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

But analogously, you could then say that the peace offering, or sin
offering, or the ceremonial washing is the sign of the shadow covenant.  Or
that 'repentance' is the sign of the new, because it occurs before baptism.

The sign produces effects, and those effects themselves are further evidence
of the reality, but they are not the sign proof of it.

The changed heart is the sign proof, which produces first repentance (which
isn't the sign either) and then baptism, and many other things.

You can't fake flesh circumcision, and you can't fake heart circumcision,
though you can fake the products of both.

I know we're not really arguing two distant positions, so I don't mean to be
picking at nits.
None-the-less, I think the paedo position completely deflates once you
realize baptism is not the new sign, and I think the scripture supports it
not being the sign, but the product of the sign.

Grace brother.
Thanks for your responses.

Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Chad Richard Bresson [mailto:breusswane@...]
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 11:06 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 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

--
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