Tag: baptism

Categories
Gospels and Acts Scripture

Luke 11:14-28

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Luke 11:14-28

14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke, and the people marveled. 15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons,” 16 while others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven. 17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and a divided household falls. 18 And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; 22 but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil. 23 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

24 “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and finding none it says, “˜I will return to my house from which I came.’ 25 And when it comes, it finds the house swept and put in order. 26 Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there. And the last state of that person is worse than the first.”

27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28 But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

As we continue in our series through the Book of Luke, Jesus has been travelling throughout the region of Galilee teaching the people and performing signs and wonders that testify to Himself.  His followers asked how to pray and, in Luke’s Gospel, the prayer ends at “”¦lead us not into temptation”¦” but Matthew’s Gospel reads:  “”¦lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one.  For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.”

On the heels of this teaching, Christ encounters a man who is under the power of the evil one.  Are we not commanded to confess Christ as Lord?  Yet this man is under the power of evil and cannot speak.  By Christ’s power, however, the man is freed and the people marvel.

But not all marvel.  There are those in the crowd who have continually hounded the Savior throughout His public ministry:  the religious leaders and skeptics.  Faced with the power of God in their midst, there were those whose religious understanding made it impossible for them to conceive that Christ was teaching the things of God because He taught contrary to the teaching of their Rabbis.  They reasoned that Christ truly had power but that power could not be from God because a man from God could not teach something contrary to their understanding of the Scriptures.  Instead of having their minds transformed by the power of God, their hearts were hardened and their foolish minds darkly reasoned that Jesus must be casting out demons by the power of the demonic realm.

The others who were blind to Christ’s power were the skeptics.  Notice, in verse 16, the text reads:  “others, to test him, kept seeking from him a sign from heaven.”

Do any of you find that just laughable?  Christ casts out a demon and the skeptics complain that they need a sign from heaven.  This is proof positive that no signs from Christ are sufficient to convince a foolish mind hostile to the things of God.

Christ rebukes their unbelief by pointing out something obvious:  a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.  Why, Christ asks, would Satan fight against his own kingdom?  Why would a ruler dispatch forces to destroy or defeat his own army?  It makes no sense and exposes their folly.  Thus, if Christ is casting out the kingdom of demons by the power of God then this is a demonstration that the Kingdom of God is among them.

The problem with the religious leaders and skeptics is that their minds are in bondage.  They can think.  They can reason.  Yet that thinking about spiritual things is imprisoned.  They are slaves to the way they view the world and all the power of Christ is interpreted through a distorted lens.

Yet, in a profound sense, this passage of Scripture is all about the remedy to bondage.  The Kingdom of God is in the midst of the people but they are not aware of what that power has been intended, from the beginning, to accomplish.

Christ, knowing the thoughts of the crowd, tells two parables:  the first is the parable of the Stronger Man and the second is the parable of the clean house.

In verses 21-22, Christ tells a short parable about a stronger man.  Simply put, when a strong man guards a house, the goods inside that house are safe.  Until, that is, a stronger man is able to overcome that strong man and plunder the goods.

The fascinating thing about parables is how subversive they are.  They are understandable and agreeable to common men on a certain level while a deeper meaning eludes them.  We all understand the idea that it’s good to have a strong warrior defend your castle.  You hire the best.  Yet, if a stronger foe defeats that warrior then your castle is in trouble.  The power that defends that stronghold has been overcome.

Yet, the people of Christ’s day were like many of us who measure the strength of God according to the kinds of strength that we naturally relate to.  We only think of power in its raw form and often desire it.  In a sense, this story would leave many of us with a wrong understanding that the Kingdom of God is just like political or military strength.  We’d be just like the Jews of Christ’s day who were waiting for a conquering Messiah who would free the Jews from the unclean Romans.  He would rally the Jews or use raw power to overcome the Romans and then all the good Jews would once again be a pure people in a pure land undefiled by all the evil people who were interlopers in their land.

The spiritual reality, however, is that it is all of mankind who is under bondage.  It is all of the Jews of Christ’s day and all of us who were in bondage to a strong ruler.  Sin and death have literally enslaved men since the sin of our first parents.  We assume that our thinking is right.  We assume that we see things and have common sense.  We assume that we do well and even please God.  Yet Romans 3:9-18 testifies of our true condition:

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off?  No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:  “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.  12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”  13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.”  “The venom of asps is under their lips.”  14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”  15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

The Scriptures must be talking about evil people but not me.  My feet aren’t swift to shed blood.  I’m not a gossip.  My mouth isn’t full of curses and bitterness.

I can’t see that in myself.  I know there are others that are sinful and evil but I thank God that I’m not like those sinners.  I thank God that I’m in the Church and have been taught self-government.  I thank God that I’m not a Muslim and worship a false god.  I thank God that I’m not a Democrat and support big government.

Nicodemus came to Christ in John 3 in the middle of the night and knew that Christ had power from God but he just couldn’t grasp the things that Christ was teaching.  Christ responded: “”¦truly, truly, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God”¦.”

Do you know how Nicodemus responded?

He responded, in so many words:  “I just can’t make any sense out of what you’re saying.”  In other words, Nicodemus couldn’t see.

Blindness.  Slavery.  Darkness.  Futility.

This is our condition apart from Christ.  The Kingdom of God exists all around men and they cannot perceive it.

Why?

Because men are slaves to sin.  Men are in darkness.  Their mouths cannot testify of God but are mute to the things of God.  The strong man has them locked up and guarded.  The kingdom of this world consists of those born in Adam who are hostile to the things of God.  They are under the dominion of sin and death.

In 1 Sam 17, Israel under King Saul had gathered for battle against the Philistines and the Philistines sent out their champion.  His name was Goliath.  He was a giant.  His height and the weight of his armor and weapons were terrible.  Measured by any standard, the man was born to be a warrior and he stood and challenged anyone to fight him.  He cursed God and defied any idea that there was anyone who could defeat him in battle.  The whole of Saul’s army, including the king himself, cowered in terror for days because they saw strength according to common sense.  You don’t challenge the heavyweight champion of the world to a fight to the death.

Then, one day, a young shepherd boy named David walked up to bring food from his home to his brothers.  He saw this giant come out that day and curse the living God and his response was not one of fear but of anger that any man, however big, could challenge those with the Lord on their side.  All thought him a fool.  All thought him naïve.  Yet that young boy left armor behind and walked out of the ranks armed only with a sling and some stones.

Goliath scoffed at the tiny foe before him and promised David that he would be food for the birds.  David did not walk.  David did not weave back and forth.  David ran straight ahead and would meet certain death if that stone from his sling missed its mark.  David defeated the strong man and the Philistines fled in terror.

And so, when David’s greater Son came to this earth, many probably thought it would be another tangible victory and his success would be measured in strength and power they could see.

Yet, Christ’s power was to be manifested where nobody would have expected.  Christ’s power, manifest during His public ministry, pointed to His power over the kingdom of this world.  Christ’s power testified of His humanity and that He was God come in flesh.  Yet nobody could see it.

Christ, seemingly powerless, submitted Himself to the power of death on a cross.  He died the life of a scoundrel.  He died the life of the accursed.  He died the life of a failure in the eyes of the world.

His disciples walked away disappointed because, no matter how many times He testified that the Messiah had come to die on a Cross, they could not understand.  The Romans were still in power.  The Man they thought would deliver them with power they could see lie dead and broken and in a tomb.  Jesus was not the Messiah.  So much for salvation from the Romans.

Oh, but Beloved, there was unimaginable power on display!

As Christ writhed in agony on the Cross, it was not the physical pain that was most intense but it was Christ bearing in His flesh the sins of all of His people.  Christ died and when He died, the sins of His people died with Him.  Not only so but in a way we could never expect, the power of sin was put to death on the Cross.  He did not merely pay for the sins of many but He defeated the power of sin on the Cross.

And then He was laid in a tomb.  And on the third day He rose from the dead.  Death tried to hold Him down.  Death held with all its might but behold the Man! Do you ever just think about Christ taking that first step out of the Tomb?  One small step for Man, one giant leap for all of mankind!  Death was defeated by an indestructible life.  Try as it may, Death fought with the Savior but the Stronger man overcame and plundered!

When you think of Christ’s work for you do you only reflect on his payment for your sins?  Do you struggle, thinking it’s all up to you, against the power of sin in your life?  Hear, Christian, reality as it truly is in Romans 6:  “3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

You were not looking for it because you could not see it.  You were not aware of your bondage because it was natural for you.  Yet Christ died and we who believe are baptized into that death and we who believe have risen again.  Believe upon Christ and see.  Believe, also, with your new eyes that Christ has put the power of sin to death and that your life is bound up in Him.  The mute man did not ask to speak for he could not speak.  Christ broke the power of Satan that muted his voice so that he could confess, believe, and obey.

Thus, it is that Christ says in verse  23:  “23 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”

There is no neutral ground with Christ.  You are either in the kingdom of sin and death and cannot see the Kingdom of God or you have been set free from its power by the Stronger Man.

Some say this is a false dilemma:  only unimaginative minds set up either-or scenarios.  “I’m neither for Christ nor against Christ.”  Some believe they speak well of Christ, affirming Him a good man and moral teacher, but there are many paths to God.  Some say that it is closed-minded to claim truth for one way and completely reject another.  Beloved, this is the philosophy of those under sin’s dominion.  If we are not for Christ it is because we are still in the clutches of sin and very much against Him.  If you take offense and reply “I don’t see it that way”, my simple response is:  “I’m quite aware that you don’t see.”

Christ then followed with a parable about the clean house in verses 24-26.  The main point here is not the nature of demons.  Christ’s point is that a man can come to taste the things of God but distorts that knowledge and limits its purpose to house cleaning.

Some of us may be that man.  We hear about the things of God and the only thing that strikes us about the Scriptures is our need to live a pure life.  We hear the preaching week in and week out and see it primarily as a recipe for clean living and self-government.  We see the good in Scripture and imitate the externals and reckon we are good men.  We read of sin in the Scriptures and see wickedness in everyone except ourselves.  We want prayer in schools, we want moral government, we want lower taxes, we want good neighbors, we want obedient children, and we want God to bless us for all the ways we’ve demonstrated our commitment.  We want power to subdue all the evil people and throw the bums out!  We want everything except a Crucified Savior who can deliver us from our bondage to sin.

And the power of sin deceives and appears, on the outside, to have left us.  We are a swept house.  Yet, all the time, the truth of the Word about our sin and bondage is bouncing off of us like rain on packed earth.  Nothing sinks in.  Notice in verse 24 that the demon says:  “I will return to my house from which I came.”

“I will return to my house.”  And when the power of sin comes back to manifest itself in the life of the “swept house”, it comes back more terrible than before.  The Pharisees were good men on the outside but when they continually rejected Christ, their swept houses were filled with the demonic power of sin and they became wicked beyond measure.  They despised the Savior and the things of God and plotted to kill Him whenever they got the chance.  We who would justify ourselves with our lives will trample the Son of God underfoot with the same vengeance.

The passage closes with an expression of excitement from the crowd.  A woman is so overcome by the excitement of the moment and the teaching of Christ that she yells out of the crowd:  Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!”

I imagine Christ paused for a moment before He gently replied that those who are truly blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it.

It’s not as if He hadn’t said the same thing to His mother when she and the rest of the family summoned Him while He was teaching and He reminded the crowd that His mother and brothers are those who hear and obey.  He wasn’t denying the blessedness of His mother here but her blessedness, by her own confession, was that God looked upon her.  She heard the things of God and submitted.

Just like this woman who cried out, the things of God have a way of exciting us.  There are things that we see and experience that may cause us to yell “Praise God!”  All sorts of religious experience are sought to inflame our hearts with excitement.

Yet, notice that it is those who hear the Word of God, and because they can hear, obey.  Obedience and hearing go hand in hand.  If we cannot hear, we will not truly obey and will merely be swept houses.

I can leave worship this evening excited about the things of God and then, at the crack of dawn, rise to shave my face and go off to work.  The ecstasy of the moment of religious worship will fade as life has a way of bogging us down in its drudgery and day-to-day burdens.

Yet, we have to consider that, if we have truly heard the Word of God, it is because we have been given ears to hear.  If we have truly seen the Kingdom of God it is because we have been given eyes to see.  If that transformation has occurred it was not because of our obedience or enthusiasm for God but because there is a Stronger Man Who has overcome sin and death on the Cross.

Our excitement needs to be born out of a life that has been set free from the power of sin.  It is the recognition that God justifies sinners.  It is the realization that Christ came to plunder the House of the Strong Man and found us cowering under its dominion and dragged us out of its dungeon.  He washed us in our baptism and calls us His friends.  He clothed us in His righteousness and calls us His beloved bride.

Sinclair Ferguson tells of a physician who is a medical missionary in Thailand.  The physician sent him a picture of a man with a huge grin from ear to ear.  Both his arms were amputated by this physician due to complications from the leprosy that oppresses his body.  But do you know what this man said to the physician one day?  He said:  “I’m so thankful for my leprosy because I would have never met Jesus Christ without it.”

That’s true experience.

Are we thankful for the Christ who conquers sin and death or are we excited about the power that surrounds the Savior’s work?

Once, we could not see the horror of our sin and its bondage.  Once, we could not speak of the things of God but uttered only curses.  Unexpectedly, we saw our sin and, in our terror, wondered how we could escape the wrath it deserved.

But then we looked up and saw our Champion hanging on a Cross.  We saw Him die and lay in a Tomb.  We witnessed the Son of Man rise from the dead.  The Stronger Man emerged, wounded from the battle, but He was utterly victorious!

A muted mouth is unstopped.  We cry out with new voices:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O death, where is your victory?  O death, where is your sting?”  The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. ““ 1 Cor 15:54-57

Categories
Epistles Scripture

Romans 6:1-11

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The following exhortation was given to the Korean Agape Church and translated into Korean.

Romans 6:1-11
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

One of the struggles we all have is how to properly understand what it means to be holy in Christ and how we are made holy by Him. We understand that we are saved by putting our faith in Christ but we often begin to think that our holiness depends upon us. Romans 6 reminds us that those who trust Christ are also made holy by the power of Christ. It is Christ in them that saves them and makes them holy.

Chapter 6 follows a teaching by the Apostle that leads some to lie about the Gospel. He reminds us that it is wrong to think that God wants us to sin so He can show how much He forgives us.

Verse 2 emphasizes this: “How can we who died to sin still live in it?”

Before we were saved we lived in slavery to sin but we are no longer in Adam but in Christ. We have died to sin. We were in the house of Adam, we were in bondage to sin. We have now been set free by Christ and are no longer slaves to sin but have been set free.

Verse 3 then reminds us of the significance of our baptism. Our baptism reminds us that if we hav faith, we are baptized into Christ’s death. This connection we have with Christ does not stop with His death because He rose from the dead with an indestructible life. Again, because we are united with Him, we possess His indestructible life. We begin to see where the power over sin comes from.

Verse 5 confirms what Paul has just said: 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Paul doesn’t say this is a process where we prove to God that we’re worthy to be identified with Christ by our obedience. No. Our obedience is because we have life in Christ. We have been raised from the dead with Him when He rose. The apostle doesn’t write that a believer “might be” united with him but makes it most certain by saying “we shall certainly” be united with Christ. We must be made holy by Christ.

Verse 6 shows how wrong it is to think we can sin as we are still slaves. Christ’s death on a cross destroyed the power of sin. The old man was crucified with Christ on the Cross. Union with Christ in the crucifixion delivers us from the prison of Sin. This does not mean that we no longer sin but victory in the battle over sin is assured in the nailing of enslaving authority to the Cross. We are no longer controlled by a sin nature but by our slavery to Christ.

It is common for us to lose focus and to regard our sin as inevitable. Paul wants to lift us from looking inside of ourselves for power to battle sin and to look outward and up to the Cross where we see Sin nailed to the Cross of Christ. Our Savior has conquered that power on the Cross! The old man no longer has authority.

Earlier in Romans, Paul reminded us that we are declared righteous in Christ. We are not actually righteous, in ourselves, but counted righteous due to Christ’s payment on our behalf and the giving of Christ’s life to us. Verse 7 teaches that the power of sin has already been judged for us. By the act of the Judge, we are sure to be made holy because the power of sin was judged at the Cross for us.

Holiness is not achieved by a power we find within. No, the power comes because Christ has judged Sin itself. We know we can progress in holiness because Sin has been put to death and we know that no condemnation comes from the sin that continues in our members.

Verse 8 encourages us to think of ourselves as being an image of Christ ““ not only has the old self of sin been crucified but we now posses spiritual life in Christ. When we sin, we forget our union with Christ and deny what Christ has accomplished. When we remember who we are, we are empowered to give battle to sin and to live unto righteousness.

Verse 9 is our assurance of living with Christ. There can be nothing that can break or interrupt our participation in Christ’s life. There can be no reversal of his death to sin and falling back into complete slavery to its power. If this was possible then Christ’s very resurrection could be reversed or repeated over and over. Christ’s resurrection is final and it represents a complete break from the power of Sin. Christ submitted Himself to the power and judgment of sin. Death even ruled over Christ for a short time yet it was impossible that death could hold Him or swallow Him up. By rising from the dead, He defeated death forever.

Verse 10 is one of the most significant statements regarding the full meaning of Christ’s death ““ Christ died to sin. The Apostle has already noted that Christians are forever freed from the bondage of sin and death and again reminds us we are no longer subjects of its rule. He proves this by reminding why Christ died ““ He died that He would destroy sin. Christ not only dealt with the guilt of sinners on the cross but also with the power of sin. Death ruled but Christ broke its power.

Verse 11 concludes: “Because Christ triumphed over the power of death, those who are united to Him in death died to the power of sin and become dead to sin. Once again, the motivation and power of a Christian’s struggle with Sin is grounded in what Christ has accomplished.

We are to consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to Christ. We are not commanded to become dead to sin and alive to God. Christ has accomplished this already for us. And it is not by considering the facts carefully that they become true. The Apostle’s command is that we are to think upon our union with Christ and fully appreciate what Christ has obtained for us. This provides the motivation and strength for our battles.

Beloved, we are no longer our own and no longer under Sin’s power. Our Sin is on the Cross and we are now bondslaves to Christ and bondslaves to righteousness. Christ’s death is once-for-all and He ever lives and so must we. When we lift our heavy heads away from the filth of indwelling sin and its alluring, idolatrous power, we look up to Christ and in Him we find that our hearts deceived us to Sin’s remaining power. Instead of sorrow over our pitiful state we praise God with the Apostle:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Ephesians 1:3-10)

Categories
Sacraments

Who Deceives Whom with Baptism?

A discussion recently ensued when a Baptist brother claimed the following:

Another point I want to make is that every parent eveywhere is responsible for raising their children up in the LORD. It matters not if they are regenerate or not. We are all going to be held accountable for how we all discipled our children. It doesn’t take some kind of doctrinal Covenant inclusion to do this. In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach a child they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.

I addressed my response to Baptists:

1. Baptists keep talking about an overarching presumption that, in telling children they are in the New Covenant, they can “rest on their laurels”. It’s like we’re saying: “Son, presume you are Elect and you have nothing to go to God for and say: ‘Save Me!'”

In so doing, Baptists are actually projecting the problem with their own presumption. Dr. Clark called it confusing decree and administration. As I noted before, what are you telling someone if you say:
a. The New Covenant is with the elect alone.
b. We only baptize those we have “maximal confidence” are elect
c. We are baptizing YOU, the man who just confessed Christ.

In essence, you are giving him an unwarranted presumption. In fact, I was just listening to Gene Cook and John Goundry say the other day that Preachers only have to tell those outside the NC to “…know the Lord” (i.e. repent and be baptized) because we don’t tell those in the NC that because that’s been fulfilled. Notice the presumption – they are baptized = they are in the New Covenant = they are elect.

This gets very confusing because I know if I press Gene on this he’s going to admit that he doesn’t know who’s in the NC so the exercise of who you can and can’t say “know the Lord” to becomes quite impossible. Do you see how Baptists can tie themselves into knots on this point if they actually thought about it? Yet, if you go back and read even portions of this thread we have people arguing that we should have people telling the Church: “Oh, I’m elect, the Holy Spirit told me so”.

Thus, I think the presumptive problem lies with the nature of Baptistic baptism and trying to find a nexus in the perfection of the New Covenant. It is not really fair for you to ascribe the presumption you have for the people you baptize with the hope and promise that we have for those we baptize.

2. Sadly, I feel a sense in which you are missing the very power and weight of the Gospel to convert. Romans 6 is part of the Gospel by the way. Notice what you guys keep saying about “presuming” on the part of sinners. Why do you think a reprobate man is going to presume any less for a Law passage (do this and live) than He is about a Gospel passage. If a man is dead in His sins and trespasses then he presumes upon everything. The Pharisees had presumption of the Law down pat as well as the threat of hell. They just deceived themselves that it didn’t apply to them.

Check out my teaching on Romans 6 at our website if you get a chance – http://www.baptistchurch.jp/teaching.html

It is my conviction that passages like Romans 6 can actually convert the soul. They feed hungry Christian souls. I think you guys worry too much about the reprobate presuming upon Grace and not enough about feeding Grace to the elect you have in your midst. Even as we sneer at Roman Catholics who say: “Don’t teach that kind of stuff because it’s a license for liberty”, we don’t preach it openly because we’re afraid (like them) that the wrong people are going to get the wrong idea. Worry about the right people getting the right idea more! Feed them this stuff. Stuff them with it! One-third of Romans is this stuff. It’s not merely doctrinally interesting but it is the basis for the ethics.

3. I love this point that Dr. Clark cited:

74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.

See, again, the problem I see is that it is the Baptists who presume too much. You guys presume, by your profession, that you’re elect and so you turn a wary eye toward the young’uns who haven’t. First, you shouldn’t be presuming upon your profession. Second, you should be seeing that everyone visible in your midst needs the kind of Grace I was just talking about.

You worry too much about the bad apples and you punish the whole crowd. You can’t figure out who to punish so you punish every child calling him unregenerate while claiming regeneracy for the adults. Where does such presumption come from? I’m not saying not to tell kids to repent but tell adults to repent too. Tell everyone to repent where Paul does. The Gospel is bouncing off the walls of your Church as you proclaim it to man, woman, and child. Stop worrying about who is elect among you and deal with the visible assembly in your midst. Let the Holy Spirit do its work but don’t preach with one arm tied behind your back. Preach the whole counsel of God and where it says “repent” tell everyone and where it says “rejoice” then proclaim it as the Word does. And let God sort out the rest.

Don’t even destroy the simplicity of the Gospel by demanding that solid, intellectual assurance that you want all adults to express. If a brother is struggling with assurance don’t impoverish him with “try harder” to determine if you’re elect. Focus him upon the Cross. Tell him that it’s as simple as believing. Do you believe Christ died for sin? Do you believe Christ raised Him from the dead? Believe! Proclaim Romans 8 to him. If he’s reprobate then that’s his problem but if he’s elect then let it feed him and establish him!

But stop impoverishing the flock by playing to the fear of the lowest common denominator.

***UPDATE***

After I posted this I got a response from a dear brother in the Lord who is a Baptist elder. He felt my words were intende to deny the fact that Baptists understand that Romans 6 is part of the Gospel. My extended remarks are as follows:

I think you need to take the position as a whole and not parse the issue and take it personally. I had to sum up a lot of people’s thoughts. I was unspecific because I wasn’t aiming it at a Baptist but a line of thinking that begins with the assumption that NC=elect -> Profession which necessarily excludes those who are too young to profess in a mature fashion.

There is then an underlying assumption that if you treat the immature as if they are spiritually minded that it will lead to presumption and that it is deceptive to teach them anything other than the condemnation of the Law. I repeatedly hear from Baptists (in general) that the only status that children have is that they are in Adam and unregenerate. They claim this on the basis of the child’s profession. Conversely, those that are professors are presumed (too much I think) to be regenerate on the basis of profession. There is an unhealthy mix of presumption about regeneration for professors and unregeneration for non-professing (young) members).

I wasn’t denying you believed all about Romans 6 and the Gospel in general. Please forgive me as I can understand how some of it came off as patronizing. I’m sorry to you and other Baptists if I sounded pejorative or condescending. I was trying to connect to the underlying concern in the OP, pull together some disparate posts, and draw it all out. I wanted to move from our common base of understanding regarding the Gospel and move to how the manner of Baptism and the way you talk about visible members actually undermines the program of the Gospel. In some aspects it is meant to sting (in a loving way) to get some to understand why the Reformed paedo baptizes into discipleship and not to declare of a person – this one is elect and this one is not.

The shoe fits for some or all aspects better than others, but credo-Baptism as an overarching system, in the way it treats the young – presuming them to be unregenerate – witholds an aspect of the Gospel from them. That witholding of the Gospel to the young is of the nature of Romans 6. It assumes that the only thing a child needs to hear is that they need to repent of their sins. On the other hand, it might see that adult professors don’t need to hear as much about repentance of sins (because after all they’ve professed). My view is that ALL in the visible Church need the full orbed presentation – professors or too immature to profess. The full presentation will mature and convert babes and the full presentation will mature and convert adults.

In the end, where the shoe fits, wear it. Your frustration is mine. As I stated in another thread, the Baptist view is very eclectic (even though you guys are all supposed to be 1689 LBCF) and some argue in different ways. I’m sorry that you feel slighted when I have to refer to a strain of Baptist thinking that is, in the main, representative of the issue. Conversely, Reformed paedobaptists are pretty monlithic in the understanding of the issue. Regardless of the aspects that you believe fit tightly or not, you have to answer for the reasons why you don’t baptize the young and why you believe profession alone is the arbiter of when discipleship begins. The difficulty in nailing down where Baptists fall on these issues communicates to confusion in the pews and why, when a Baptist calls up Pastor Gene Cook on the Narrow Mind he has no idea how he can possibly train his child in the fear and admonition of the Lord without training the child to obey the Law as a Pharisee might vice a motivation that focuses on love for God (Romans 6).

Categories
Sacraments

The Gospel and the Sacraments Direct our Faith to the Same Object

I do so appreciate the opportunity to interact with Rev. Winzer on the Puritanboard. I learned long ago not to bristle when he challenges me on a statment I make. He challenged me today on my use of some sloppy terminology with respect to the sacraments and caused me to delve back into the Confession and the Heidelberg to determine the meaning of the Sacraments.

From Rev. Winzer:

Rich, thus far we have the gospel indiscriminately preached to all, whilst sacraments are administered to those in the visible church. We also have faith in the gospel essential to salvation whilst sacramental participation is not essential to salvation. The third and final point I am fairly sure you will concur with is that the gospel offers salvation as a present need, whereas sacraments are administered on the basis that salvation is a reality. Hence, the gospel is really and fundamentally a promise, whilst sacraments point to the fulfilment of the promise. Given these three qualifications, I would say the idea that sacraments are gospel is an unhelpful one, and it is best to distinguish Word (gospel) and Sacraments. Blessings!

When I think of promise in the Sacraments, I’m thinking along these lines:

WCF Chapter XXVII

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

Heidelberg:

Question 66. What are the sacraments?

Answer: The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof, he may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel, viz., that he grants us freely the remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross.

Especially in Question 67, the Heidelberg underlines that both word and sacrament ar meant to point us to Christ. I realize that, after reading this, the Heidelberg distinguishes as you do from the teaching of the Gospel and assurance by the Sacraments. I need to be cleaner in my terminology. I won’t say they are Gospel but I will say they direct our faith to the same object that the Word does.

Question 67. Are both word and sacraments, then, ordained and appointed for this end, that they may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation? (a)

Answer: Yes, indeed: for the Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that the whole of our salvation depends upon that one sacrifice of Christ which he offered for us on the cross.

In Question 69, I love the way the Heidelberg links the sacrament as a visible sign that can be used to help us remember what was done for us by the sacrifice of Christ for us who have faith:

Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?

Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (a) adding thereto this promise, (b) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (c) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.

And to anticipate the objections of those who believe too much is being promised here:

Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism?

Answer: In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”, Matt.28:19. And “he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.”, Mark 16:16. This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism “the washing of regenerations” and the washing away of sins. Tit.3:5, Acts 22:16. (a)

or from those who think that the water is somehow magical…

Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself?

Answer: Not at all: (a) for the blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all sin. (b)

But yet there is still something fundamentally spiritual going on in the Sacrament.

Question 73. Why then does the Holy Ghost call baptism “the washing of regeneration,” and “the washing away of sins”?

Answer: God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; (a) but especially that by this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water. (b)

Categories
Sacraments

Infant Baptism: The Difference between Roman Catholicism and Reformed Theology

What’s the difference between the RC view and the Reformed view of infant baptism?

Peace,

jm

Much in every way! The Roman Catholic view sees baptism first as an act of Grace that occurs “by the working of the works”. That is, the Sacrament itself, infuses Grace and effectively places the child in a state of grace before God. The grace infused, however, is conditional. The grace can be overthrown and killed in the individual by sin.

The Reformed view is that baptism is ministerial. That is, the minister announces what God has promised in His Word concerning the Covenant inclusion of children and it initiates the child into the covenant community. While the sign and seal of Baptism are not separate from what they signify (real union with Christ) they are not identical. That is to say that we do not believe that the minister is actually conferring union with Christ on the child by the “working of the works” but is announcing the promise of God. That promise is that what Baptism signifies (union with Christ) is promised to the child when he places trust in the Gospel. It is the same thing for an adult in fact. As surely as you see the water signifiying the washing of the filth of the flesh, so are your sins washed away if you believe in the Gospel. It is a visible sign and seal of God’s promise to us that we can look to when the enemy is so oft telling us we are not worthy of such Grace.

In RC baptism, you get in by the Church’s ability to infuse God’s saving grace and you stay in by cooperating with that grace lest you kill it and your “grace meter” goes to a point where justifying grace is killed.

In Reformed baptism, the minister declares the promise of God and seals God’s promises to the recipient. Grace, through faith, saves from beginning to end.

I have a problem with the term presumptive regeneration because presumption carries a connotation that I do not believe parents should have. When I presume something, it means I can take it for granted and little is expected on my part. I know that’s a semantic issue but words have consequences. I also don’t like the idea of presuming regeneration simply because I don’t know the hidden counsel of God. I look at it this way: my chilren are Christians and I treat them like that. I don’t treat them like they’re tiny pagans in my household with no different status than my pagan neighbors before God. They are holy because they are in my Covenant household. This gracious God says to me: “I’m not just promising to save you but your children as well.” A glorious thing indeed that those most dear to me in this world, beside my wife, are not my spiritual enemies.

I pray with them like little Christians with a seminal faith – faith as small as a mustard seed (thank you Rev. Winzer). I know that God has promised to save them if they call upon His name just as He has promised to save me under the same Covenant promise. I do not question their election any more than I question mine for my business is God’s precepts and not His hidden decree.

And so, contrary to my Roman Catholic upbringing, when my children sin, I do not raise them to worry that they’re in danger of hellfire as they have just killed the infused grace within them and need to have the Church dispense more saving grace in Penance. Rather, I discipline them as one who believes their sin has been punished in Christ. I train them to ask their Heavenly Father for forgiveness that they have offended Him in their sin, and I teach them to thank Christ for the salvation of sins found only in Him for those that believe in Him.

The difference between Roman Catholic Baptism and Reformed Baptism (aka Christian) is the difference between the doctrine of demons and a visible sign and seal of God’s Grace to His elect.

Categories
Sacraments Theology

Responding to a concern that I misrepresented Greg Welty

I have been very busy as of late and was deployed to Korea for an exercise.  While there, a reader who is a friend of Greg Welty had concerns with my post A Critique of Greg Welty's Use of Galations in "From Circumcision to Baptism".  Here is the concern raised:

Greg had said in his paper: 

"What was the heresy of the Judaizers in the book of Galatians?

Fundamentally, their error was to contend that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings. Thus, according to them, Gentile converts were required to be circumcised in order to be members of the family of God."

On Greg's view, central to the "promises and blessings" of the Abraham Covenant is *justification itself*. The error of the Judaizers was that you needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. As you rightly observed  "The error was trust in the Law. The error was a reliance upon the Law as a means of Justification." What he says is exactly what Greg believes.

Greg affirms that the Abrahamic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace, and is a redemptive covenant. And it's because he holds to classic covenant theology, that I stated things as I did.

His point in the material you cited was *not* to say that the error of the paedobaptist, in his view, was identical to the error of the Judaizer. He explicitly distinguished the two. In the very next paragraph (which you didn't cite), Greg wrote:

"While their error is usually not as serious as that of the Judaizers, the paedobaptist commits a similar error, by contending that the command to apply a covenant sign to one's children is essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, and its promises and blessings."

The only reason he brought up the Judaizing error is to expose an *analogy* between it and the paedobaptist error. That's all. Also, that analogy bears little argumentative weight in his presentation. It's illustrative at best. My argument that the paedobaptist position is indeed an error is made on other grounds.

So, essentially, you seem to have latched onto an illustration as if it's an argument, but neither I nor Greg is sure you understood his illustration, since you seemed to impute a position to Greg that he does not hold, and that isn't entailed by what he wrote.  You might want to go back and revisit that particular entry.

First, let me state that I am not above reproach.  I carefully read what I wrote and I believe my criticism stands.  I criticized Mr. Welty on his exegesis of Galatians 3 and 4 and I believe that criticism is still valid.  My criticism at this point was not to suggest that it was material to his entire argument but his misappropriation of the "fundamental error" of the Judaizers is indicative of a larger error.

 If Mr. Welty had stated that their fundmental error was a reliance on the Law as a means of Justification then I would have no problem with the statement.  He zeroes in on the actual act of Circumcision, however, and then tries to attribute paedobaptism to a form of the Judaizing heresy, analogy or not.  I never said that Mr. Welty equated paedobaptism with the Judaizing heresy.  That he even put them in the same neighborhood is aggregious enough especially the way in which the analogy is formed.

I also, purposefully, did not deal with the portion where Mr. Welty merely calls the paedobaptist position a "similar error" (I wonder if the anathemas in Gal 1 are "similar").  Why?  Because he gets the Judaizing error wrong.  The Judaizers were not after a mere physical circumcision of the flesh.  To believe otherwise is to mis-read Paul's arguments.  They want the Galatians to take on the requirements of the Law as a means to Justification.  It was not "…the command to circumcise…" that was "…essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings…" as Mr. Welty insists.  The Judaizers expected far more than a mere circumcision of the flesh.  Their fundamental error was not even looking to the Abrahamic Covenant as I pointed out and am told that Mr. Welty agrees with.

So I'm left wondering:  If Mr. Welty agrees that it was a belief that Torah keeping=Justification then how does he go from that idea to the idea that the actual physical application of the covenant sign is what Paul has in view as the Judaizers fundamental error?  It's nice to hear from a friend that says that Mr. Welty understands the Judaizing heresy but, in his paper, he errs outright.

 I humbly submit, then, that my original critique be re-read to see that my focus was very specific:  the exegesis of Galatians 3-4 does not permit Mr. Welty to claim that the fundamental error of the Judaizers was that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant.

While I bear no ill will toward either Mr. Welty or the person who asked me to reconsider, I cannot back off of this original critique. 

Categories
Sacraments Theology

A Critique of Welty’s Use of Galatians in “From Circumcision to Baptism”

In a previous article, I posted Philip A's critique of Welty's article From Circumcision to Baptism.  I have posted my own critique of a foundational error made by Greg Welty and I include it here for your consideration.

Welty writes

What was the heresy of the Judaizers in the book of Galations? Fundamentally, their error was to contend that the command to circumcise was essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises and blessings. Thus, according to them, Gentile converts were required to be circumcised in order to be members of the family of God. But in this they were greatly mistaken, for in the New Covenant order of things, "circumcision is nothing" (1 Cor 7:19), and "neither circumcision or uncircumcision means anything" (Gal 5:6; cf. Gal 6:15). What they took to be essential to this everlasting covenant was in fact nonessential, and therefore done away with.

Welty is just flat wrong about the error of the Judaizers in Galatians. Read Galatians 3-4 for yourself. Nowhere does Paul once condemn the Judaizers for their trust in the sign "…as essential to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant." He misses the "fundamental" problem of the Judaizers. In fact, as I'll show, the Judaizers aren't even preserving the Abrahamic Covenant in the least. Listen to Paul:

Galations 3 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth,[a] before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain””if indeed it was in vain? 5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

The error was trust in the Law. The error was a reliance upon the Law as a means of Justification. So who does Paul roll out as an example that the Judaizers' belief is all wet? Abraham!

6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[c] 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”[d] 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

Paul then returns to the point that he repeatedly hammers regarding the Judaizing heresy. He says it so often that one cannot miss his repeated refrain: Justification by the Law only brings a curse. So much for your trust in the Law Judiazers.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[e] 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shalllive by faith.”[f] 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”[g] 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[h]), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

"You knucklhead Judaizers! Circumcision isn't even about keeping the Law!" is what Paul says here (Covenant Theology 101):

15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ,[j] that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Who do you think Paul is correcting here if not the Judaizers who think that Circumcision = Torah Keeping = Righteousness. This is the error that Paul is rebuking. Paul doesn't even have a problem with the physical act of circumcision, per se, but if you circumcise for the reason the Judaizers want you to then you've rejected the Gospel because you've rejected Grace.

Frankly, the problem with Welty's argument is that he needs to go back and read Galatians. This is frankly my biggest complaint as I've interacted with some other Baptists on these texts. Philip A alluded earlier to the way Welty wrests "circumcision is to no avail" snippets out of context and their meaning as Paul uses them. It's like Philip stated earlier, if you come to the text looking to justify Baptism and separate it from Circumcision then you run the danger of doing what Welty does by blowing by the basic error of the Judaizers. It turns the error on its head from Paul condemning the Judaizers for trusting in the Law (when it could only bring a curse) to an error of tying the sign to the perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Judiazers weren't even looking at the Abrahamic Covenant but were preserving their perversion of it!

Thus, the basic "error" here is Welty's exegesis of Galatians 3. Since he misses the point of Paul's condemnation of the Judaizers, he applies an erroneous conclusion to paedobaptism.

Categories
Sacraments Theology

Brief Critique of Welty’s “Circumcision to Baptism”

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.