I would say regeneration is the "sign", the "washing" of Titus 3:5, and
baptism is the sign of the sign because of its inseparable connection to
repentance.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Fuchs (on MSN)" <SteveF_MS@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: [soundofgrace] Covenant theology and baptism


> "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
>
> --
> 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
>
>