“In this article I offer a further objection to the Reformed paedobaptist argument. It is situated within the Barth-Jewett “similar but not identical” tradition of argumentation, agreeing with them that baptism and circumcision, while “standing in a similar place,” should nonetheless not be strictly equated.” - Themelios
- About
- Forum
- Account
Discussion
NewEven if we were to make a
Even if we were to make a parallel between baptism and circumcision, we need to look at Romans 4 and how Abraham is presented. Paul is comparing and contrasting the Jew and the Gentile and showing how the Gentile is not under the law, but neither was Abraham. Therefore, the Gentile can come to God by faith just like Abraham did. Within the argument, he points out that Abraham’s faith was counted to him for righteousness before he was circumcised. If the reformed tradition is going to suggest that baptism replaces circumcision, then we need to look at Romans 4 and see how Gentiles come like Abraham did and thus his circumcision came after faith, thus our baptism should come after faith as well.
NewImpressive
This is, in my opinion, an excellent evaluation, covering territory I have never before seen nor considered.
G. N. Barkman