But I still think baptism is not the sign, and there's a certain level of
distinction between the two, though not necessarily as much distance as
traditionally thought in baptistic circles.

In part because flesh circumcision carried with it evidence of it's
happening.
Likewise, heart circumcision carries evidence of it's occurrence.  When a
person is truly circumcised of the heart, there's fruit that is evidence of
it.  The heart changes, and it shows.

Baptism does not have that.  Baptism (the ceremony) is not evidence of the
change. Neither is the immersion into Christian life (sanctification/washing
away) that baptism represents.

And unfortunately, I don't see any scripture that correlates baptism with
membership, either spiritually nor in the physical church, so I hesitate to
go too far with that analogy.

I'm thinking out loud now, but could it be that baptism is the replacement
for ceremonial washing, and like the new sacrifice only needed happen once,
so the ceremonial cleansing only need happen once.
It is a physical representation of the sanctification process of cleansing
that is now taking place.  In a physical way it is even the beginning of the
washing off of that which has been cut loose.

One can fake the physical manifestation, without really getting clean.  If
the cutting has not been done, the washing is in vain, and does not reflect
a spiritual reality of cleansing that's on-going.

One cannot fake heart circumcision.  If the cutting has really taken place,
it leaves is a mess that is evident and in need of washing off.

Sorry, I'm babbling in my thought process.

Anyway, I think we confuse the issue when we conclude that baptism is the
sign that replaces OT circumcision.  IHMO that's where many Reformers went
astray.
Circumcision is the sign, and the cleansing happens because of irresistible
grace.  When one awakes from surgery and sees how messy he is, he can't help
jumping into the shower of sanctification.  Beginning and symbolized with
water baptism, followed by a life of Christian living and all that it
entails.


It may be a product of spiritual membership, but it's not the proof (sign).
The changed heart is the proof.

Grace brother,
Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: Chad Richard Bresson [mailto:breusswane@...]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 9:46 AM
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Covenant theology and baptism


----- 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

--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com

To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...

To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace