Still exploring, reading, praying, considering. I listened intently to the WCF debate you referenced, Pilgrim, and have been struck by several points of difference. Among them is the idea that baptism is the "sign and seal" of the New Covenant replacing Old Testament circumcision. I have up to now always accepted that.

Reexaminining it now, though, if baptism "replaces" circumcision and signifies the same thing, and if the two covenants are one and the same, then:

Why were the Jews in Acts 2:41 baptized? If they already had the "sign of the covenant," why did they need another? If they were already "sharers in the covenant" and members in the "community of faith," why did they need to be brought in again?

In all the difficulties that the early Church had with the Judaisers, why didn't this simple argument ever come up at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15? For example, why did no one explain that the Gentile Christians had received the "covenantal sign" when they were baptized and that that was the reason they didn’t need "second sign and seal?" Paul could have explained the matter very simply in his Galatian epistle by saying, “These men who are telling you to be circumcised are simply doubling up the covenant signs; you already have the new circumcision in your baptism so you don't need a duplicate 'sign and seal.'”

These are sincere questions, not to be argumentative. I must confess to a certain sense of "urgency" on my part since I am between churches and need to join myself to a local body. I am unwilling, however, to hurry through these things to a hasty decision.

If you would rather not "rehash" this old argument yourself, Pilgrim, I respect that, but perhaps another will step up or you can point me to some more resources.

Always reforming,
Robin