The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Continuity in Old and NT

There is no inconsistency whatsoever. Circumcision has been replaced by baptism. Paul isn't denying this truth whatsoever. He is attacking those who believed/taught that their circumcision=salvation. Put another way, neither circumcision nor baptism was efficacious to save. Neither was a 'sign' that the recipient or either was saved. The immediate and far context of Gal 5:2 is Paul's strong argument and denunciation of a salvation by faith + works. The overwhelming number of Israelites in the OT died in unbelief albeit they were circumcised. If circumcision was an infallible 'sign & seal' of one's salvation, then why would Moses say to the people of Israel, Deuteronomy 10:16 (KJV) "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."? Throughout the OT and then in the NT, salvation is not obtainable by ANY work whatsever, including faith. Yes, faith is NOT the proximate cause. Justification is THROUGH faith, not BY faith. Salvation is by GRACE through faith. Nothing can contribute to one's salvation. Thus, coming full circle, if anyone believes that circumcision or baptism is an infallible stamp of their being justified/saved/reconciled, etc., they are seriously mistaken and in jeopardy of being under the just wrath of God, no less than were the unbelieving Israelites as exemplified by the Pharisees.

Now, are their paedobaptists who believe that a baptized infant is saved? Yes, without any argument there are and perhaps far too many. I am not referring to only those who believe in "baptismal regeneration" but also those who believe in "presumptive regeneration". Dr. Joel Beeke makes this point in his short article here: Praying for Our Children. Many years ago, I publicly debated John Reisinger on the subject of baptism. He was more than surprised to hear me state that I didn't hold to the false notion that baptized infants were saved nor even presumed to be saved, nor that they would definitely be saved sometime in the future, having possessed a 'seed of faith' because if they were children of believing parent(s). The conclusion of our debate was my insistence that (Reformed) Baptists reared their children no differently than how I reared my children, i.e., they taught their children that they were hopeless and helpless sinners in dire need to salvation. They needed to pray to God for mercy and that He would bless them with saving grace, giving them a deep conviction of sin and a faith that embraced Christ Jesus and His shed blood and His righteousness imputed to them.

Methinks that many Baptists err in like manner by believing that baptism, their baptism is a sure 'sign' of their obedience and consequent salvation. I have attended myriad Baptist churches and witnessed their 'ordinance' of baptism whereby the pastor declared that the baptized individual was most assuredly now saved, having "followed the Lord in obedience and submitted to baptism by immersion".