# The Holy Spirit replaces circumcision????



## 5solasmom (Feb 27, 2006)

Ever so timidly posting here......

I recently listened to a RBC pastor preach on infant baptism. He believes that the Holy Spirit is now the "replacement" for circumcision. 

I'd like to hear the paedo view of this argument. I've read some other threads and haven't run across this specific view yet. If I missed it and someone can point me to it, I'd appreciate it greatly.


Thank you!


----------



## TRR (Feb 27, 2006)

5solasmom,

Can you direct me to where this person made this statement?


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 27, 2006)

I have it on cassette tape from a Sunday School sermon he preached in Sept. 2002. Sorry I didn't clarify that...

I'll check on Sermon Audio to see if it might be there.


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 27, 2006)

Found it. 

This is the original one he preached at his church (and later that year at ours).

Baptism and Circumcision


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 27, 2006)

If the Holy Spirit replaces circumcision, then does he say the OT saint did not "have" the Holy Spirit? 

If he thinks that the Holy Spirit is now somehow "given" in the NT "in" the believer whereas in the OT everything was "outward" then, well, there you go - he's running on his dispensational ideas that utterly overthrow how salvation works. 

Remember, in every area of revelation, regeneration by the Sovereign Spirit always precedes faith. Men are not saved in any other way. Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for not understanding being "born again" since it is an OT idea, not a NT idea. See John 3:1-10.

Also, don't be afraid to post here. We want to welcome everyone with a spirit of gentleness and openness. Have FUN posting.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2006)

Jer 31 says the NT saint has a greater measure of the Spirit then the OT. Possibly the extra spiritualness of the NT is the replacement of carnal circumcision.


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 27, 2006)

Haven't had a chance to listen to the complete sermon again, but a few notes from the first half.....

He believes that the Holy Spirit is a good candidate for the "seal"...

"In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." Ephesians 1:13-14

He speaks of the Holy Spirit being the distinctive trait of new/regenerated life. He says it aligns with Abrahamic circumcision (which describes the work of regeneration) - that it is the NT evidence of a transformed life. 

There's more...he goes on to describe Colossians 2:11-12. I'll post it when I get a chance to listen again...hopefully this evening!

Thanks!


----------



## turmeric (Feb 27, 2006)

The Holy Spirit does seal us.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> The Holy Spirit does seal us.


...in our baptism, which is the circumcision without hands... (I know you know that Meg but I'm going to go ahead and state the obvious).

[Edited on 2-28-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 28, 2006)

Hello Dawn,


> I recently listened to a RBC pastor preach on infant baptism. He believes that the Holy Spirit is now the "replacement" for circumcision.


I haven't listened to the sermon, but if he really said this, the preacher is quite wrong. Circumcision was the sign of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant- all physical Israelites had to have it. It said nothing about faith or about the Holy Spirit. (cf. Jer 9:25-26 ).

Baptism is the outward sign of the New Covenant and the Holy Spirit is the seal (Eph 1:13-14; 4:30 ).

Rich wrote:-


> > Originally posted by turmeric
> > The Holy Spirit does seal us.
> 
> 
> ...



This is quite wrong, and a misreading of Col 2:11. If anyone can perform a water baptism without using his hands, I'd like to see it! The 'circumcision without hands' is the circumcision of the heart and is the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not therefore 'replace' circumcision, but rather gives that true circumcision which is the gift of God and not of man.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 28, 2006)

I knew it wouldn't be long until you piped in on this Martin. 

There you have it Dawn. This is why your Baptist minister is teaching that the Holy Spirit is the seal of the New Covenant...

Presbyterians obviously disagree.


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 28, 2006)

So am I right to say then that some believe the Bible teaches that baptism is the sign and the Holy Spirit is the seal of the new covenant and that circumcision was the sign and seal of the old covenant?

So does that mean that circumcision had no spiritual meaning in the OT...and if so, why would it be spoken of in Col. 2:11-12 as reference to the heart? There are many passages in the OT in which God calls the Israelites to heart circumcision. The sign they had was to represent what they stood in need of - regeneration. The sign was placed before profession could happen, but the call to love God and obey Him was no different in the OT than it is in the NT. Where did the shift take place that now says that the sign must come after profession (and that likewise, children of believers [children of Abraham who have been grafted into the olive tree and are recipients of the same promises to Abraham] are no longer to recieve this sign)?

That's the million dollar question huh? 

Genuinely trying to understand this. I'm not wanting to "defend" any view...I'm wanting to understand more clearly.

TIA!

[Edited on 2-28-2006 by 5solasmom]


----------



## Robin (Feb 28, 2006)

Hi Dawn,

There's more to circumcision. It symbolizes a coventental-contract: in blood and in a particular "place" (ouch!) refers to descendants being either preserved or cut-off. Much can be said...but briefly, remember that it must stay in the CONTEXT of the covenant God initiates with Adam in the Garden. It is formally RE-instated with Abraham (Gen. 15.) It's always connected to the people of God - not just individual cases.

Shed blood must happen to ratify the covenant. Adam/Eve: God slays an animal to clothe them; God honors Abel's sacrifice (Cain's sacrifice was disobedient); Noah & family is preserved through the "waters of baptism"; Abraham is asleep during God's covenant promise (Gen. 15).

We don't want to be myopically "literal" in sense. Notice the connected theme that travels throughout. After Adam's sin, God requires blood atonement which ultimately points to Christ.



Robin


----------



## TRR (Feb 28, 2006)

SemperFideles,

Colossians 2:11 makes no relationship with water baptism and the circumcision made without hands. The text states _"¦and in Him *you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands*, in the removal of the body of the flesh *by the circumcision of Christ*"¦_. The "˜circumcision made without hands´ is made by Christ Himself, not a water baptism by human hands.


----------



## Robin (Feb 28, 2006)

Dawn,

(drumroll)

The answer to your million dollar question is:

Acts 2 is misread and taken out of context!

Acts 2:36--41

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." 

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 

_______________________________

Note that the Jews were "cut to the heart" BEFORE Peter answers their question "what must we do?" This is a sign that Peter's message (the Gospel) effectually changes their hearts (Ezekiel 37) and they are horrified to realize (because their hearts were dead before) they killed the Messiah.

There were many "other words" Peter spoke to them. But before that though, especially note Peter (uneducated) is teaching them a long history lesson in order to tie-in his conclusion: "let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain..."

Peter makes the prophetic (OT) connections to what is happening (Pentecost.) Ezekiel 36 and 37 are the Scriptures Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for completely missing connections to! (N should have known better.)

Problems happen when verses are taken out of context and are not read as a complete "script" - in order to learn what really happened back then.

Avoid that. Never read a Bible verse. Read large portions; whole chapters; from beginning to end, without stopping. This way, we avoid getting a different "spin" on God's Word!

(am I making sense, here?.... )

r.


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> Never read a Bible verse. Read large portions; whole chapters; from beginning to end, without stopping. This way, we avoid getting a different "spin" on God's Word!
> 
> ...



Yes - on the read whole passages part...and I agree. But I'm confused about what you're trying to say about circumcision and baptism (forgive me...the dots aren't connecting today...lol). Basically, I'm not understanding your conclusion on it. To be more direct...are you of paedo or credo belief?


----------



## 5solasmom (Feb 28, 2006)

Another question here.

Paedobaptists have stated that _because OT "believing" parents were commanded to give their sons the sign and seal that therefore, believing parents today are to do the same (in baptism)_, yet, the "belief" of the parents was not a requirement of OT adult Israelites before giving the sign and seal to their sons. Now, I *do* believe circumcision was to represent a spiritual truth (that of the need for regeneration) and that God always required a heart of obedience towards Him....but He did not require the parents to believe before giving the sign/seal to their infant sons. They were just to do it. So it would seem then that the parallel breaks down. Am I missing something?



I'm really trying to grasp this.

[Edited on 2-28-2006 by 5solasmom]

[Edited on 2-28-2006 by 5solasmom]

[Edited on 2-28-2006 by 5solasmom]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TRR_
> SemperFideles,
> 
> Colossians 2:11 makes no relationship with water baptism and the circumcision made without hands. The text states _"¦and in Him *you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands*, in the removal of the body of the flesh *by the circumcision of Christ*"¦_. The "˜circumcision made without hands´ is made by Christ Himself, not a water baptism by human hands.


What's that "..." there at the end of verse 11. Scripture was not writen with verse numbers. Those are placed to help us find Scripture but not to keep us chained to single verses that break up a sentence.

Col 2:9-12


> 9 for in him all the fulness of the godhead dwells bodily, 10 and in him you have attained to fulness, namely, in him who is the head of every principality and authority, 11 in whom also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by the putting off of the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in your baptism in which you were also raised with him through faith in the operative power of God who raised him from the dead.



Dawn,

Here is the Hendrickson commentary on Col 2:11-12



> In verses 1"“10 the warning against the Colossian Heresy was couched in general terms. With verse 11, however, right in the middle of the sentence, it begins to assume specific form. We now learn that the error that was being propagated at Colosse was basically of a Judaistic character. For a reason not definitely stated but which we can probably infer from the context and from similar warnings in other epistles the teachers of false doctrine were advertising such things as circumcision, rigid adherance to dietary restrictions, and strict observance of festivals and sabbaths. That brief summary makes verses 11"“17 a thought-unit. The style, however, changes from the rather easy-flowing didactic evident through verse 15 to the far more crisp, direct, and hortatory that begins at verse 16 and continues with few exceptions (the longest exception being 4:7"“14) to the end of the letter. It is subject-matter, namely, warning against Judaism, that unites 2:11"“17. But even this subject-matter is not altogether homogeneous. The heresy which the apostle was combating was a somewhat baffling mixture of Judaistic and Pagan beliefs propagated by men who probably posed as Christians, yes better Christians than the common lot. As has been pointed out earlier (see Introduction II C), it was exactly the type of syncretism that one could expect to find in Jewish-Pagan Colosse. It is not surprising that Paul, who had the entire picture before him all the time, in his discussions and warnings should move with ease from one element of the Colossian Heresy to another and then back again. So also here in verses 11"“17 we notice that in the midst of his warnings against Judaism he briefly touches upon two subjects about which he will say more subsequently, namely, Relation to angels (verse 15) and Asceticism (verse 16). Yet, he does this not in a disconnected or rambling manner, but in such a way that verses 11"“17 form a unit in which every clause leads to the next one in a very natural and organic manner, as will be indicated.
> 11, 12. Speaking then about Christ, "œthe head of every principality and authority," Paul continues: in whom you were circumcized. Paul´s thought at this point can perhaps be paraphrased somewhat as follows: Colossians, do not allow these teachers of error to deceive you as if, in order to triumph over the indulgence of the flesh (2:23) and to attain to the full measure of salvation (2:9, 10), you need to be literally circumcized (cf. Acts 15:1; Gal. 5:2, 3). You were already circumcized! Yes, you were circumcized with a circumcision that excels by far the rite that is being recommended so strongly by the teachers of error. You were circumcized with a circumcision made without hands, by the putting off of the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ.
> 
> Note points of difference proving the great superiority of the circumcision which the Colossians had already received:
> ...



[Edited on 2-28-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 28, 2006)

Hello Dawn,
Circumcision spoke to the Israelites of the faith of Abraham (Rom 4:11 ) and of the coming Seed (Gal 3:16 ), but it was not a sign of salvation (Gal 6:15 ). Those who thought they were in relationship with God through their physical descent from Abraham and their circumcision were gravely deluded (Jer 9:25-26; Matt 3:9; John 8:39, 44; Rom 2:28-29; Gal 3:7 ).

There is no correlation between circumcision and baptism. We are twice told that the New Covenant is *'not according to'* the Old (Jer 31:31-32; Heb 8:8-9 ). If baptism replaces circumcision, then why, in a meeting to discuss circumcision (Acts 15 ), is baptism never so much as mentioned? The two are different things. The 3,000 Israelites baptized at Pentecost had already been circumcised.

BTW, Robin is right. Don't just read the verses that I've given here; read around them to get the context.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 28, 2006)

Calvin's View:


> In whom ye also are circumcised. From this it appears, that he has a controversy with the false apostles, who mixed the law with the gospel, and by that means made Christ have, as it were, two faces. He specifies, however, one instance by way of example. He proves that the circumcision
> of Moses is not merely unnecessary, but is opposed to Christ, because it destroys the spiritual circumcision of Christ. For circumcision was given to the Fathers that it might be the figure of a thing that was absent: those, therefore, who retain that figure after Christ´s advent, deny the ccomplishment of what it prefigures. Let us, therefore, bear in mind that outward circumcision is here compared with spiritual, just as a figure with the reality. The figure is of a thing that is absent: hence it puts away the presence of the reality. What Paul contends for is this "” that, inasmuch as
> what was shadowed forth by a circumcision made with hands, has been completed in Christ, there is now no fruit or advantage from it. 371 Hence he says, that the circumcision which is made in the heart is the circumcision of Christ, and that, on this account, that which is outward is not now required, because, where the reality exists, that shadowy emblem vanishes, 372 inasmuch as it has no place except in the absence of the reality.
> 
> ...


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 28, 2006)

While I believe that Holy Spirit was poured out in abundance at Pentacost, I have little doubt that the Israelites of faith from Patriarchs of Abraham's days were regenerated by the Holy Spirit and He dwelt among His people. R.C. Sproul acquiesces here.

Circumcision is symbolic of being cut off and was a Mosaic covenant ordinance-- I'll just never buy Presbyterian conceptions of Covenant theology as it relates to this matter, as they seem wholly untenable to me.



> _Originally posted by TRR_
> SemperFideles,
> 
> Colossians 2:11 makes no relationship with water baptism and the circumcision made without hands. The text states _"¦and in Him *you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands*, in the removal of the body of the flesh *by the circumcision of Christ*"¦_. The "˜circumcision made without hands´ is made by Christ Himself, not a water baptism by human hands.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> While I believe that Holy Spirit was poured out in abundance at Pentacost, I have little doubt that the Israelites of faith from Patriarchs of Abraham's days were regenerated by the Holy Spirit and He dwelt among His people. R.C. Sproul acquiesces here.
> 
> Circumcision is symbolic of being cut off and was a Mosaic covenant ordinance-- I'll just never buy Presbyterian conceptions of Covenant theology as it relates to this matter, as they seem wholly untenable to me.
> ...


Correction, you don't buy *Calvin's* conceptions regarding the issue.


----------



## Robin (Mar 1, 2006)

OOH-RAH, Rich!  

r.


----------



## Robin (Mar 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by 5solasmom_
> Another question here.
> 
> Paedobaptists have stated that _because OT "believing" parents were commanded to give their sons the sign and seal that therefore, believing parents today are to do the same (in baptism)_, yet, the "belief" of the parents was not a requirement of OT adult Israelites before giving the sign and seal to their sons. Now, I *do* believe circumcision was to represent a spiritual truth (that of the need for regeneration) and that God always required a heart of obedience towards Him....but He did not require the parents to believe before giving the sign/seal to their infant sons. They were just to do it. So it would seem then that the parallel breaks down. Am I missing something?
> ...



Dawn...you're gettin' warmer, kiddo! Be patient with yourself - it'll take some time to rethink and re-read things.

First....try ever so hard to get away from the typical paedo/credo struggle. Rather, seek to understand H O W God saves his people - played out in history.

There are overlapping "types" in the OT that point to the real thing (Jesus) in the NT. Example: Noah was a "picture" of baptism. It was both a real deliverance for Noah and an example to us to affirm God's mighty acts to save. Israel walking through the Red Sea is the same/repeated picture! Note the amazing song of Moses (Ex. 15.)

Meanwhile, both in the OT and in the NT circumcision is a "command" just like baptism is. God is setting apart his "new society" his people. It's not an "individualistic" idea. It's communal. In these times, we are so sinful and arrogant, we forget that the same God in the OT (who does not change) imposes the same obedience -- though He is the one that does the saving! Baptism is a command to the people of God - to show themselves among those who belong to Christ and trust His works for their salvation.

The sign has changed (thank God!) but the reason remains the same. Avoid the term "spiritual." That word can mean anything these days. Circumcision is a command pointing to the saving acts of God; baptism is the same. It's about what God has done. Concrete actions. Real stuff.

Why not read the whole book of Hebrews? It's all there. Remember - go from beginning to end without stopping. Find out what the Text SAYS - in context. I'll bet you'll understand more than you expect!



r.

[Edited on 3-1-2006 by Robin]


----------



## Philip A (Mar 1, 2006)

Dawn,

Before you get too far into this, make sure that you ask these questions of your elders; especially the short one who talks funny 

He should be able to steer you towards some materials that will do a much better job of explaining the confessional Reformed Baptist position than either the visiting pastor or the Baptists on this board.


----------



## 5solasmom (Mar 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> Dawn,
> 
> Before you get too far into this, make sure that you ask these questions of your elders; especially the short one who talks funny
> ...



:bigsmile:

Yes, Dh and I are going to be chattin' with tall, the not-so-funny-talkin' one! We had planned to earlier, but the meeting was cancelled (I think the short funny-talkin' one had to be picked up from the airport or something like that! hehe!).


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Dawn,
> Circumcision spoke to the Israelites of the faith of Abraham (Rom 4:11 ) and of the coming Seed (Gal 3:16 ), but it was not a sign of salvation (Gal 6:15 ).



Really?



> Romans 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.


----------



## Steve Owen (Mar 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> ...



Amen! But do you understand what Paul's saying? Look at the text again in conjunction with Phil 3:3ff.

Martin


----------



## Peters (Apr 12, 2006)

Saying that the Holy Spirit _replaces_ physical circumcision would indeed mean that the Holy Spirit was not until some point post-ascension, as already noted. Unthinkable. 

Circumcision was a theological lesson that pointed to the Spirit's work that would eventually be fully revealed in the New Covenant, which is the full and final expression of the promise of redemption in Christ. This prophetic function of circumcision operated within the shadowy covenant made with Abraham as its sign.


----------

