Greg Welty – Soli Deo Gloria

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.

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.