Credo vs. paedobaptism...
Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness." How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised?
Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. (Romans 4:9-12)
One reader commented under another post: "Another interesting argument I came across recently from John Piper: When the New Testament church debated in Acts 15 whether circumcision should still be required of believers as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire debate did anyone say anything about baptism standing in the place of circumcision. If baptism is the simple replacement of circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and thus valid for children as well as for adults, as circumcision was, surely this would have been the time to develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary. But it is not even mentioned."
My response: Weak argument although I'll take John Piper over John MacArthur any day when it comes to arguments against paedobaptism...A point similar to his above can be made about the entire Epistle to the Galatians. Why no simple statement, direct and to the point, that baptism has replaced circumcision? Isn't that the perfect way to shut down the Judaizers?
Well actually, no. The issue wasn't the sacraments but justification. Either the Jerusalem Council or the Apostle Paul would have compounded the problem if they'd argued baptism has replaced circumcision when they were busy opposing the righteousness of the law supplanting the righteousness of the Lamb of God.
I'm not interested in arguing credobaptism vs. paedobaptism here on Baylyblog. The arguments have been made voluminously for centuries now, and we'll add little original to the discussion. Not so with sexuality and the Image of God in man. These are the doctrines of today's demons. These form the breach in the wall where we must focus our defense.
This is not to say Sacramentology and Ecclesiology and Soteriology don't need preaching and teaching and a vigorous defense. I hit these constantly in my preaching ministry. When I preached at the community Reformation Sunday afternoon service for the Christian Reformed Churches of Lynden, Washington, recently, I preached on justification and the Roman Catholic error of infusion. I explained how imputation is the Biblical doctrine and infinitely different and superior to infusion.
But on this blog, we're seeking to call men to join us in the breach. It's an idea David and I bat around that shepherds should be found at the chasm where their sheep are perishing.
So I'm unlikely to engage in arguments over whether or not infant baptism is the command of Scripture here on Baylyblog. If readers want to engage it, feel free. But be sweet because, if you're not, I'll take a swipe at you.