There are several points in his lecture that any Protestant should be able to affirm (and I am happy to stand with Dr. Wright on those points). I appreciate his charge to do retrieval theology without abandoning Protestant convictions. However, the lecture as a whole was marked more by historical and theological imprecision than practical caution. In his handling of Calvin, the Reformed tradition, and medieval theology, I believe Dr. Wright’s imprecision paints an incomplete and misleading picture. In this post, along with two others, I hope to highlight some key points of this faculty address that I believe lack necessary clarity. 

Calvin and the Medievals

After noting that many retrievalists show appreciation for Thomas Aquinas, Dr. Wright states that this lauding of Thomas “has not been the view of many significant Protestant thinkers.” Chief among his examples is John Calvin.

Dr. Wright begins by noting who Calvin does appreciate—certain church fathers (like Augustine and Chrysostom) and the first four ecumenical councils. He also quotes Anthony Lane: “The significant figures to whom Calvin appealed had all died by the middle of the fifth century.”^[2] This is indisputable and understandable since Calvin used these early sources polemically to prove the legitimacy of Protestantism. His frequent use of the Fathers and early councils was a strategic response to those who claimed Protestantism had no historical pedigree.

Next Dr. Wright, following Lane, notes the two medieval sources that Calvin most appreciated: Bernard of Clairvaux and Gregory I. This is another indisputable point—Calvin’s appreciation for Bernard grew over time and overshadowed any other medieval source. Dr. Wright again quotes Lane, “Calvin judges that only Gregory I and Bernard of Clairvaux were great champions of truth in the Middle Ages.”^[3]

After noting the theologians that Calvin appreciates, Dr. Wright turns to Calvin’s non-use of Thomas Aquinas. He states, “Absent from Calvin’s consideration is Thomas Aquinas, whom Calvin only cited four times.” And again, “To Calvin, it seems that Thomas and most of the medieval period was [sic] quite irrelevant.” 

But is it true that the only theologians Calvin appreciated from the medieval period were Bernard and Gregory? And is it true that Calvin considered Thomas to be irrelevant? We can address these questions in order.

First, Calvin did not teach that Bernard and Gregory were the “only” worthwhile medieval theologians. Dr. Wright misrepresents Lane on this point. Dr. Wright says, “Calvin judges that only Gregory I and Bernard of Clairvaux were great champions of truth in the Middle Ages.” However, this is a misquotation of Lane, who writes, “For Calvin, Gregory and Bernard are the two great champions of the truth in the Middle Ages.” Dr. Wright inserts the word “only” where Lane does not. Dr. Wright’s gloss emphasizes exclusivity (there were no other champions of truth apart from Gregory and Bernard) but Lane’s original quote emphasizes supremacy (Bernard and Gregory were the greatest). I believe this was an honest mistake by Dr. Wright, but it was a flub that bolsters his thesis. 

Furthermore, Lane documents Calvin’s nuanced interaction with Peter Lombard (1100–1160), author of the most important medieval theology textbook. Lane writes, “[Lombard] is repeatedly attacked as the spokesman for scholasticism. But Calvin was also aware of the contrast between Peter Lombard and later scholasticism and noted occasions where Lombard was sounder than his successors.”^[4] And again, in his more recent work, Lane analyzes Calvin’s category of saniores scholastici (sounder scholastics), which Calvin likely learned from Martin Bucer and referenced on three occasions. Lane concludes that “Lombard is likely included in each of the three references to saniores scholastici (sounder scholastics).”^[5]

So not only did Calvin not teach that Bernard and Gregory were the “only” worthwhile medieval theologians, but he also affirmed a category of “sounder scholastics,” which almost certainly included Peter Lombard. Calvin was far more critical of Lombard than he was of Bernard or Gregory, but he was not wholly critical. We might even say that he exemplifies a healthy model of retrieval by both affirming and denying Lombard when necessary. In short, Dr. Wright’s presentation of Calvin’s relation to the medieval period flattens out the historical record and, I think, misreads Lane. Dr. Wright is correct that Calvin highly favored Bernard and Gregory, but that is not the whole story.

Our second question, is it true that Calvin considered Thomas to be irrelevant, also requires a bit of nuance. It might be true that Calvin considered Thomas to be irrelevant, but stating it this way without any further explanation is very misleading. The truth is, Calvin never even read Thomas. Unlike Peter Martyr Vermigli, Martin Bucer, or some other Reformers, Calvin did not receive a theological education that would have included Thomas Aquinas.^[6] Additionally, Calvin’s four citations of Thomas (which Dr. Wright references) are sloppy and indicate that Calvin did not have direct knowledge of Thomas.

In fact, just four pages after the quotation Dr. Wright uses from Lane, Lane writes, “It is possible that Calvin never read Thomas for himself and that the two citations in the Institutio are derived from intermediate sources.”^[7] Indeed, in his more recent work from 2026, Lane claims the idea that “Calvin was familiar with Thomas and regularly interacted with him” is “now widely recognised to be a fallacy.”^[8] And again, “The evidence suggests that Calvin’s knowledge of Aquinas was minimal, inaccurate and mediated and that Thomas meant very little to him.”^[9]

This is where Dr. Wright’s claim lacks precision. On the one hand, it may be correct to say that Calvin did not have high regard for Thomas. On the other hand, it is spurious to say that Calvin’s rejection of Aquinas was an informed rejection. It may be said that Calvin disagreed with or rejected Aquinas if that simply means he came to contrary conclusions independent of any interaction with Aquinas. However, it is wrong to say that Calvin knowingly rejected Aquinas. Perhaps Dr. Wright did not intend to imply this. But he seems to paint a picture of a Calvin who was acquainted with Aquinas and knowingly rejected his theology. At a minimum, Dr. Wright overstates the significance of Calvin’s non-use of Thomas.

One final significant nuance that I believe Dr. Wright overlooks is how Calvin interacts with Bernard. Calvin does not merely reference Bernard’s more palatable work On Grace and Free Choice—he most frequently cites Bernard’s quite fanciful sermons on Song of Solomon.^[10] I cannot imagine that Dr. Wright would approve of Bernard’s medieval method of interpretation of Song of Solomon (perhaps I am mistaken). Yet, this is the medieval author and work which Calvin most approves.

In summary, all of Dr. Wright’s claims concerning Calvin and medieval theology require much greater nuance. First, Calvin highly favors Bernard, but he also recognized “sounder scholastics” like Lombard and did not fear using them critically. Second, Calvin’s non-use of Thomas must be understood through his non-understanding of Thomas. It is not that Calvin had an informed rejection of Thomas, but an uninformed non-use. Finally, even Calvin’s use of Bernard must be nuanced—Bernard was a medieval man, and he wrote like one. Yet Calvin did not hesitate to use Bernard’s sermons which were marked by a medieval approach to biblical interpretation.

^[1] Dr. Wright does not define what he means by “aggressive” retrieval theology. I think he intends to criticize “uncritical” retrieval theology.

^[2] Anthony N.S. Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 41.

^[3] This is Dr. Wright’s gloss of Lane. Lane, John Calvin, 43. Emphasis added.

^[4] Lane, John Calvin, 44.

^[5] Anthony N.S. Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers, Vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2026), 163.

^[6] Bruce Gordon, Calvin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 8 and David Sytsma, “Sixteenth-Century Reformed Reception of Aquinas” in The Oxford Handbook of The Reception of Aquinas, eds. Matthew Levering and Marcus Plested (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 127.

^[7] Lane, John Calvin, 45.

^[8] Lane, John Calvin, Vol. 2, 161.

^[9] Lane, John Calvin, Vol. 2, 172.

^[10] Lane, John Calvin, 57.

The post A Friendly Response to Dr. Shawn Wright Part 1: Calvin and the Medievals appeared first on Founders Ministries.

The United States of America is an amazing nation. Recent video testimonies of visitors from around the world following the World Cup are stark reminders of the blessings God has showered on our country. These sojourners have reminded us, often with appropriate humor but always with deep appreciation of the wonder of smoked beef ribs and brisket, massive supermarkets, safe streets, and southern hospitality (not to mention Waffle House and Buccee’s). These and other advantages that are easily taken for granted are true “blessings of liberty.”

There are many, weightier blessings, of course, such as the recognition of God-given rights including those enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. America’s Semiquincentennial provides an opportunity to pause and ask, “Whence all these blessings we enjoy?”

The short answer is that they were embedded into the very foundation of our nation. The longer answer is that God providentially ordered the birth of this nation and lavished His grace on us in ways that most nations in the history of nations could not conceive. At the heart of God’s providential actions in establishing the USA are His gifts of God-fearing men who believed that it had become “necessary for one people [the citizens of the thirteen colonies of the United States] to dissolve the political bands which [had] connected them with another [England], and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

God providentially ordered the birth of this nation and lavished His grace on us in ways that most nations in the history of nations could not conceive.

When the second Continental Congress adopted that Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, they knew they were committing treason against the British crown. Yet, they were convinced that the providential hand of God had brought them to that monumental moment. The years leading to that declaration and the ones following in the Revolutionary War and establishment of a new government are filled with stories of God’s powerful intervention. From battlefields, shipping lanes, wagon trails, and to the very halls of Congress itself, God’s guidance in the establishment of this nation is beyond dispute. 

The first President of the United States, George Washington, certainly interpreted events this way. After the British forces had been defeated and he led the Continental Army to secure victory for the new nation, the newly installed President Washington said, “The Man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude towards the great Author of the Universe whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf.”

The story of the United States is the story of God’s grace shed abroad on a people and a place. One must be able to admit this without succumbing to the irrational fear that such a claim is tantamount to believing America has some kind of covenantal relationship with God. There has only been one geopolitical nation to whom God gave such status, and Israel fulfilled her role in God’s redemptive history by providing Jesus Christ to the world. But the special relationship that God had with Old Testament Israel does not mean that He has no relationship with other nations.

“For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations” (Psalm 22:28). “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26). “God reigns over the nations” (Psalm 47:8). Furthermore, “He makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away” (Job 12:23). God holds nations accountable, as the book of Amos makes clear, and He favors some nations more than others, as the ministry of Jonah to the capital city of Assyria demonstrates. 

Who can deny that God has blessed America in ways far greater than we can measure? Pilgrims made their way to this land because of their devotion to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The early colonies established their governments with a stated awareness of their dependence on the God of the Bible. The framers of our nation’s constitution were not ashamed to acknowledge their need of God. This was true even among those whom we have no reason to believe had a saving knowledge of that God.

Nothing illustrates this better than the well-known story of Benjamin Franklin’s “Prayer Speech” on June 28, 1787, during the Constitutional Convention. After several weeks of frustration and making little headway in revising the Articles of Confederation that governed their infant nation, the eighty-one-year-old statesmen took the floor and, according to the journal of James Madison, made the following appeal:

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

The freedoms we enjoy are blessings hard to measure. 

From this assembly came the Constitution of the United States. The government that has operated by that constitution (not always with careful faithfulness) has served the people of the United States in ways that have at times made us the envy of the world. The freedoms we enjoy, the opportunities that abound, the ready access to the Christian religion and true Christian churches, the resources to send the Christian gospel to the far reaches of the earth, and the privilege every citizen has to influence government officials and policies are blessings hard to measure. 

Yet, those blessings are so abundant that for most Americans, for most of our lives, we have taken them for granted. I certainly have. With the contempt of familiarity, we grow used to liberty of conscience, freedom to worship, opportunities to vote for our leaders, and the smoky goodness of Texas barbecue. We forget to stop and give thanks for these and hundreds of other blessings to the God from Whom they all flow. 

The benefits of age, coupled with our nation’s Semiquincentennial, afford me an opportunity to do what I wish I had been mature enough to do fifty years ago—celebrate with thanksgiving what God has graciously done in establishing and preserving this great nation. So I will gather with friends and family to sing, pray, eat hot dogs, set off fireworks, and salute Old Glory. I will try to impress on the children in my life the lessons that I have been much too late in learning. As we gather on the auspicious anniversary, I will do my best to help them recognize God’s sovereignty and grace in creating America and making them her citizens, and remind them that to whom much is given, much is required. 

The post Reflecting on 250 Years of America appeared first on Founders Ministries.

There is a long-standing tradition in the history of the Anglo-Western church of calling upon the civil magistrate to promote the public good of its citizens.

The 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, that 350-year-old confession of my church, says, “God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory and the public good; and to this end He has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that do good, and for the punishment of evil doers.”

This echoes the language of the Westminster Confession, and both statements of faith are restatements of God’s demands placed upon civil servants. In Romans 13:4, Paul tells Christians that the civil magistrate is “God’s servant for your good.”

As those entrusted by God with authority for the purpose of obtaining the public good, I can see nothing more fitting than that the board of commissioners of our great County should declare June to be Faith and Family Month.

This declaration tends toward the public good for several reasons.

1. First, there can be no society that is not, at its heart, religious. The post-war experiment in secular humanism has not given us a flourishing and prosperous, non-religious society as many thought that it would; rather, it has replaced the true religion w/ a false, man-centered religion that has degraded our society and led to social decay, immorality, and the harm of the innocent and most vulnerable among us.

On the contrary, our 2nd president, John Adams, said that our constitutional government was “made only for a religious and moral people, being wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” It is no mystery which religion he was referring to. Furthermore, the scriptures declare in Ps. 33:12 “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” If we want the blessings of Almighty God bestowed on us once again, as in the days of our fathers, we must honor Christ as Lord, confess and repent of our sins, and seek His goodwill. If we desire to be a free society, able to govern ourselves in virtue and wisdom, we must return to the true religion of our founders and live according to that ancient faith. So yes, it is for the public good that we celebrate the Christian faith in Lee County this June.

2. Secondly, the failed social experiments of the 20th and 21st centuries have demonstrated what God has already revealed to be true in nature and in holy scripture: civil society cannot function and cannot flourish without intact and healthy nuclear families.

Children need a mother and a father to mature and grow into wise, virtuous, and capable citizens. They need the love of a mother and a father to protect them and provide for them what is truly good. They especially need the gentle nurture of a mother and the strong leadership of a father to become courageous, just, kind, and wise. The church cannot take the place of mothers and fathers, nor can the school or the welfare state. Only mothers and fathers together can give children what they need to flourish in life. And as parents give of themselves for the sake of their children, they themselves become more virtuous citizens, knowing that the society of which they are members and which they are building is the society that their beloved children will inherit.

But in a society that dishonors the nuclear family, that eradicates distinctions between mother and father, man and woman, masculinity and femininity; in a society that praises individual autonomy and elevates sexual desire to the status of an immutable and essential property at the cost of children, in a society that slaughters the unborn en masse, in this society, the family is devalued, degraded, and will eventually be destroyed, and our great nation with it.

So, it is particularly appropriate and right that Lee County honors families in the month of June, when for decades the celebration of pride and sexual desire has, like an acid, eaten away at the foundations of the nuclear family. It is time we stopped celebrating that which is unnatural and started celebrating the glorious, natural, and Biblical family as God has made it. This is for the public good.

Why does it matter that our county and our state officially proclaim June to be Faith and Family month? Because the government’s actions teach society.

In his Ethics, Aristotle says that “magistrates make their citizens good by habituation; this is the intention of every magistrate, and those who do not carry it out fail of their object. This is what makes the difference between a good constitution and a bad one.” Governments train their citizenry in either virtue or vice by their laws and proclamations. This proclamation not only trains us in virtue but also causes us to look to Christ, the God of that ‘faith that has played such a vital role in constructing our constitution, laws, and ideals.’ In Him is hope, healing, and forgiveness, and life, not only for our nation, but for every single one of us individually.

Proverbs 29:2 says that “when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice.” Right now, the people of Lee County rejoice and thank our board of commissioners for their righteous stand in this month of Faith and Family.

The post A Proclamation for Faith and Family Month appeared first on Founders Ministries.

Others, guided more by the feminist zeitgeist than the plain teaching of Scripture, sometimes suggest that the issue is really about the value of women. Unless a church is willing to have women pastors then, the reasoning goes, they are oppressing women. That argument is specious.

God created both men and women in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). Both men and women, therefore, are worthy of dignity, respect and honor. The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith says exactly this. 2LC: 4.2: “He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, … being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness…” (4.2). Likewise, the Baptist Faith and Message states,  “Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation” (Article 3).

To submit to Scripture’s requirement that only qualified men may be pastors does not deny the valuable services in God’s kingdom that women can and have performed. In the Old Testament, as the late Roger Nicole wrote, “Miriam the prophetess, sister of Moses, wrote a song recorded in Scripture (Exodus 15:21). She was followed by Deborah (Judges 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14, 2 Chronicles. 34:22), Isaiah’s wife (Isaiah 8:3),…all of whom also were called prophetesses” (Priscilla Papers, Vol. 20, No. 2; Spring 2006, p. 5).

Similarly, in the New Testament we read of Anna, “a prophetess” (Luke 2:36) and Philip’s 4 daughters “who prophesied” (Acts 21:9). Add to them Mary, Martha, Euodia, Synteche, Phoebe, Priscilla, Tryphena Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus’ mother, Junia, and others, and you see immediately that women played important roles in the early church. This pattern has continued throughout history. Perpetua, Felicitas, Anthusa, the mother of John Chrysostom, and Monica, the relentless, praying mother of Augustine, are all representative of mighty women of God who served Christ well throughout history. It is no wonder that the fourth century pagan, Libanius said, “What women these Christians have!”

Christ has not been unclear about who may serve as a pastor in any church that bears His Name.

As the father of five godly daughters (and one godly daughter-in-law) and husband of a godly wife, I have a front row seat to the important roles that women have been assigned in the kingdom of God. All these women are boldly devout, theologically astute, wonderfully gifted, and joyfully committed to serving Christ in their local church. Because they are strong, spiritually mature, and biblically grounded, none of them has ever aspired to be a pastor or ever felt in any way slighted because that job is not open to them. They delight in being women of God and celebrate the differences between themselves and their brothers in the Lord.

Christ has not been unclear about who may serve as a pastor in any church that bears His Name. He cares deeply about how His churches are organized and operate. We see this in the language that the Apostle Paul uses to instruct Timothy about giving leadership in the church at Ephesus. He writes, “I am writing these things to you so that, 15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:14-15). God cares about how His people conduct themselves in His house. In other words, His house—His rules.

And God has made it a rule that only qualified men can serve as pastors in His church. This is abundantly evident from the plain teaching of the New Testament both in the examples we have (no church was led by women pastors) and in the qualifications prescribed for pastors—“he must be…the husband of one wife” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, a “one woman man;” emphasis added), 1 Timothy 3:2. Additionally, the Apostle Paul addresses the question directly in 1 Timothy 2:9-14.

Verses 11-12 are simple and clear: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. This prohibition against women teaching or exercising authority over men comes amid Paul’s instructions about how believers are to conduct themselves “in every place” (v. 8), which is a reference either to the house churches in Ephesus or quite possibly to all the churches where Paul taught. With the modern rise of feminist hermeneutics this passage has been increasingly subjected to critique and reinterpretation in modern times. However, prior to this, there has been a remarkable consensus of its understanding across all of church history.

Paul identifies two positive activities that he does not permit women to engage in with respect to men—teaching and exercising authority. Some see this as one activity—that of teaching men with authority, believing that such an interpretation allows for women to teach men in the church as long as they don’t do it in an authoritative or “an elder-like way.” Yet, the word for “teach” (διδάσκειν) is normally used in the New Testament to denote the accurate teaching of the gospel. Douglas Moo says that it denotes “the authoritative proclamation of God’s will to believers.”[1] In the pastoral epistles, “teaching” always refers to “authoritative doctrinal instruction,”[2] as seen, for instance in 1 Timothy 4:11, “Command and teach these things.”

The second activity that this passage forbids to women is “exercising authority” over men in the church. The word Paul uses (αὐθεντεῖν) has been the subject of much research over the last forty years. Egalitarian scholars have tried to demonstrate that etymologically it has an ingressive or even pejorative connotation, so that it should be understood as “to assume authority” or “to lord it over.” Since this word is used only here in the New Testament and rarely elsewhere, etymological studies are tenuous at best. What is far more helpful is to note the way Paul uses it in the context.

Consider the rationale on which he bases his apostolic prohibition in vv. 13-14. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” He does NOT ground this prohibition in the cult of Artemis or anything else that might be unique to the cultural setting of Ephesus where Timothy was. Rather, he says that the reason that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men in the church is because of what happened at creation and what happened at the fall.

Just as there was order between men and women at the beginning—by God’s design—so there is to be order in the church, again, by God’s design.

Paul appeals to the divinely created order that God established in the beginning. Adam was created as Eve’s head by God’s design. When Eve was deceived by the devil it was because God’s created order was overturned. She took to herself a responsibility she did not have, and Adam abdicated a responsibility that he did have by God’s design.

Just as there was order between men and women at the beginning—by God’s design—so there is to be order in the church, again, by God’s design. We have seen the devastating consequences of forsaking that order in the Garden. We should not be surprised by more grievous consequences when His order is forsaken in the church. If anyone would like real time examples of the latter simply consider the last century of the Unite Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church in the USA. They did not become LGBTQIA+ celebrants overnight. Rather, their steady decline began with a rejection of God’s rules for His house.

Once God’s Word is rejected in the ordering God’s church, God’s judgment falls on God’s people. Those who love Christ and fear God should never stand idly by and let such perversion of the Word of God take place without a fight.

For a fuller discussion of the issues involved, a debate that Dwight McKissic and I had on women preachers can be found here.

[1] Douglas Moo, “What Does it Mean” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Crossway: Wheaton, IL, 241).

[2] Ibid.

The post Why Women Cannot Be Pastors of Christ’s Churches appeared first on Founders Ministries.

My text was 1 Corinthians 2:2, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” The church was organized three years prior out of a split from another church in town. In its brief existence, it had experienced three significant splits of its own. Before extending a call to me, the church had been turned down by at least 10 other candidates.

The founding pastor, my predecessor, had been fired eight or nine months before I arrived. I knew that he had been fired. What I didn’t know was that his termination happened during a raucous members’ meeting while he was away on vacation (it is no surprise that it took a long time before I was willing to take a vacation with my family). The man who was primarily responsible for his termination (who had initially been his biggest supporter) held several key leadership positions in the church as well as an $80,000 note that he could (and did) call to be paid in full eleven months after my arrival.

After the church called me but before I started the trip from Texas to Florida, the man who led the charge against the founding pastor (let’s call him “Carl”), decided that the church had made a mistake and I should not be their pastor. He planned to meet me upon my arrival with a notice that they had rescinded my call, but he could not get enough signatures on the petition to obtain his objective. That did not stop him from working vigorously for the next eight months to get me fired.

Fortunately (a word that I can unironically use with the perspective that forty years gives), God had prepared me for the trials of being the new pastor of a dysfunctional church. Four months before accepting the call, I had resigned from my responsibilities as an assistant pastor in a church in Dallas over ethical issues and disagreements with the leadership. That marked, at the time, the lowest point of my ministry. In fact, I was convinced that I was washed up as a pastor.

In short, I was a pastor nobody wanted, and Grace was a church nobody wanted. It was a match made in heaven.

God intervened in specific and powerful ways to thwart Carl’s efforts to get rid of me, and over the next seven years, the church slowly moved down pathways toward a healthier life of devotion to the lordship of Jesus Christ. The foundation laid in those early years prepared the church to survive and, in many respects, to thrive the next thirty-three years. 

As is true in the life of any church (or person, relationship, or institution), there have been many ups and downs in Grace Baptist Church over the last four decades. In so many ways, the life of my family is completely intertwined in the life of the church. Donna and I arrived with a two-year-old & an infant. Today we have six children (all but one of whom is married) and twenty-three grandchildren. By God’s amazing grace, they are all actively involved in the life of the church.

So, I have much for which to be thankful as I reflect on the last forty years. Each of those years is filled with testimonies of God’s love, patience, mercy, and power. While there is no way to calculate God’s blessings over that time and the many lessons I have learned, I have reflected on many of them. I want to note them and to remember them as clear markers of the mercy and faithfulness of Jesus Christ to a hell-deserving sinner whom He made a trophy of His grace.

Here, in no particular order, are forty brief thoughts, lessons, and reflections that have come to mind over the last few weeks.

1. What the late James Boice said is absolutely true: we tend to overestimate what God will do in two years and underestimate what He will do in twenty. That is even more true when you stretch the horizon to forty. 

2. God often does His deepest work of sanctification in His people through trials that seem unbearable. 

3. Though I have often mixed up my priorities, having them clearly articulated (Christ, Donna, family, church, Founders, other ministries) has been a great help when I have needed course corrections.

4. A faithful, godly wife is an invaluable gift from the Lord. Marriage to Donna has been a constant reminder of God’s love and grace to me. Her wisdom and strength have been sources of immeasurable encouragement to me through the years.

5. The most difficult challenge I have faced as a pastor has never changed—dealing with my own heart. Proverb 4:23 is true: “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.” 

6. Having children who love Christ and His church is one of the greatest gifts God can give to parents. It is a testimony to God’s sovereign grace when any parent sees his children walking in truth. It is also true that there is no greater joy for a parent than to experience such a blessing (3 John 4).

7. Strong, godly elders and deacons are gifts from God and inevitably help a church grow in strength and godliness. I have been blessed to serve with some of the best men I have ever known and to help shepherd a church that is filled with many strong, godly men.

8. Charles Spurgeon was right when he told his students that learning to say “no” is more valuable to a pastor than learning Latin. Every time I say “yes” to something, I am necessarily saying “no” to other things. Learning intentionally to decline worthwhile opportunities has been a hard, invaluable lesson that I wish I had learned earlier.

9. All my counsel boils down to this: Be a real Christian and act like it. That is the only string I have on my banjo and I have learned to play it no matter what the song.

10. The gospel really is the power of God to save all who believe it. It is also what God uses to empower His people to persevere and grow in grace.

11. You can’t make old friends, and if you live long enough, you will be left with fewer of them. But God does at times give life-giving friendships in the latter years. Those should be cherished.

12. Ministry has pivotal moments and they are rarely seen as such until sometime later. 

13. Unseen realities are more important than those we can see. Learning to access them and live on the basis of them is essential to joyful perseverance in difficult duties.

14. Growing in the fear of the Lord liberates you from fearing people or craving their approval.

15. The Lord is a wise and good shepherd. He always provides what we need. Sometimes He very pointedly (and painfully) “makes me lie down.”

16. If a Christian does not intentionally seek to grow through the ordinary means of grace that God provides in the church, then he is unlikely to be helped much by extraordinary means.

17. Leading a church to embrace, maintain, and practice corrective discipline is difficult, vital work. It is heartbreaking when a member refuses to repent and must be excommunicated, and a joy like no other when such a person repents and is restored to communion with the church, sometimes after years.

18. God’s Spirit has proven Himself more personal, patient, and powerful than I could have imagined when I began serving as a pastor.

19. Seeing multi-generational faithfulness in church families is a great blessing. Baptizing parents, their children, and their grandchildren is an incredible privilege.

20. Raising children is humbling, sanctifying, and perspective-adjusting.

21. Children are wonderful teachers of faith, joy, simplicity, and wonder. 

22. Beauty should not be neglected in the pursuit of truth and goodness. 

23. Pilgrim’s Progress is a much better psychology book than any textbook on the subject I have ever read.

24. Fasting is a discipline that catalyzes prayer and facilitates focus and fervency.

25. It is sanctifying to remember what God has saved us from. I shudder to think what evil I would have perpetrated on this world had He not arrested me by sovereign grace.

26. Great blessings are often accompanied by great problems, and when working those problems, it is good to remember why you have them.

27. Sometimes there is no easy way forward and you must resolve as quickly as you can to find and execute the best hard way.

28. Having fellow elders who know how and are willing to both encourage and correct you is an incalculable blessing. 

29. Receiving and giving criticism helpfully are skills worth learning and will serve you and others well.

30. It is a testimony to the power of God’s grace in her life that Donna intimately knows my faults and frailties and yet continues humbly to receive God’s Word through my preaching.

31. Watching saints grow in their devotion to Christ as their bodies slow down has been a great means of strengthening my faith and hope.

32. Burying godly church members has made me hate death more and long more deeply for the resurrection.

33. Watching those who profess Christ reject godly counsel and head down paths that inevitably lead to destruction is one of the most painful experiences a pastor faces.

34. Watching those who have shipwrecked their lives repent and live humbly in faith and obedience is one of the greatest joys a pastor can experience.

35. Grandchildren are a great blessing—a crown to the aged (Proverbs 17:9)—and provide great joy and motivation to finish my race without stumbling.

36. Sometimes trials and opposition are reasons to stay put and keep preaching the gospel rather than leaving or looking for an easier assignment (1 Corinthians 16:9). Do not leave a church in the middle of a controversy. See it through with resolve to honor Scripture and leave the consequences with God.

37. The cross sets me free from being undone by what negative things people may think or say about me because it declares to the whole world that Tom Ascol is such a vile scoundrel that it took the death of God’s only begotten Son to save me.

38. No matter how wicked you think you are, you are always worse than you know, but no matter how great you think Jesus is, He is always far greater than your best thoughts.

39. Being a pastor is the greatest calling in the world. I am stunned that God called me to be a minister of His Word and sacraments and that God’s people have sacrificially given their hard-earned money to allow me to give myself to this calling.

40. If God were to give me the opportunity, I would gladly give another forty years to serving the grace-filled people of Grace Baptist Church.

The post Forty Years of Grace appeared first on Founders Ministries.

Nearly two decades ago, I was a poor international seminary student trying to complete my studies and faithfully prepare for ministry. One of my required textbooks was Dear Timothy, edited by Dr. Tom Ascol. Not knowing where else to turn, I reached out to ask if there was any way I could obtain a free copy.

I did not expect what happened next.

Dr. Ascol personally sent me not just one copy, but two, along with a generous collection of other books and resources from Founders Ministries. For a struggling student, that gift was more than practical help. It was a tangible expression of Christian generosity and brotherly care that I have never forgotten.

My name is Andrei Sava, and today I have the privilege of serving in pastoral ministry. By God’s grace, what was once a small act of kindness toward a young seminarian has borne fruit over many years of ministry.

Recently, that story came full circle.

Last month, Dr. Tom Ascol came and preached at our men’s study, where over 400 men gathered to hear God’s Word from the book of Ezra. It was a powerful time of encouragement and exhortation. But for me personally, it was also deeply meaningful because I was able to thank him face-to-face for that act of kindness from so many years ago.

Moments like that remind me that the work of Founders Ministries is not abstract. It is personal. It is pastoral. And it has a long reach.

Through books, teaching, conferences, and quiet acts of generosity, Founders has been strengthening pastors, equipping churches, and investing in men like me long before many of us ever realized it. What began as a few books in the hands of a struggling student became part of a much larger story of ministry, encouragement, and faithfulness.

That is what Founders Ministries continues to do today.

It is training men for pastoral ministry.

It is producing resources that anchor churches in sound doctrine.

It is encouraging leaders to stand firm on the sufficiency and authority of Scripture in a time when compromise is often easier than conviction.

And often, like in my case, it is doing this through simple, quiet faithfulness that the Lord uses in ways we cannot immediately see.

If that resonates with you, I want to invite you to be part of that kind of work.

Your generosity to Founders Ministries helps extend that same kind of encouragement and equipping to pastors, students, and churches around the world—many of whom are serving in difficult or under-resourced contexts.

Your gift of any amount helps:

• Place sound, theological resources into the hands of pastors and students who may not otherwise have access to them.
• Support training and development through Founders Seminary, the Institute of Public Theology, and other teaching efforts.
• Encourage and strengthen churches through conferences, publications, and ongoing ministry initiatives.

Would you prayerfully consider giving today to help continue this kind of gospel impact, often unseen at first, but bearing fruit for years to come?

Thank you for considering how the Lord might use you in this work. I am personally grateful because I am one of the many who have been shaped by the faithfulness of this ministry.

With gratitude,

Pastor Andrei Sava

Trinity Community Church

Clovis, CA

P.S. Sometimes the Lord uses a simple gift (like a few books) to shape a lifetime of ministry. Your generosity today may be the very means He uses to equip and encourage someone you may never meet this side of heaven.

The post A Small Act of Kindness That Still Bears Fruit appeared first on Founders Ministries.

KDY then succinctly presented the traditional covenant baptism interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12, one he felt so confident in, he posted it on X.^[2] His fellow pedobaptists praised it as an exemplary articulation of covenant baptism. Let’s examine it.

First, KDY asserts, “Paul is comparing the spiritual import of circumcision with the spiritual import of baptism.” However, Colossians 2:11 does not mention physical circumcision. It states, “in him you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands . . . in the circumcision of Christ.”^[3] N. T. Wright, a pedobaptist, notes that this refers to “metaphorical” circumcision consistent with such OT passages as Leviticus 26:41, Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, etc.^[4] That Paul is referring to that metaphorical circumcision in Col. 2:11 is evident by describing it as “made without hands” and “of Christ.” It speaks of a new heart, thus of regeneration. Since Colossians 2:11 does not describe physical circumcision, it cannot be used to establish any relationship between it and baptism or to describe “the spiritual import of circumcision.” Contrary to the oft-repeated claim, Col. 2:11-12 does not draw a parallel between circumcision and baptism. 

Wright argues that Paul’s fore-fronting of “the circumcision of Christ” is targeted at Judaizers.^[5] That being the case, if Paul believed in covenant baptism, the easiest way to rebuke Judaizers would have been to insist that physical circumcision is unnecessary, as it has been replaced by baptism. But Paul does not do this. He, rather, points to regeneration as the fulfillment of circumcision.

It is true, as Wright notes, “‘Christian circumcision’” is “the point of entry into the community of Christ’s people” just “as physical circumcision was the point of entry into the community of Israel.”^[6] But what Wright calls “Christian circumcision” is not baptism; it is regeneration. The OT itself shows that circumcision is a type of regeneration, rather than a type of baptism. Regeneration is the antitype, not baptism. We enter “the community of Christ’s people” by being born again (John 3:3). 

Regeneration is, therefore, the sign of the new covenant. “Be baptized” is directed toward those who have received that sign, specifically to “disciples” in the Lord Jesus’ mandate to baptize (Mt 28:19). Baptism follows regeneration (the anti-type of circumcision). Baptism is, then, a sign of the sign of the covenant. That is, God makes a covenant with the elect; He regenerates them in due time, thereby granting them the sign of His covenant, which they then signify by being baptized. Thus, we Baptists, in addition to presenting alternative covenant theologies, should also simply insist that baptism is not comparable to circumcision. It is not a covenant sign.

Nevertheless, KDY proceeds to the second step. He claims, “Romans 4:11 says circumcision signified” everything that baptism signifies. Thus, by the principle of transfer, Romans 4:11 describes baptism (even though it doesn’t mention it). Hence, after (incorrectly) asserting that Colossians 2:11 describes the “spiritual import of circumcision,” he then says Romans 4:11 describes that “spiritual import” in a manner that is similar, if not identical, to the description of baptism. But this, too, is untrue. Circumcision is described as a “sign of the covenant” and a “seal of the righteousness that he had by faith” (Rom. 4:11). Despite the also oft-repeated claims otherwise, scripture never refers to baptism like that. A doctrine as fundamental as a sign of the covenant cannot be left up to being deduced by subjective “good and necessary consequences.”

Colossians 2:11-12 mentions baptism following a series of descriptions of believers. “In him” — actually in Greek “in whom” referring back to “Christ” in 2:8 — “you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands.” You were regenerated by God’s sovereign work (John 1:13) “in the stripping off of the body of the flesh.” This phrase is enigmatic. It may refer to the crucifying of the flesh in Christ (Galatians 2:24). Wright suggests that it could also pertain to removing “family solidarity,” how being identified with Christ transcends other identifiers like ethnicity or family ties.^[7] If so, it would be ironic that this verse is employed, along with what KDY calls “the family principle,” to argue for the baptism of infants because of their family identity. 

The “stripping” or removal of “the body of the flesh” occurs in “the circumcision of Christ,” i.e., in regeneration. This is not a second experience. It is one aspect of metaphorical circumcision. 

Then, in Colossians 2:12, Paul begins with an aorist, passive participle, a divine passive implying God as the subject acting upon the believer. “Having been buried.” A key question: does this describe the cause of the “circumcision of Christ”? That is, is Paul suggesting that baptism caused “Christian circumcision” (regeneration) or is he providing a series of descriptions with no causal relationship between them? The participle may indicate that Paul is returning to the “you are” (2:10), which began “you are made complete in him,” also a participle. This could be interpreted as saying (in rough English to reflect the Greek), “You are having been made complete . . . you also were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands . . . ; [you are] having been buried with him in baptism…”. Even if this is incorrect, and Paul is revealing that baptism causes the “circumcision of Christ” (i.e., the causal interpretation), it could, then, be interpreted to support baptismal regeneration (of believers), but not covenant baptism. The Reformed tradition does not believe in baptismal regeneration.^[8]

Further, Paul writes that we have been “buried” and “raised” with Christ in baptism, which suggests the mode of baptism: immersion (the literal definition of the Greek word “baptism”).

Finally, KDY’s additional points regarding “whether that sign can be applied before the known exercise of faith” and whether “the family principle is no longer operative” are moot. KDY has not demonstrated that baptism is a sign of the covenant. Circumcision could be applied before faith because it was a sign of the covenant, but baptism is “through faith,” as Piper observed. Regarding the “family principle,” the very first public teaching in the NT, John the Baptist’s, rejects it. “God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham” (Mt 3:9).

Speaking of “the family principle,” this issue is an intra-family debate. Pastor DeYoung has made many valuable contributions to nurturing and defending the faith, even if his handling of Col. 2:11 may not be one of them. He’s an able communicator. I even like to say, with a wry smile, that Dr. DeYoung is such a talented writer that he actually won second place in the 2000 Acton Essay Contest!^[9] (Look it up to get the joke.) We pray for God’s continued blessings on him.

^[1] Coram Deo Pastors Workshop, February 13, 2025.

^[2] Kevin DeYoung, X, April 9, 2025, https://x.com/RevKevDeYoung/status/1910003655207444901.

^[3] NT Wright, Colossians and Philippians: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1986), 109.

^[4] Wright, 109.

^[5] Wright, 109.

^[6] Wright, 109.

^[7] Wright, 111.

^[8] John B. Carpenter, “The Catholicity of Regenerate Church Membership,” Themelios (50,2, 2025).

^[9] https://www.acton.org/press/release/2001/acton-institute-announces-essay-contest-winners.

The post Colossians 2:11-12 and Kevin DeYoung’s Case for Covenant Baptism appeared first on Founders Ministries.

How often we need to be reminded of the perfection, completeness of effectuality of God’s work. Paul was painfully aware of the attempts of false teachers to infiltrate the churches and win followers to themselves by their strange doctrine, so he does not mind sticking with this historically accomplished, revealed truth. He found it necessary to reiterate his teaching—the true gospel revealed to the apostles—in order to protect both the faith and the faithful. So, Paul found it no trouble to “write the same things” for it was a “safeguard” for the church (1). Peter had this same purpose in mind (2 Peter 1:12-15) when he reminded the churches within his sphere of influence of the truth he had taught them—“I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things.” 

Paul issued a strong warning against false teaching, because false teaching, purposefully erroneous content, produces false faith and deluded followers. He calls these heresy-mongers “dogs, . . . evil workers, . . . the false circumcision” (2 NASB). Their performance is a mere “mutilation of the flesh” (NKJV combined with ESV). Evidently some of the same group that challenged the Galatian churches had also made their way to Philippi (Gal. 5:1-11). Throughout the letter to the Galatians, Paul warned against embracing this false gospel. He warned against a yoke of slavery, that Christ would be of “no benefit” and that they would be “severed from Christ” and “fallen from grace” if they adopted the ceremony of circumcision as a qualification for the gospel. Instead, Paul urged that they continue in their obedience to the truth, to follow no other persuasion, and adopt no other view (Galatians 5:1-10). 

The gospel has a particular content, nothing superfluous, all vital. True faith includes a persuasion of both its truthfulness and its necessity. We confess, therefore, that not only was Jesus born of a virgin as a matter of fact, but we concede that such an event was necessary for the demands of salvation. So too do we confess the fact of Jesus’ sinless and positively righteous life, but we embrace its necessity for our right standing before God. Not only do we see the crucifixion of Christ as a historical reality, but we believe its substitutionary, propitiatory, expiatory character to be essential if sinners are to be saved. We point to the resurrection as a demonstrable and certain historical fact and also embrace its power over death as an inextricable component of the gift of eternal life.

Paul issued a theological statement about the true meaning of circumcision (3). This could have been dispensed with quickly and clearly had he written, “Don’t you know that Circumcision has now been replaced with the baptism of your children? The old covenant for membership in the covenantal people of Israel required circumcision of all male progeny. That rite is now replaced by the baptism of all children—male as well as female. Baptism of children is now the true circumcision.” Paul did not write that. Instead, he gave concise discussion of the work of the Spirit in his work of calling and transformation of heart.

Circumcision was a ceremony that prefigured the work of the Spirit in removing a sinner’s hardness of heart. The Spirit would create a free flow of trust and love from a sinner to Christ. The true circumcision of regeneration establishes three things, at least, in the spiritual response of a believer.

First, the one who has true circumcision worships by the Spirit of God, that is, according to the work of the Sprit in the new covenant. The law is written on his heart (Jeremiah 31:33), the heart of stone has been removed, the Spirit of God has been put within us to cause us to walk in God’s statutes (Ezekiel 36:26, 27). This circumcision is evidenced in true and observable moral change and spiritual perception. The “circumcised’ person worships “in the Spirit of God.” 

Second, the true believer, the person who has entered the followship of the covenant people, glories in Christ Jesus. The person has a conscious awareness of those objective gospel facts discussed above and has assented to them and consented to their eternal relevance in his standing before God. The participant in this covenant has forgiveness of sins, iniquities no longer remembered against them (Jeremiah 31:34) for the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin (1 John 1:5). In Christ alone he trusts, for Christ has accomplished all righteousness.

Third, the true believer puts no confidence in the flesh. “Flesh” refers to any status that we may claim from natural relations or from accomplishments from any talents or attempts at personal virtue. All that we are and do is so interpenetrated by the principle of the “flesh” that wars against the Spirit (Galatians 5:17) that it can avail nothing before God, can accomplish no reconciliation, no righteousness. Paul never misses an opportunity to seal this truth: “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to  his own mercy” (Titus 3:5); “not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:9); “not because of our works, but because of his own purpose and grace” (2 Timothy 1:9); “To the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). Worshipping by the Spirit and taking part in the work of Christ through faith is the true circumcision. Are you circumcised?

The post The True Circumcision – Philippians 3:1-3 appeared first on Founders Ministries.

The Judaizers were Jews who confessed Christ with their mouth but trusted in their Jewishness with their hearts. Because they rested in their Jewish identity, they demanded pagan converts be circumcised. Because they thought God’s blessings resided within the walls of Israel, the Judaizers could not perceive how Gentiles could be members of God’s covenant community and co-heirs with them in the blessing of Abraham without at least identifying (via circumcision) with the Jewish people (Acts 15:1). Their demand for circumcision was really their demand for Gentiles to unite themselves with the children of Abraham. As the Old Covenant made provision for Gentiles to be integrated into Israel via circumcision (Ex. 12:48-49), the Judaizers argued that Gentiles had to be united to Abraham’s physical offspring through physical circumcision. Therefore, the Judaizers mistakenly believed that Gentiles had to be united to Abraham in some fleshy way. Sadly, they trusted in the flesh rather than the Spirit (Gal. 3:3). 

Yet, according to Paul, the Judaizers had failed to understand that national Israel had failed to inherit the blessing of Abraham. They were no more righteous than the pagan nations surrounding them. They were covenant breakers. They were not only in exile, but they were also born into slavery to their sin (Gal. 4:25). By desiring the Gentiles to be circumcised, they desired Gentiles to bear what they could not carry (Gal. 2:14; Acts 15:10). 

The Judaizers also failed to see that Jesus Christ alone (in the singular) is the sole heir to the blessing of Abraham (Gal. 3:16). Because Christ was the only Jew who kept the conditions of the covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17:10; Gen. 18:19), the blessing is His and resides exclusively in Him. Jesus is the true Israel of God. Christ succeeded where the Israelites failed. He came out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matt. 2:5), passed through the waters (Matt. 3:16), was tested in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1), and was declared to be God’s Son (Heb. 5:5). Only in Christ can sinners be set free. 

Moreover, the Judaizers failed to understand the gospel foretold to Abraham that in his seed (Jesus Christ), all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16). Because they didn’t understand that all the blessings of Abraham dwell in Christ, the Judaizers failed to see that the only way anyone, both Jew and Gentile, could partake in the inheritance of Abraham was by being spiritually united to Christ Jesus by faith (Gal. 3:29). The Judaizers failed to see that the inheritance of Abraham is received not by natural birth or by circumcision but by faith alone in Christ alone. “Know then,” Paul said, “that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). 

Thus, for all these reasons, the Judaizers failed to comprehend how Gentiles could become heirs with Abraham by faith without circumcision or identifying themselves with physical Israel (Gal. 3:14). To be joint heirs with Christ and heirs of Abraham, Gentiles don’t need to be united to Abraham by some fleshly means, such as circumcision. Instead, they must become spiritually united to Abraham’s promised seed, Jesus Christ, by faith. It is a spiritual union rather than a physical union with Abraham that matters. And this spiritual union takes place not by physical birth or circumcision but by the new birth of the Holy Spirit and faith in Christ Jesus.  

In gist, rather than Gentiles needing to join themselves to Abraham’s physical offspring via circumcision, Jews need to reject their circumcision and Jewishness and trust in Christ alone to become Abraham’s spiritual offspring.  

Paul’s resounding rebuttal against the Judaizers is also an argument against those who appeal to paedo-circumcision as a theological justification for paedo-baptism. Some say as circumcision was administered to believers and their physical children in the Old Covenant, baptism needs to be administered to believers and their physical children in the New Covenant. This reasoning is built on the notion that both the Old and New Covenants are administrations of the covenant of grace, and their membership is essentially the same—believers and their seed. With this reasoning, baptism is the new circumcision. In other words, for Presbyterians, baptism carries the fundamental significance of circumcision—an identity marker of God’s covenant people, which consists of a mixture of spiritual and physical seeds. 

If circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, however, then Paul’s argument against the Judaizers is not what we would expect. If baptism has the same significance and meaning as circumcision, why didn’t Paul argue that the Judaizers were misrepresenting the meaning of circumcision? Why not say that just as believers in the Old Covenant were required to signify their faith and unity with God’s people by circumcision, now all believers (Jews and Gentiles) in the New Covenant are required to signify their faith and unity with God’s people by baptism? 

Of course, there are exceptions, such as the thief on the cross, but shouldn’t all believers be baptized? If circumcision represents Abraham’s spiritual people, and if baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace, then wouldn’t this clarification have been the more natural argument for Paul to have made? Rather than requiring all covenant members to be circumcised, God now requires all covenant members to be baptized. If baptism replaces circumcision, then this would seem to be the likely argument Paul would have used. But this is not Paul’s argument at all. 

Instead of affirming that God’s covenant people in the Old and New Covenant are a mixture of physical and spiritual offspring, Paul separated Abraham’s physical seed from Abraham’s spiritual seed. The two seeds are not to be mixed or conflated (Deut. 22:9). By contrasting physical Israel with spiritual Israel, Paul contrasted circumcision with baptism. Rather than linking circumcision to the covenant of grace (freedom) and Abraham’s spiritual offspring, Paul linked circumcision to the covenant of works (bondage) and Abraham’s fleshly offspring (Gal. 4:21-25). Ultimately, Paul disagreed with the Judaizers and did not think believers needed to identify themselves with Abraham’s physical seed via circumcision in order to be united to Christ by faith and heirs to Abraham’s inheritance (Gal. 4:27-31). This is because God’s true children are birthed not by the flesh but by being baptized into Christ by the Spirit (Gal. 3:27). 

Thus, Paul juxtaposes the meaning of circumcision with the meaning of baptism. Circumcision unites a person to physical Israel, while baptism unites a person to Christ (Gal. 3:27). As we shall see, circumcision signifies the physical and fleshly realities of the Old Covenant, which are utterly foreign to the spiritual realities of the New Covenant. Rather than circumcision signifying the same realities of baptism: (1.) spiritual Israel, (2.) grace, (3.) faith, (4.) the Spirit, and (5.) the new birth, circumcision signifies (1.) ethnic Israel, (2.) works, (3.) law, (4.) the flesh, and (5.) natural birth. According to Paul, circumcision and baptism signify opposite truths. 

Circumcision Signified Ethnic Israel, Not Spiritual Israel 

First, Paul contrasts circumcision with Abraham’s spiritual children. According to Paul, circumcision identifies Abraham’s fleshly seed. When speaking of “the circumcised,” it is evident that Paul is referring to ethnic Israel. Likewise, when speaking of “the uncircumcised,” it is evident that Paul is referring to the Gentiles. For instance, Paul said: “I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:7). This is made clear afterward when he said, “for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised also worked through me for mine to the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:8). 

God’s Old Covenant people consisted of the children of Abraham according to the flesh. A Jewish child became a member of ethnic Israel not by faith but by natural birth (Gal. 2:15). On the other hand, the spiritual children of Abraham are members of the New Covenant not by natural birth but by the new birth. New Covenant membership comes not by genetics but by faith. Because the New Covenant consists of a spiritual people, there is no Jew or Gentile distinction (Gal. 3:28). The wall of separation has been broken down. 

The New Covenant is not propagated by natural birth but by spiritual birth. Abraham’s physical offspring are children born according to the flesh, while his spiritual offspring are born according to the Spirit (Gal. 4:28-29). 

This is a profound difference that should not be overlooked. And when we keep this difference in mind, it does not make sense to baptize unbelieving children any more than to circumcise believers. If circumcision represents Abraham’s physical children and baptism represents Abraham’s spiritual children, then why would we knowingly baptize someone who has not been spiritually baptized into Christ? Though unbelieving Jews were commanded to be circumcised, they were not permitted to be baptized. The sign of the flesh (circumcision) does not belong to the spiritual children of Abraham any more than the sign of the Spirit (baptism) belongs to the fleshly children of Abraham. 

Circumcision Signified Works, Not Grace 

Second, Paul contrasted circumcision with grace. This contrast is seen when Paul linked the “ethnic identity” of Israel with the works of the law—as opposed to the “spirit identity” of those justified by faith. “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Gal. 2:15-16). 

In other words, if we think we must be united to physical Israel through some fleshly means, such as natural birth or circumcision, then we obligate ourselves to obtain the blessings of Abraham in the same way Christ Jesus obtained the inheritance—by perfect obedience. Christ Jesus is the sole heir of Abraham, for He is the only physical child of Abraham who kept all the conditions of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 18:19). 

If we seek God’s blessings through the flesh, then circumcision is not sufficient. If we desire life in the flesh, then perfection of the flesh is required. If we go this route, then we must be justified, sanctified, and glorified on our own. “If you accept circumcision,” Paul said, “Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law” (Gal. 5:2-3). But since none, besides Christ, are righteous, none can be justified by the works of the law. 

By linking the condition of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision) to the works of the law, Paul contrasted circumcision with grace: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4). If circumcision signified the covenant of grace, why did Paul link it to the covenant of works? According to Paul, Abraham’s physical children  are born into slavery while his spiritual children are born free (Gal. 4:22-27). Paul connected circumcision with the law because circumcision and Jewish identity cannot save in the same way our good works cannot save us (Gal. 3:11). No one can perfect the flesh in their flesh. But salvation is not by the works of the flesh but by grace alone in Christ alone. Consequently, circumcision reminds Israel of what they must do (Gen. 17:10; Gen. 18:19), while baptism reminds believers of what Christ has already done.

Circumcision Signified Law, Not Faith 

Third, Paul contrasted circumcision with faith. According to Paul, it is not circumcision that matters but faith: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). 

In natural birth, our children don’t inherit our faith but our sin. They are not born saved and under grace but born lost and under the law. Only in the new birth do they inherit Christ’s faith and righteousness (Gal. 2:20). For Jesus said, ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6).

One might be tempted to argue that Paul claims circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in Romans 4. But if we read Romans 4 in context, we see a crucial detail—Paul was not speaking of paedo-circumcision but the credo-circumcision of Abraham. Paul was pointing out that Abraham was circumcised after he believed. Abraham was justified not by his flesh but by his faith. Being circumcised after he was justified, according to Paul, was not a minor historical detail but an essential point to his argument. In Romans 4, Paul shows how Abraham, by faith alone, can be the father of his spiritual children (both Jew and Gentile) without them needing to be circumcised. Therefore, the significance of Abraham’s circumcision (credo-circumcision) is not the same as the fleshly circumcision of his physical children (paedo-circumcision). Abraham’s circumcision (post-faith) shows how Abraham can be the spiritual father of all who have faith (regardless of genetics or circumcision). 

Circumcision was administered to Abraham’s physical children regardless of faith. In contrast, baptism is administered to believers irrespective of their ethnicity. The point is baptism cannot be said to have replaced circumcision because fleshly circumcision signifies the law rather than faith. 

Circumcision Signified the Flesh, Not the Spirit 

Fourth, Paul linked circumcision to the flesh rather than the Spirit. Rather than connecting circumcision of the flesh to the spiritual realities of the covenant of grace, he connected it to the physical and fleshly realities of the covenant of works. Referring to the Judaizers, he said: “It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh” (Gal. 6:12-13). 

In contrast, baptism does not signify fleshly realities. Those who become members of the New Covenant, though they are baptized, cannot boast in their flesh, genetics, or their good works. Baptism signifies that we are saved by grace and faith alone in Christ alone through the Spirit alone. For this reason, Paul did not boast that he was Abraham’s physical child. “But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal. 6:14). 

Circumcision Signified the Natural Birth, Not the New Birth 

Fifth, Paul linked circumcision to the natural birth by contrasting it with the new birth: “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Gal. 6:15). Seeing that circumcision was legally required for all Abraham’s natural offspring (Gen. 17:10), it was natural for circumcision to be administered at birth (without faith or the new birth). Baptism, on the other hand, represents the new birth. By faith, we enter the New Covenant not by natural birth but by the new birth. By faith, we are buried into Christ and raised in the newness of life. “For as many as you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ…and if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring” (Gal. 3:27). 

The new birth, which is represented by baptism, comes not by the power of the flesh but by the power of the Spirit. What matters is not being united to Abraham’s physical offspring via natural birth or circumcision but being united to Abraham’s spiritual offspring via the new birth. Only by the new birth do Jews or Gentiles become members of Abraham’s spiritual offspring and are given entrance into the kingdom of God (John 3:3). This is the only thing that matters. And this, according to Paul, is what makes up “the (true and spiritual) Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, if circumcision signifies the covenant of grace, as our Presbyterian friends claim, then Paul’s arguments against the Judaizers are not what we would expect. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Instead of comparing circumcision with baptism and explaining how the Judaizers had turned the sign of grace into a legalistic work, Paul argued that circumcision was indeed a part of the work of the law because it signified those who were seeking to be united to Abraham’s fleshly offspring (who are born into slavery under the law) by a fleshly and outward means. 

It is clear that Paul was not comparing circumcision to baptism. In Paul’s mind, because there is a vast difference between the fleshly and spiritual seed of Abraham, circumcision and baptism are vastly different. The application of circumcision does not transfer to the application of baptism. Circumcision signifies the fleshly realities of ethnic Israel and the works of the law, while baptism signifies the spiritual realities of grace, faith, and the new birth. Because of these essential differences, only those born again by grace and united to Abraham by faith should be baptized.

The post The Juxtaposition of Circumcision and Baptism in Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians  appeared first on Founders Ministries.

This is very much the point of Romans 4:9-12. Abraham believed many years before he received circumcision, and this is explicitly why he can be the father of uncircumcised believers. Paul argues based on the chronology of the important events of Abraham’s life recorded in Genesis: the call of the gentile Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees in Genesis 12; the covenant revealed and believed in Genesis 15; and the covenant of circumcision described in Genesis 17. A comparison of these texts reveals that at least thirteen years passed between the events of Genesis 15 and Genesis 17. Some rabbis apparently believed that twenty-nine years occurred between them. ^[2] Whether thirteen or twenty-nine does not matter for the passage of at least more than a decade of the patriarch’s life is central to Paul’s argument. What is important is that Abraham was justified by faith long before he was circumcised, so it must be said that faith preceded circumcision, and this circumcision could not have been the basis of his relationship with God.

The Abrahamic covenant must be understood on two levels: spiritual identity and national identity. National identity was forefront in the consciousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. This is recorded in texts such as John 8:31-41 and Acts 15:1. The religious leaders of Israel collapsed these two things together so that circumcision was considered the distinguishing sign of God’s people. They believed that Israel was in fact a peculiar nation before God and in the world.  They missed, however, the true nature of spiritual identity, which is what Paul describes in Romans 4. Justification has no relation to circumcision. 

This fact makes Abraham the father, not only of the Jews, but of everyone who believes. For many years, Abraham was an uncircumcised believer, which makes him the true father of all uncircumcised believers as well as the father of all circumcised believers. Physical descent brought earthly promises and blessings to Abraham’s earthly seed. But spiritual descent brings eternal blessings, received by faith. Abraham is the true spiritual father of all who believe – and this is a more lasting legacy than any of the Scribes and Pharisees could have imagined.

He is our father Abraham.

The issue is not the sign/seal of circumcision, but the prior presence of faith. In fact, Paul jumps right over the whole notion of circumcision in order to assert the relationship between Abraham and believing Gentiles. They are his “children” by faith, and the outward sign is utterly irrelevant to their status as his children. So long as they possess faith, they are his. To move from circumcision to baptism is to miss this point entirely. Faith, not circumcision, is what constitutes his children.  

^[1]David Kingdon, Children of Abraham (Sussex: Carey Publications, 1973) 32.

^[2]See John Stott, Romans: God’s Good News for the World (Downers Grove: IVP, 1994) 129. 

The post Circumcision in Romans 4:5-12 appeared first on Founders Ministries.