Baptism and Covenant Theology - Part the Second

Moving on we know that in the OT the believer's children were circumcised as a sign of the covenant in accordance with Genesis seventeen:

'This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,'

Now here we have initiation into a people group and not a profession of anything other than discomfort from the focus of it (the child) in sight (or hearing). Now if this is the outward sign of the inner grace that is God's offering of relationship and the outer circumcision of the flesh is to be matched by the 'circumcision of the heart' that we would today call 'discipleship'; as we find in Jeremiah nine:

'The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh - Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart.'

Circumcision is an interesting thing to behold in the NT for we find Paul telling us that those who are uncircumcised but keep the law will find their uncircumcision regarded as circumcision and this will pour condemnation on those who are circumcised but fail to keep it (the law). The sign alone does not confer membership of the covenant for it is more than physical it is a 'matter of the heart - by the Spirit, not the letter of the law.

This, I feel confirms my stance that baptism confers membership of the place where discipleship may be made real rather than conferring discipleship (or the covenant) in itself. It is the place where potential for discipleship and membership of the club is made accessible. The OT's circumcision is replaced by the NT's baptism  and as Titus three tells us:

Jesus saved us, not because of what we have done as righteousness but according to his own mercy by baptism and the presence of God's Holy Spirit heralding us into new life. But I hear some turn to Acts two and, thinking they've won a point and pointing to Peter, tell me how Peter says:

'Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'


But this washing confers salvation with the baptism acting as an appeal to God for the benefits and merits of that which were won for us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it's not our profession or our acts or even decisions but the coming and being baptised (if we are to believe 1 Peter three). And so as we find circumcision replaced by baptism as the sign of making the covenant ours we receive the circumcision of the Spirit, the ‘circumcision of Christ’ (Colossians two) and are 'buried with Him in baptism’ and receive also the fulfilment in the resurrection of Him also.

So it does seem to me that if we accept the premise that circumcision is interchangeable with baptism insofar as covenant theology is concerned then there does appear also to be merit in the the practice of baptising kids. This, along with 'oikos' and the fact that this was a practice that was to be found in the NT from the earliest days does strengthen a claim for such practices.

But don't take my word for it (I know I don't and I'm aware that throwing this off the top of my head is a recipe for madness rather than concord) - we will have to look at the sacramental approach and the reasons for refusal too.

Which will have to be parts three and four (and probably five too).

But remember, I've never claimed to be bright ;-)