----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 12:24 PM
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Covenant theology and baptism


> Chad, you said: "*children* of the New Covenant do indeed (IMHO) have a
sign
> given to them that they are *in* the New Covenant: baptism."
>
> But, isn't the Holy Spirit (heart circumcision) the sign (mark) of
inclusion
> in the new covenant?

Precisely.  But one cannot separate the heart circumcision (regeneration)
from baptism.  Baptism is outward signification of what has transpired in
the heart (Titus 3:5).  IMHO, we baptists have been too quick to protest the
link between the circumcision of the heart and baptism because of historical
abuse of that passage.  We too quickly reduce baptism to mere "memorial".
Baptism is a confession that inward circumcision has transpired, and thus,
the one baptized rightly belongs to the visible church.  In fact, this view
of baptism is a polemic against paedobaptism (at least the way it has been
historically articulated... Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins agree with our
argument in their paedobaptism by claiming that the hearts of their infants
have been inwardly circumcised), because infants cannot "confess" to an
inward circumcision - regeneration.  It is regeneration/heart circumcision
that *really* places the justified into the New Creation/New Covenant.
Baptism is the outward manifestation of the inward reality that *visibly*
places the justified into the New Creation/New Covenant.  Because of this,
those who claim to have been regenerated are in grave error if they refuse,
for any reason, to be baptized.  The scriptures make no such distinction
(something our paedo friends rightly pick up on).

It is also MHO that because baptism is the outward signification of the
inward reality that placing distance between regeneration and baptism has
been to our theological/eschatological detriment.  But that's another issue.
:-)

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH