What’s the Baptist position on outlawing circumcision?
i) Many Baptists are dispensationalists. I assume they support the right of Jewish parents to circumcise their sons.
ii) Baptist theology also tends to accentuate the discontinuity between the old covenant and the new covenant, although there are many variations on this emphasis. Baptists who subscribe to the LBCF see more continuity than new covenant Baptists (e.g. D. A. Carson). Dispensationalists see continuity in terms of ethnic Israel's future restoration.
Considered in isolation, if you emphasize the newness of the new covenant, you might be more inclined to support a legal ban on circumcision. Circumcision null and void.
iii) On the other hand, Baptists also tend to stress separation of church and state, although there are variations on this emphasis as well. And Baptists who stress separation of church and state often ground this in their view of the old covenant. They say the old covenant in toto is obsolete. The OT theocracy was part of Israel’s unique, unrepeatable, cultic holiness. It represents a temporary stage in the history of redemption.
If you begin with that frame of reference, you might be inclined to oppose the state outlawing circumcision because you don’t think the state has the duty to regulate religion. That’s too theocratic. Rather, you’d support religious freedom. Individual conscience.
Comment has been blocked.
So you think snipping a patch of skin is equivalent to murder. Nice to see the moral clarity of anticircumcisionists.
ReplyDeleteI had an elderly relative who had minor surgery to remove excess eyelid skin. By your yardstick, that's tantamount to homicide.
Comment has been blocked.
I already anticipated that objection in an earlier post. Try to keep up with the actual state of the argument.
ReplyDeleteAnd Judaism is hardly comparable to Satanism.
Comment has been blocked.
Even a secular state is capable of drawing distinctions between one religion and another. For instance, Islam is dangerous in a way that Judaism is not.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
i) Of course a secular state can judge one religion to be more dangerous than another. That's not a religious judgment.
Deleteii) Why drag the so-called Palestinians into this? Are you shifting from a secular state to a religious state? If so, are you saying all religious claims and claimants are on a par?
Comment has been blocked.
The German court decision, which you're defending, is a case of judging religious practice. So you support semi or full theocracy or Marxism.
DeleteRegarding the so-called Palestinians, you're tipping your hand by showing yourself to be a terrorist sympathizer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteComment has been blocked.
John
Delete"Sure I support theocracy."
Now you're dissembling. But that's the best you can do.
"So all Palestinians are terrorists? You're part of the reason there won't be peace over there."
Actually, terrorists exploit useful idiots like yourself.
Comment has been blocked.
John
Delete"Dissembling? Yet again you think slapping a label on someone is an actual argument."
You gave no argument to argue against. Sarcasm is not an argument, although it can accompany argument.
"And apparently you think slapping the label of 'terrorists' on a whole virtual nation is an intelligent approach to life."
There's a groupthink mentality among the so-called Palestinians.
"Why don't you tell your president to just nuke them from space then?"
I doubt we have the technological wherewithal.
Comment has been blocked.