Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Historic Christianity vs Calvinism  /  Lecture 10: Implications of Calvinism Today  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 1
Calvin repeatedly argues that baptism replaces circumcision and therefore belongs to infants; what specific weaknesses does Finny point out in that analogy (New Testament order of repentance/belief/baptism, “boys only,” etc.), and what does this reveal about how Calvin is reading Scripture to protect a system?
Another way to ask: Calvin says baptism replaces circumcision, so infants should be baptized. What problems does Finny see in that comparison (like the New Testament order of belief then baptism, and circumcision being only for boys), and what does that show about Calvin’s way of reading the Bible to support his system?

Direct Answer Finny says Calvin’s infant-baptism case depends on equating baptism with circumcision, but that link is “very tenuous” because the New Testament presents baptism after repentance and belief, and circumcision’s own limits (like being for “boys”) break the analogy. He uses this as an example of Calvin protecting a system by forcing texts to fit.

Support from Transcript:

  • Calvin’s claim is summarized: “Baptism is the replacement of circumcision… he refers to that a lot,” and he says circumcision is “exactly the same” as baptism (promise/forgiveness/renewing of life).
  • Finny: “this whole argument for infant baptism is so tied in to making it the equivalent to circumcision. Like if you don’t have that, the whole case falls away.”
  • Finny calls the connection “very tenuous” and says, “in the New Testament, it’s positioned as following repentance and belief, so that doesn’t fit.”
  • He adds the analogy breaks down because “circumcision was obviously just for boys in the Old Covenant. So what about that?”
  • Finny generalizes the method: Calvinists “come up with this philosophical system” and “shoehorn” unfitting verses into it.
Discussion Follow-ups What are practical ways to test whether we’re letting Scripture speak, rather than leaning on an inherited framework? Where do we feel tempted to make an argument ‘stand or fall’ on one analogy?

Jumpstarter 1 of 10
Back Questions Next