----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 1:42 PM
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Covenant theology and baptism


> 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.

Baptism is the first "evidence of it's happening".  Support for viewing it
this way is the pattern in Acts: repent and be baptized.  Separating the two
goes beyond what the apostles did.

> Likewise, heart circumcision carries evidence of it's occurrence.

And that evidence is first seen (repent and be baptized) in baptism.

>When a
> person is truly circumcised of the heart, there's fruit that is evidence
of
> it.

Precisely.  And baptism is the first fruit that is evidence of the
circumcision of the heart.

>The heart changes, and it shows.

It shows itself first and foremost, biblically, in baptism.

> Baptism does not have that.  Baptism (the ceremony) is not evidence of the
> change.

This is where I think your thoughts conflict with the biblical record.  Look
up baptizo, cleansing, water, washing, etc. in the New Covenant and it is
almost always analogous to baptism at some point.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH