This is a round-about, lengthy response. The link at the bottom is really good, too.
Romans 4:14 states that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also."
Circumcision was given as an outward sign of an inward, sovereign act of God; the cutting-off the old man and the giving of faith. Inward circumcision was and is only possible through election and regeneration. Though circumcision of the body did not guarantee circumcision of the heart, God never-the-less commanded Abraham to circumcise all who were in his household, including infants and children too young to understand what was being done to them. Consider it again: Children that had made no commitment to Abraham's God were given the external "seal of righteousness of faith" while they were "yet uncircumcised" in heart and without faith.
Unavoidably, some of those who were circumcised in the flesh by Abraham and his descendants were reprobates. For some reason, God commanded the elect and non-elect together to be circumcised into a community who had that sign in common. Why? This sign of circumcision, to my estimation, functioned in several ways to help the society of Israel. First, the sign of circumcision established a certain visible "boundary" of Israel, within which the true and invisible Israel was generally contained. This allowed the institution of laws necessitating faith to be more freely given to all people in that group. I can explain that more fully, but will move on.
More importantly, through circumcision a man received a promise from his youngest years that God imputes righteousness to all who believe, as Abraham did. Though he was born estranged from God by sin, in another sense he had upon him a promise - that Abraham, his father by blood, might also be his father in faith if God should grant him grace to believe and be "cut off" in the heart. In this way God's visible covenant people had a gracious sign commending God's favor upon them as a group. Circumcision was a testimony to the young men that "though they be not circumcised [in heart]... righteousness might be imputed unto them also [if God should grant them repentance and faith]." As the men matured they could read the scriptures and identify whether or not they had been born again.
In what way does this differ from the practice of infant baptism, which is also given to both the elect and non-elect in order to establish the boundary of the visible church, within which is generally the invisible? I find the arguments used against infant baptism come directly against God's command of infant circumcision for the Jews. Peter writes that the baptism which saves is not the external washing of the flesh, but the inward cleansing. Therefore the command to be baptized extends primarily to regeneration, which is to be buried and raised with Christ. In this way even the thief on the cross was baptized!
This same Peter writes regarding baptism, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." Therefore I am considering that perhaps the commandment of baptism may be fully a New Testament version of Old Testament circumcision - infants may receive the external sign as a testimony of grace extended to a family, just as the "households" of Abraham, Cornelius, and the Philippian jailer were grouped together under family headship - so long as they are taught that the baptism which saves is internal and sovereignly dispensed. This enables children to grow up with an understanding that God's covenant of grace often continues from parents to children, though sometimes skipping to those "afar off", and that God's free offer of grace is made to them especially.
Dennis Johnson of Westminster Seminary described the differences between "infant dedication" and "infant baptism" in terms of what a child is told by his or her parents about the experience:
"As "infant baptist" parents look back on the day of their child's baptism, they say to her, "On that day long ago, the Lord Jesus promised to you that if you trust him he will wash away your sins and give you a heart to love and serve him by the power of his Spirit. Just as the water 'cleansed' your baby skin, so the Holy Spirit will make your heart clean if you trust in Jesus, because Jesus died for the sins of everybody who trusts in him." You can see the difference. Both sets of parents are calling their kids to respond in faith and both sets do so by teaching the Gospel about what Jesus did for us in his sacrifice on the cross, but children baptized as infants have received a sign/symbol that points directly to that gift of God's grace."
Anyways, I'm not close to decided on this point, but interested in your perceptions and insight. Did our Puritan grandfathers understand something lost by our Baptist uncles?
- Mike:.
Here's the article that prompted this... a bit lengthy, but useful if you're interested in some of the arguments and verses used by this camp, coming from someone who was on both sides.
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/dejbaptism.php
