Soli Deo Gloria – Page 12 – Dedicated to the Science of living blessedly forever…

Not realizing the ramifications that would ensue, Marty dropped his list of grievances on the Manager's (hereafter referred to as "The Man") desk. He had been working for Potpourri Plush for years and years. Faithfully and almost flawlessly executing all of his duties, he was most loyal to the Company. Yet, he didn't see it in such a light. He'd memorized and followed the Man's Memos crossing every t and dotting every i, yet he just knew something was missing. The other Employees had looked upon him in confusion, not understanding his rigorous determination to please the President, according to the standards delineated by the Man. Regardless of the "better" Marty had done and the more disciplined he'd become, this missing component's absence had grown like a Dark Cloud looming over him…consuming, overwhelming his entire livelihood. Potpourri Plush was his life!

If he ever wanted to be graced with the presence of the President, he would have to work hard. He felt it impossible. The more he mulled over the Man's memos, the more inconsistencies and self-contradictions he found. This troubled him. Surely the Man was aware of such. Maybe it was a test. On one hand, the memos called for perfect attendance to Potpourri Plush's scheduled work days. On the other hand, if certain employees missed, they could "buy out" the Man and be free from fear of reprisal. Yet, in the Man's memos, there was no acknowledgement or attempt to reconcile the two apprarent contradictions.

As Marty pressed forward, albeit in blind loyalty to the Man's memos, Providence intervened. Due to some recent renovation, Marty was asked by the Man to relocate to a much older office space. In fact, it was one of the originating spaces of the Company. While setting up his new office, Marty found a book called "The President's Manual". With veracious curiosity, Marty began to feast upon this presidential manna, noting its incredible similarities to the Man's memos…but without the usual accompanying interpretations and traditions forced upon it. Unlike the Man's self-contradictory, tradition-gridded memos, the President's Manual had a beautiful cohesion about it…freeing Marty of the lingering Cloud above him.

Marty noted several liberating things in the President's Manual. He learned that Potpourri was not as complicated and taxing as the Man's memos had espoused. In fact, Marty learned that Potpourri Plush was never intended to function as a business in the first place! The President's Scent was always intended as a free gift, given to Whom He pleased, whensoever He pleased. Furthermore, it wasn't even called "Potpourri" originally. Nor was "Plush" anywhere in the mixture. It was a new name altogether! A name given by mere managers, in rebellion to the President's initial intentions. Oh how Marty had misunderstood the President for so long, via the distorted picture he'd been handed from the Man's memos. He'd thought it was a business. He'd thought it was an insurmountable task, only earned by militant perfection.

The President's Manual told a different story. Though many words were similar to the phraseology found in the Man's memos, they spoke of two very different views. The President was not a malicious businessman, hungry for lucre and gain; rather, He was a gracious man, giving His Scent to those who realized their great stench. The managers had seen fit, over the years, to ignore their own stench and profit from the destitute, who knew the gravity of their condition. Marty knew his well. He remembered the Dark Cloud which lingered about him. How it weighed him down and pushed him to despondency. Now there was New Hope!

Marty could not hold his zeal, nor keep it to himself. Immediately he began to list grievances against the Man's memos, in light of the President's Manual. Working furiously in time, he hoped to have the Man reconsider his ways and bring massive reforms. He also noted that if the other Employees saw these thoughts, they too might be liberated from the Dark Cloud. The next Day would be one of the Company's most celebrated work Day. Every year on this Day their was a concentrated effort of workers and managers alike to focus on the "good" of the Company. Marty was resolved to bring his grievances to the Man this particular Day. Little did he realize the shockwaves that would resound in response to his meager thoughts.

Not realizing the ramifications that would ensue, Marty dropped his list of grievances on the Manager's desk. Before the Man ever had opportunity to see it, his secretary took notice of it. She could not take her eyes or thoughts from it's liberating, confrontational, tradition-challenging thoughts. She knew what to do. She would make copies and put it in all the Employees' memorandum inboxes. Furthermore, she would scan the document, putting it into electronic form, and email it throughout. Such was the beginning of the Reformation of the President's Company, bringing it back to its original roots and proclaiming the true nature of the President: Graciousness and Freedom From the Madeup Memos of the Managers.

On October 31st, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenburg Chapel. Much like Marty (ahem…pun intended), Luther discovered some heart-wrenching inconsistencies in the establishment to which he belonged, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). He recognized the poor in heart being bogged down by the doctrines and commandments of men, thinking the way to God was through the mammoth RCC and her damning, unbiblical doctrines. Their only hope, according to these leaders (i.e. the managers, the Man) was to hope they could earn God's favor by way of works, money, indulgences, etc. The RCC's doctrine of Popery (potpourri 😉 plush) was a dark cloud making one fallible man the purveyor of all "truth". However, God had a plan to reveal an essential doctrine of Biblical Christianity to a monk. This monk was Martin Luther who, by the grace of God, was changed by the fundamental doctrine Sola Fide.

Sola Fide means "justification by faith alone." Realizing the dissemination of such truth would turn them over on their backs, the leaders of the RCC scurried in frenzies to stop the spread of such a liberating doctrine. No longer would men feel the impossible pressure of having to earn their salvation via the extrabiblical commands of the RCC. No longer would it be about money, greed, corruption, etc. Rather, to whom God gives salvation, He gives freely by faith. This would be Luther's Reformation Rally Cry. In Part II we will look more at the actual doctrine of Sola Fide.

In a recent thread on the Puritan Board, Philip A presented a brief but excellent critique of Greg Welty's From Circumcision to Baptism. It is worthy of your consideration…

Let me preface my comments by letting you know that over the last few months I’ve come around to the paedobaptist position from what I would previously have called a “Reformed” and “Covenantal” Baptist position. I had first learned Covenant Theology from Richard Barcellos, and had read through his writings on the subject, as well as those by Welty, Malone, Tombes, Coxe, etc., and every Reformed Baptist Theological Review to date. I say that to make it clear that I am at this point arguing against my former self just as much as I am against Welty.

Welty does a good job of identifying circumcision as one of the central elements in the debate, but he falls short in that he misconstrues the meaning of circumcision. If you take a wrong turn at the very start, then whatever you do subsequent to that is of no consequence.

He does the same thing that I did when he deals with the paedobaptist argument regarding the meaning of circumcision ““ he acknowledges it, and then promptly ignores it. He cites a hypothetical response from a paedobaptist on page 7:

"…circumcision points to inward cleansing (Deut 10:16, 30:6; Jer 4:4, 9:25-26; Ezek 44:7; Rom 2:28-29)"

and follows it up by admitting that this “calls for an examination of these other texts”, but then proceeds to hand waving to dismiss them without the called for examination. Welty says, as you quoted,

"But one might as well argue that since OT sacrifices signified spiritual realities, we have warrant for continuing their use today. Clearly, we do not."

This completely ignores the fact that we have explicit NT texts abolishing the OT sacrifices, which is not the case for applying the covenant signs to children. But not only is the reason for his dismissal of the texts terribly flawed, but in place of them he goes rooting around in Genesis 17 and elsewhere making bad inferences, and then bases much of his subsequent reasoning on that misidentification of the meaning of circumcision.

Also, his argument on page 6 about the “historical-redemptive significance of Abraham’s circumcision” being prophetical of the inclusion of the gentiles is rather far-fetched; I was surprised to see him try and make this argument. Again, he ignores the explicit reason given in scripture for Abraham’s circumcision ““ “it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you” (Gen 17:11) and tries to back out from Romans 4 a wrongly inferred meaning. Paul is not at all saying “this is what circumcision means“, he is making an argument from the circumstances of Abraham’s circumcision to prove his point that possessing the sign of the covenant is not necessary in order to possess the substance of the covenant, and that is exactly what the Judaizers were arguing ““ no circumcision, no salvation (see WCF 28:5).

On page 8 he says:

"It is quite plausible to hold that circumcision was specifically applied to the seed of the OT people of God in virtue of this prophetic significance of the sign itself."

Again, he is arguing on the basis of “it is plausible for us to hold that circumcision means this”, over and against the texts of scripture that say “circumcision means this”. This was my favorite trump card, the argument from “prophetic significance” or “typology”, which at the end of the day is speculative at best. I could use it to dismiss any argument from the Old Testament that I didn’t like, but in reality it’s just an ipse dixit.

Welty also makes a few faux pas that take away from the credibility of his arguments. For instance, he accuses paedobaptists of using “abbreviated or paraphrased “˜citations'” (footnote 3, page 4), but he then proceeds to do the same thing on page 10, where he throws out his own abbreviated citations of “circumcision is nothing” (1 Cor 7:19), and “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything” Gal 5:6), without addressing the context or the sense in which Paul meant those statements to be taken, or reconciling them to other places where Paul says “circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law” (Rom 2:25) or “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way”¦” (Rom 3:1-2). When I quote snippets of these texts the way he does with the others, I can make them appear to say the exact opposite of what Welty tries to make the others say.

To sum up, Welty dismisses explicit biblical texts on the meaning of circumcision in favor of his own misconstrued meaning of it, and bases his reasoning on that. His error was the same as mine was; I was ignorant of the spiritual meaning of circumcision, and hence made up my own meaning of it to fit with my theology. Any subsequent arguments based on that premise are all invalid.