway.

He said that it never hit him solidly enough to cause him to see a paedobaptist position.
I think he should be commended for standing on his convictions enough to voice it, and as friends we should understand that he continues to receive our encouragement, not get effected as if we are being pressed for a debate.

I don't say any of this with bitterness, it is only something that I saw that I'd like to say with all due respect to you.

To continue, I do not believe(strictly as an opinion) that if a credo said they saw the light and went to paedo, and a person responded inversely with defenses and prooftexts supporting paedo, that you would permit people bringing up defenses and prooftexts.

All under the bridge anyway, now that I see its been moved to the debate area of the forum. Again, I say this just as observation and opinion, not for slander or accusation.

For the record, this thread was always in the baptism forum, which is for debate and discussion.

 

[Pilgrim]

I apologize to and ask forgiveness from any Baptists I may have offended in the past with my previous PB posts on baptism and Baptists.

Pilgrim,
If you get a chance listen to this sermon on Acts 2 and let me know, what you think.
it is on sermonaudio
153 What is a Covenant Child?
Hal Brunson, Ph.D. • 46 min.
Hebrews 2; Acts 2 • First Baptist Church of Parker 100+ Play! | MP3

SUN 07/09/2006
Sunday - AM

Thanks for the heads up. I am familiar with Dr. Brunson because I know some men who belong to or have belonged to that church in the past but unfortunately I haven't listened to his preaching.

 

[Pilgrim]

Ok. I don't have time to read all this now much less respond. I probably won't be able to interact much in this thread until toward the end of the week but I will try to respond to questions as time permits.

 

[timmopussycat]

Assembly Line!!!

Where were the tubs?

Did anyone get exhausted?

Please investigate the water supply on the temple mount for your answer. I don't have the issue to hand but I do remember reading within the last 10 years or so in a Christian magazine specializing in archeological issues that, given the water supply to the temple mount area, such a mass baptism (by immersion) was possible.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hi Tim,
I don't think my post makes much sense without reference to the immediate preceding one, for which it was meant to be a lighthearted reply. I believe it got a laugh from its intended recipient.

To your comment, I think most can assent to the theoretical possibility of thousands of immersions temporally, logistically, etc. Practically possible, politically possible, ... ? I think those are legitimate areas to bring questions to bear. Perhaps a realistic reenactment of the whole event by 3000 baptists would settle the pragmatic question once and for all?

Probably not. Looking forward to the book you've mentioned you are writing related to thnmy. Blessings.

 

[Ivan]

Perhaps a realistic reenactment of the whole event by 3000 baptists would settle the pragmatic question once and for all?

Oh, brother, don't give us ideas like that!

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Let's get this started: 11 vs 3000!

Seriously, we really need a formal baptism debate in which the two participants are not allowed to leave the ring until all arguments and counter-arguments are answered!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Apropos the conjectures regarding the immersion of the 3,000 in Jerusalem, I submit the following as evidence to the contrary. The author, F.G. Hibbard, was a Methodist pastor in the early part of the 1800s, and apparently quite exercised in the matters of minute detail pertaining to infant baptism, and to the mode of baptism.

This is from the book, Christian Baptism, by Rev. F.G. Hibbard, (NY: Carlton & Lanahan. 1841).

The account of Luke (Acts ii) goes to prove that three thousand persons were baptized and added to the church on the day of Pentecost; but does not specify the mode. If, however, we attend critically to all the circumstances of the occasion, we shall find the weight of evidence to lie against the idea of their being immersed. Proceed we then to notice—

1. Their time for baptism. Peter began to preach “about the third hour of the day;” i.e., nine o’clock, A.M. Ver. 15. Judging from the nature of the occasion and from the drift of his discourse, as given by Luke, he continued at least an hour. Luke says, “With many other words Peter testified and exhorted,” &c. Ver. 40. Peter’s sermon being ended, the converts must be selected from the multitude, and questioned as to their faith and experience. This was not the work of a moment. If they were immersed, they must have been provided with a change of raiment: This must have occasioned great delay. For when the multitude came together, at first, it was with some confusion and no expectation of Christian baptism or conversion. Then, apartments for men and women must be procured adjacent to the place of baptism. Before all these preliminaries could be disposed of with decency, it must have been afternoon; say one o’clock. The Jewish day closed at six P.M., and Luke says they were baptized and added to the church “the same day.” Consequently they had but five hours left, in which to perform their labour. But if the twelve apostles baptized three thousand persons in five hours, they must have averaged for each apostle two hundred and fifty; which would be, for each, fifty persons per hour, or five persons in every six minutes. This, I need not say, would have been impossible. But if the apostles baptized by aspersion [sprinkling], they thereby saved much time, and might have performed the task with comparative ease....

2. They had no place for the immersion of such a multitude. The brook Kidron (Cedron), which ran along the east side of the city, was, at its maximum, but a turbid stream,—always dry in the hot season, and it was now about June; so that its waters must have been failing fast. Besides, soon after it issued from its source, it received, from a common sewer, all the blood and ordure of the sacrifices, and the common filth, both of the temple and the northern section of the city. This alone would have rendered it unfit for baptism. As to public pools, we have account of only two, Bethesda and Siloam. The latter was three-fourths of a mile from the spot where the apostles had preached. We have no account of their marching off three thousand persons, with all the multitude of spectators that would naturally follow, this distance. Besides, their time would have failed them. Bethesda lay within the precincts of the temple, and was used in the temple service for the washing of sacrifices, &c. It was, therefore, in the hands of the priests, the avowed and mortal enemies of Christ and his apostles; and I believe it will not be pretended that the dignitaries of the Jewish church, after their recent hard-earned and diabolical triumph over Christ and his followers; their concerted and undisguised hostility to the Christian name; their settled and incurable malice, now newly festered by the alarming success of the apostles,—it will not, I say, be pretended that, under these circumstances, they would have peaceably surrendered their claims to the use of Bethesda, in order to have accommodated the apostles of Christ with a place for Christian baptism; particularly, as the time for the evening sacrifice came on between three and four o’clock, P.M., when the use of the pool was always needed; and it being now Pentecost, and the sacrifices numerous and important, its use would have been wholly indispensable. In addition to all this, (if any additional remark be necessary,) both Siloam and Bethesda were probably of inadequate dimensions to admit twelve men...for the purpose of immersing. In the porches of Bethesda, the sick constantly reclined, waiting to receive the benefit of its healing waters. Where, then, did the apostles immerse three thousand converts? Are there not difficulties attending that hypothesis? (Part II, pp. 111-114)​

 

[blhowes]

Seriously, we really need a formal baptism debate in which the two participants are not allowed to leave the ring until all arguments and counter-arguments are answered!

...and one admits defeat

 

[Zenas]

Seriously, we really need a formal baptism debate in which the two participants are not allowed to leave the ring until all arguments and counter-arguments are answered!

...and one admits defeat

I think a cage match free-for-all would be much more entertaining. Or better yet, king of the ring. 1v1 until one drops out, then another takes his place. The last party standing is the winner.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Hi Brother!

Circumcision in the Old Testament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. The sign and seal are applied to the recipient whether or not the recipient is a Believer or the child of a Believer - 8 days old.

Water Baptism in the New Testament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. The sign and seal are applied to the recipient whether or not the recipient is a Believer or the child of a Believer.

Just as the New Testament teaches that Water Baptism does not save you, so the Old Testament teaches that physical circumcision does not save you either:

I am sorry but I really don't have much time to spend with this due to other things. But let me just say this. I do not think that Circumcision is necessarily the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace. It is a sign and seal of the righteousness of Abraham's personal faith as mentioned in Romans.

I have discussed this in previous discussions. There are differences in the two signs as I have mentioned before.

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision?
Posted 02-01-2008 at 08:15 AM by PuritanCovenanter
Reformed Baptist Institute

Nehemiah Coxe, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ (Palmdale: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005, 140) A reprint of A Discourse of the Covenants that God Made with Men before the Law, 1681

Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision.

Certainly it is safer to interpret one text according to the general current of Scripture and in full harmony with it, than to force such a sense on many texts (which they will in no way admit) to bring them into a compliance to a notion with which our minds are prepossessed. It is plain that the notion I have insisted on fully agrees with other places where circumcision is discussed according to its immediate and direct use in the old covenant. For there can be no contradiction in ascribing a different and seemingly opposite use and end to the same thing, if it be done in a different respect. What circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing; what it was as subordinate to a better covenant and promise that had precedence to it, is another. It is easy to conceive that it might be that to the father of the faithful in its extraordinary institution, what it could not be to the children of the flesh or carnal seed in its ordinary use.

To conclude: if circumcision and baptism have the same use and are seals of the same covenant, I can hardly imagine how the application of both to the same subjects should at any time be proper. Yet we find those that were circumcised in their infancy were also baptized on the profession of faith and repentance even before circumcision was abrogated. Yes, according to the opinion that has been argued against, the Jews that believed before Christ suffered were at the same time under a command both of circumcising and baptizing their infant seed. But if the principles that this discourse is built upon are well proved by Scripture, as I take them to be, there must be allowed a vast disparity between circumcision and baptism. The old covenant is not the new; nor that which is abolished, the same with that which remains. Until these become one, baptism and circumcision will never be found so far one that the law for applying the latter should be a sufficient warrant for the administration of the former to infants.

Anyways, You guys have a great week.

 

[Pilgrim's Progeny]

Apropos the conjectures regarding the immersion of the 3,000 in Jerusalem, I submit the following as evidence to the contrary. The author, F.G. Hibbard, was a Methodist pastor in the early part of the 1800s, and apparently quite exercised in the matters of minute detail pertaining to infant baptism, and to the mode of baptism.

This is from the book, Christian Baptism, by Rev. F.G. Hibbard, (NY: Carlton & Lanahan. 1841).

I found the book Steve reference online, wow, he was quite exercised. It looks like it may be worth the read. What do you think, Steve?