With regard to your point, namely defining baptism as "a sign and seal of the NC, after Christ’s ascension, for those who believe," you are right, and in not writing that myself I assumed it would be implicit. However, we need to be precise with our words (something I fail at more than I would like), and so I thank you for seeing that inconsistency and bringing it to my attention.

With regard to "seal", I suppose the way I that chose to use it almost makes it synonymous with "sign." I do see how that could be confusing, for I were to say that baptism is a seal of the NC on the one hand, and on the other I were say that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit, I would by the same word mean two different things. I suppose I just went crazy because sign and seal are just so fun to say together. Grace and peace.

Of course, you know quite well I always find a quibble Well, I have two. But the strengths of the article are so great, I didn't even want to mention them. Again – well done.

Anyone who does not see baptism this way should give up the title "Reformed Baptist." Sadly, I think that would exclude just about everyone we know in the SBC who uses that title for themselves. This whole thing made me want to say, "Now THAT'S what I'm talkin about!"

I think your definition of baptism ("a sign and a seal of the New Covenant after Christ’s ascension") fails in one respect – it's inconsistent with your argumentation. I think one's definition should be able to stand on its own, with as little need for outside clarification as possible.

If baptism is simply "a sign and seal of the NC after Christ's ascension" – then everyone who is baptized is also signed and sealed in the NC, which of course you would deny (and rightly so). It seems kind of definitional that having a sign and seal would make one "in."

To account for this, I would add a clarifying phrase or two, something like: "Baptism is a sign and seal of the NC, after Christ's ascension, for those who believe." It seems redundant, but it qualifies that baptism is not a sign, nor a seal, for those who receive it without faith. In fact, it would not just lack the positive aspect, baptism for such a man would add to his condemnation, because it shows his access to, and knowledge of, the things of God, and yet he remained in unbelief.

I am also (only a very little bit) uncomfortable with speaking of baptism as a seal. Scripture never uses that term regarding baptism, but it does about circumcision. I don't know if that is a distinction without importance. A seal is something that authenticates an owner or sender. It can also bind and keep whatever is sealed. I'm hesitant to speak of the act of baptism having such power, in the same way that we speak of the Holy Spirit being a seal of our righteousness.

But, as mentioned, circumcision is described that way, and that is powerful enough testimony that I still included the "seal" aspect in the definition of baptism, although I think more work needs to be done to investigate how it differs from the sealing of the Holy Spirit. I better get to work

Thanks for your work on this.