Did baptism really replace circumcision as the sign/seal of

Status
Not open for further replies.

SmokingFlax

Puritan Board Sophomore
My limited study on the subject says that it is so but I came across an objection to this viewpoint by A.W. Pink in his The Divine Covenants:

p.136-137
'It is a mistake to suppose that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. As that which supplanted the OT sacrifices was the one offering of the Savior, as that which superceded the Aaronic priesthood was the high priesthood of Christ, so that which has succeeded circumcision is the spiritual circumcision which believers have in and by Christ: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ" (Col. 2:11) -how simple! how satisfying! "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him" (v.12) is SOMETHING ADDITIONAL: it is only wresting Scripture to say these two verses mean "Being buried with him in baptism, ye are circumcised." No, no; verse 11 declares the Christian circumcision is "made WITHOUT hands in putting off [judicially, before God] the body of the sins of the flesh" has taken the place of the circumcision made WITH hands. The circumcision of Christ has come in the place of the circumcision of the law. Never once in the NT is baptism spoken of as the seal of the new covenant; rather is the Holy Spirit the seal: see Ephesians 1:13; 4:30.'

What am I supposed to make of this? Am I missing something here? (probably)

What do you guys think? I don't know enough about it to make an informed judgment here.

Also, Pink objected at least a couple of times to Witsius some other issues (regarding the covenants) that I'd have to go back and look at my markings to get my mind around.

Could someone clue me in here?
Thanks.
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
One of the things I find lacking in Mr. Pinks argument is that both baptism and circumcision are in fact signs of representing regeneration. The circumcised heart corresponds to the spiritual death and rebirth. In both pictures a new heart and spirit are represented. Mr. Pink points to the meaning of circ. and exclaimes that the mode has been done away with. My response to him is this: "Yes sir it has, and the mode has now been replaced clearly by God with baptism."
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:16d08619f8][i:16d08619f8]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:16d08619f8]
One of the things I find lacking in Mr. Pinks argument is that both baptism and circumcision are in fact signs of representing regeneration. The circumcised heart corresponds to the spiritual death and rebirth. In both pictures a new heart and spirit are represented. Mr. Pink points to the meaning of circ. and exclaimes that the mode has been done away with. My response to him is this: "Yes sir it has, and the mode has now been replaced clearly by God with baptism." [/quote:16d08619f8]

But folks keep telling me that this is not Baptismal regeneration. If an infants baptism represents its regeneration, then well I guess thats baptismal regeneration if I ever heard it. If one is baptised as an infant, then according to what you said in the first sentence, that child was regenerated.


Or am I thinking of RCCs infant baptism? Like God HAS to regenerate all baptised infants? If thats the case its really a shame we cant sneak into hospitals and baptise babies while in the incubators. God Has to regenerate them after all.


:banghead::banghead: what am I doing in this section? Sorry please disregard.
I will shut up and observe. Maybe what I think is baptismal regeneration is not what another thinks it is? I will hold mu tongue until I gain further understanding. Sorry for the blasted intrusion.



[Edited on 6-2-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Pink is correct. You cannot prove a link between water baptism and physical circumcision in the Scriptures.

Baptism is not the sign nor seal of the New Covenant any way. The cup of the Lord's Supper is the sign of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; 1Cor.11:25; Hebrews 13:20). The seal is the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14).

Water Baptism is the sign or representation of Spirit Baptism.

Phillip
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:48e35255f0]
Water Baptism is the sign or representation of Spirit Baptism.
[/quote:48e35255f0]

That is a tautology that proves CT. Baptism is a sign of baptism ? ? ?

You yourself just said the Holy Spirit is the seal (Eph 1:13-14).

Seal of the New Covenant. Sprinkled clean. Sanctified in Christ. Baptism. Sign and seal. Outward sign of inward grace.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Wintermute]
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
I like Pink's idea of succession. I think that is a good way to put it. Solomon didn't replace David, he succeeded him. Christ didn't replace Aaron, Christ took up the mantle in the most excellent and better priesthood.

I don't agree with Pink in that he believes that spiritual circumcision is to the new covenant what physical circumcision was to the old. That doesn't make sense. If that were so, no one was regenerated in the OT.

Pastor Way,

We've heard this from you many times, yet your stating it does not make it true. Paul's thoughts in Col 2 are a continuous stream. You want to make it out to be no link whatsoever between the two, yet Paul is clearly stating that there is one.

Yet again, we see that just using Scripture here does not convince you of anything. But, sorry, that's what the Scripture plainly teaches.

SmokingFlax

I think Pink makes the classic baptistic blunder here of seeing water baptism as the thing signified instead of the sign. In the same way, he obviously does not look properly at the thing signified in circumcision.

If we keep our eyes fixed on the outward sign, we will never understand what it signifies. That is where baptismal regeneration comes from. We automatically believe that in the case of infants (for RCC and others), the Holy Spirit must regenerate them through water baptism. Or, in the case of Baptists, the Holy Spirit must have already regenerated them before the water baptism.

However, the proper view is that the sign is done in faith. That faith is active upon all who witness the sign. The minister has faith that God has worked, is working, or will work in the person being baptized - that He will be to them, God. With this faith, then, God will work in His season through the Holy Spirit. Water baptism does nothing but get a person wet without the Holy Spirit's work.

The Reformed baptize and wait upon God to work. The baptistic wait upon God to work before they baptize. The Reformed see water baptism as only a sign. The baptistic see water baptism as the thing signified.

This is what Pink is laboring under.

In Christ,

KC
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:d076269530][i:d076269530]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:d076269530]
[quote:d076269530][i:d076269530]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:d076269530]
One of the things I find lacking in Mr. Pinks argument is that both baptism and circumcision are in fact signs of representing regeneration. The circumcised heart corresponds to the spiritual death and rebirth. In both pictures a new heart and spirit are represented. Mr. Pink points to the meaning of circ. and exclaimes that the mode has been done away with. My response to him is this: "Yes sir it has, and the mode has now been replaced clearly by God with baptism." [/quote:d076269530]

But folks keep telling me that this is not Baptismal regeneration. If an infants baptism represents its regeneration, then well I guess thats baptismal regeneration if I ever heard it. If one is baptised as an infant, then according to what you said in the first sentence, that child was regenerated.


Or am I thinking of RCCs infant baptism? Like God HAS to regenerate all baptised infants? If thats the case its really a shame we cant sneak into hospitals and baptise babies while in the incubators. God Has to regenerate them after all.


:banghead::banghead: what am I doing in this section? Sorry please disregard.
I will shut up and observe. Maybe what I think is baptismal regeneration is not what another thinks it is? I will hold mu tongue until I gain further understanding. Sorry for the blasted intrusion.



[Edited on 6-2-2004 by A_Wild_Boar] [/quote:d076269530]

CT baptism is not the same as the Catholic baptismal regeneration. Baptism is a symbol not the means of acquiring the new birth. Just like receiving the Eucharist does not bind Christ to becoming our saviour.
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:959baebe3c][i:959baebe3c]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:959baebe3c]
Pink is correct. You cannot prove a link between water baptism and physical circumcision in the Scriptures.

Baptism is not the sign nor seal of the New Covenant any way. The cup of the Lord's Supper is the sign of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; 1Cor.11:25; Hebrews 13:20). The seal is the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14).

Water Baptism is the sign or representation of Spirit Baptism.

Phillip [/quote:959baebe3c]

Phillip,

Baptism is a sign of receiving forgiveness and the promise of the indwelling of the Spirit Rom 6:3, Ac 2:38, Mrk 16:16 . It is the seal entering into Christ's church 1 Cor 13, Gal 3:27. It is a sign that points to spiritual reality. The difference from circumcision is mainly in the mode. As well there is more of a sense of Christ involved in the baptism, then with the circumcision. It more perfectly points to NT covenant revelation.
 

SmokingFlax

Puritan Board Sophomore
Oh man! do I have my work cut out for me on this issue!!!

That's ok, I know that I have to "study to show myself approved..."

Ok so besides O.P. Robertson's and Herman Witsius' books on the covenants (which I have yet to get to) what other books or resources (perhaps from the Baptist perspective or something comparing and contrasting the strengths and weaknesses of each view [if such a thing exists]) could you guys recommend or point me to???

Maybe one of you more knowledgeable scholarly types ought to consider writing a book to contrast the two views for dolts and laymen like myself...I'd buy it.

My own experience was that I was regenerated then I HAD to (was driven to) begin fellowshipping in a church (I simply couldn't relate to any of my old peers anymore) and then I HAD to get baptized...so the the Baptist view makes sense to me in a sentimental kind of way...but then again I was raised heathen...

Thanks again for all of your input, etc.
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:1b9f9775a8][i:1b9f9775a8]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:1b9f9775a8]
[quote:1b9f9775a8][i:1b9f9775a8]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:1b9f9775a8]
Pink is correct. You cannot prove a link between water baptism and physical circumcision in the Scriptures.

Baptism is not the sign nor seal of the New Covenant any way. The cup of the Lord's Supper is the sign of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; 1Cor.11:25; Hebrews 13:20). The seal is the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14).

Water Baptism is the sign or representation of Spirit Baptism.

Phillip [/quote:1b9f9775a8]

Phillip,

Baptism is a sign of receiving forgiveness and the promise of the indwelling of the Spirit Rom 6:3, Ac 2:38, Mrk 16:16 . It is the seal entering into Christ's church 1 Cor 13, Gal 3:27. It is a sign that points to spiritual reality. The difference from circumcision is mainly in the mode. As well there is more of a sense of Christ involved in the baptism, then with the circumcision. It more perfectly points to NT covenant revelation. [/quote:1b9f9775a8]

So then is there a guarantee of regeneration to all baptized infants and adults? I never hear anyone flat out admit that, yet sometimes it sure seems like folks believe it.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]
 

grace2U

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello Smoking Flax,
You were asking for a book setting out the Baptist position on the covenants.

Well, Pink's [i:405e0946bc]Divine Covenants[/i:405e0946bc] mentioned above is very good, but I'd also like to recommend [i:405e0946bc]An Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians[/i:405e0946bc] by James Haldane (Particular Baptist Press. ISBN 1-888514-17-5).

The author wrote that he hoped the book might "Prove useful in leading any of the Lord's people to a more diligent study of the Scriptures, and to a clearer understanding of the relationship between the old and new covenants."

James Haldane and his brother Robert were 19th Century Scottish Presbyterians who became Baptists. James was one of the greatest evangelists Scotland has known and Robert was responsible, under God, for reviving the Church in Geneva which had become totally apostate. Robert's commentary on Romans is very good but does not treat so specifically on the covenants.

Every blessing,
Steve
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:9fb240549a][i:9fb240549a]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:9fb240549a]
[

So then is there a guarantee of regeneration to all baptized infants and adults? I never hear anyone flat out admit that, yet sometimes it sure seems like folks believe it.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by A_Wild_Boar] [/quote:9fb240549a]

The Christian parent is to hope in the promise. Just as Abraham hoped in the promise without wavering (Rom 4:19) and just as Abraham was faithful in applying the covenant sign and sean to both Isaac and Ishmael. Abraham pleaded with God to consider Ishamael, but God decided sovereignly to not make Ishmael a child of promise. Concordantly the Christian parent applies the baptism to their child believing the promise of the covenant. God may choose not to regenerate the child. It is up to him. We receive the promise, it is up to us to believe in it.
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:d39e8a0d81][i:d39e8a0d81]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:d39e8a0d81]
[quote:d39e8a0d81]
So then is there a guarantee of regeneration to all baptized infants and adults? I never hear anyone flat out admit that, yet sometimes it sure seems like folks believe it.
[/quote:d39e8a0d81]

Just like there wasn't a guarantee for OT children. There is a promise, though. God promises to be a God to us and our Children.

-Paul [/quote:d39e8a0d81]

Ok, I never thought God broke promises. Or does He? If no , then isnt He bound to keep His promise and regenerate that infant or adult? God would certainly be true to Himself and any promises He makes reflect upon Him.

This is my main area of confusion.

So If God cannot or will not break a promise to us, then if I were to have my children baptized, He is bound by His promise to regenerate them. (my point of view revolving arouns the assumtion that God keeps promises)

I am not trying to be argumentative. I am really trying to understand. I was avoiding this area for some time, but I thought I would take another stab at it and posibly have my misconceptions taken care of.

G
 

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:5a2038a5c5][i:5a2038a5c5]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:5a2038a5c5]
[quote:5a2038a5c5][i:5a2038a5c5]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:5a2038a5c5]
[

So then is there a guarantee of regeneration to all baptized infants and adults? I never hear anyone flat out admit that, yet sometimes it sure seems like folks believe it.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by A_Wild_Boar] [/quote:5a2038a5c5]

The Christian parent is to hope in the promise. Just as Abraham hoped in the promise without wavering (Rom 4:19) and just as Abraham was faithful in applying the covenant sign and sean to both Isaac and Ishmael. Abraham pleaded with God to consider Ishamael, but God decided sovereignly to not make Ishmael a child of promise. Concordantly the Christian parent applies the baptism to their child believing the promise of the covenant. God may choose not to regenerate the child. It is up to him. We receive the promise, it is up to us to believe in it. [/quote:5a2038a5c5]

I should have read your post before I respondedc to Pauls.

I have not heard this before, or at least not put so plainly. I appreciate it and it and it is a big help. Thanks. Seriously.

I have heard some thing by others that if my children are not baptized, God would consider them unclean because of that. To me that conjures up images of baptismal regeneration.:thumbup:

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:bb4fc2a9bd][i:bb4fc2a9bd]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:bb4fc2a9bd]
[quote:bb4fc2a9bd][i:bb4fc2a9bd]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:bb4fc2a9bd]
[quote:bb4fc2a9bd][i:bb4fc2a9bd]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:bb4fc2a9bd]
[

So then is there a guarantee of regeneration to all baptized infants and adults? I never hear anyone flat out admit that, yet sometimes it sure seems like folks believe it.

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by A_Wild_Boar] [/quote:bb4fc2a9bd]

The Christian parent is to hope in the promise. Just as Abraham hoped in the promise without wavering (Rom 4:19) and just as Abraham was faithful in applying the covenant sign and sean to both Isaac and Ishmael. Abraham pleaded with God to consider Ishamael, but God decided sovereignly to not make Ishmael a child of promise. Concordantly the Christian parent applies the baptism to their child believing the promise of the covenant. God may choose not to regenerate the child. It is up to him. We receive the promise, it is up to us to believe in it. [/quote:bb4fc2a9bd]

I should have read your post before I respondedc to Pauls.

I have not heard this before, or at least not put so plainly. I appreciate it and it and it is a big help. Thanks. Seriously.

I have heard some thing by others that if my children are not baptized, God would consider them unclean because of that. To me that conjures up images of baptismal regeneration.:thumbup:

[Edited on 6-3-2004 by A_Wild_Boar] [/quote:bb4fc2a9bd]

No prob.
 

grace2U

Puritan Board Freshman
Just a few random thoughts on this thread.
Firstly, Abraham knew [b:378f322cfe]of an absolute surety[/b:378f322cfe] that Ishmael was not in the Covenant of Grace [b:378f322cfe]before[/b:378f322cfe] he baptized him (Gen 17:17-21, 23). Whatever covenant you may think that Ishmael was circumcised into, it was not that one.

Secondly, with reference to Paul's post, God is not a politician who makes promises, breaks them and then says, 'Ah, it wasn't that sort of promise!' God forbid! 'For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us- by me, Silvanus and Timothy- was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes! For [b:378f322cfe]all the promises in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen[/b:378f322cfe], to the glory of God through us' (2Cor 1:19-20).

Now through my union with Christ, I have honoured my mother and father (Luke 2:51), but I do not expect to live any length of time at all in the land of Canaan. The land which God has promised to me is the one that Abraham sought and found, 'A better, that is, a heavenly country' (Heb 11:16). It is there that I hope, by God's grace, to live long.

Blessings to all,
Steve
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:d36f905d64][i:d36f905d64]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:d36f905d64]
Just a few random thoughts on this thread.
Firstly, Abraham knew [b:d36f905d64]of an absolute surety[/b:d36f905d64] that Ishmael was not in the Covenant of Grace [b:d36f905d64]before[/b:d36f905d64] he baptized him (Gen 17:17-21, 23). Whatever covenant you may think that Ishmael was circumcised into, it was not that one.

Secondly, with reference to Paul's post, God is not a politician who makes promises, breaks them and then says, 'Ah, it wasn't that sort of promise!' God forbid! 'For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us- by me, Silvanus and Timothy- was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes! For [b:d36f905d64]all the promises in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen[/b:d36f905d64], to the glory of God through us' (2Cor 1:19-20).

Now through my union with Christ, I have honoured my mother and father (Luke 2:51), but I do not expect to live any length of time at all in the land of Canaan. The land which God has promised to me is the one that Abraham sought and found, 'A better, that is, a heavenly country' (Heb 11:16). It is there that I hope, by God's grace, to live long.

Blessings to all,
Steve [/quote:d36f905d64]


Good morning Steve,


Fristly, Abraham's covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace. Secondly, God gave Abraham a covenant sign and seal to accompany this administration. Thridly, Abraham circumscised Ishmael with this sign, faithfully, even though he knew that Ishamael would not be a part of the children of promise according to God's own word. Let's examine this text in Gen 17. You see God established the covenant with Abram changing his name to Abraham, and making a promise to him and to his offspring to be [i:d36f905d64]their[/i:d36f905d64] God (17:7). He gave Abraham the circumcision as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (17:11). Ishmael was already destined to be a covenant breaker. And yet Abraham still applied the sign to his child of being in the Covenant.

Yes Steve, the promise of the land was a kind of promise pointing to a promise. But keep in mind that this was already understood by the faithful in this administration of the covenant of Grace. Abraham is said to have "hoped for a heavenly country" and he believed in the hope of the resurrection with the sacrifice of Isaac (Heb 11:19).
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Ian....

Sorry brother, but where does it say Ishmael was a covenant breaker? As has been posted several times, just because the covenant was not ESTABLISHED with Ishmael does not mean he was not a part of it.

The Scripture is silent on this point. We don't know the eternal destiny of Ishmael, so we can't definitively say that Ishmael was not in the covenant of grace.

If you have Scripture that says otherwise, it is possible I am wrong.

In Christ,

KC
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
Kevin,

I was under the impression that Ishmael not being described as a child of promise implied he would not be faithful to the covenant. Perhaps I was wrong about this.
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Ian....

Verse 24 is key because Paul states these things are symbolic. If he didn't put that forth, I would say we have a case against Hagar and her son. But I think Paul is using their relationship more as an analogy and not necessarily saying Ishmael was not in the fold of God.

Added to this is God's promise to physically bless Ishmael. I don't see any reason for God to make of Ishmael a lesser nation unless they, too, could be people of God.

We have a clear case for Esau, but we have the exploits of Esau written for us. I think it is more of a stretch to call Ishmael a covenant breaker, because that is not written for us.

In Christ,

KC
 

grace2U

Puritan Board Freshman
Gen 17:18-19.
'And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said, "No....."'.

Sounds a bit conclusive to me:judge:

Gal 4:31.
'So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.'

:amen:

Blessings,
Steve
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Steve....

What was Abraham asking of God? Was he asking God to save Ishmael, or simply establish the covenant with a bird in the hand?

It is important to understand the question before you imply things about the answer.

And, no is not all God had to say on the matter.

In Christ,

KC
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
I will establish My covenant with him," i.e., make him the recipient of the covenant grace. And the prayer for Ishmael God would also grant: He would make him very fruitful, so that he should beget twelve princes and become a great nation. But the covenant, God repeated (Gen_17:21), should be established with Isaac, whom Sarah was to bear to him at that very time in the following year. - Since Ishmael therefore was excluded from participating in the covenant grace, which was ensured to Isaac alone; and yet Abraham was to become a multitude of nations, and that through Sarah, who was to become "nations" through the son she was to bear (Gen_17:16); the "multitude of nations" could not include either the Ishmaelites or the tribes descended from the sons of Keturah (Gen_25:2.), but the descendants of Isaac alone; and as one of Isaac's two sons received no part of the covenant promise, the descendants of Jacob alone. But the whole of the twelve sons of Jacob founded only the one nation of Israel, with which Jehovah established the covenant made with Abraham (Ex 6 and 20-24), so that Abraham became through Israel the lineal father of one nation only.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Geneva Note:

The everlasting covenant is made with the children of the Spirit. A temporary promise is made with the children of the flesh, as was promised to Ishmael.
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Mark...

I am not implying that God's chosen people came through the line of Ishmael, but does that exclude the Ishmaelite? Does it exclude Ishmael himself? Remember Paul's words, not all who are born of Israel are of Israel.

David's sister married one. David also had one in charge of his camels. Clearly, for Ishmaelites to be involved in Israel at all meant that they were not excluded from the assembly. In fact, of those excluded from the assembly, Ishmaelites were not mentioned. His cousins were excluded, but not he, himself.

He did not get a portion of land with Israel, yet God did give him and his posterity an inheritance.

All I'm saying is that Abraham believed God about a great many things. If we think that Ishmael was not in Abraham's mind for salvation, the Scriptures certainly don't tell us that.

In Christ,

KC
 

grace2U

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello Ian,
You say that God's copvenant with Abraham is an [i:23732d2176]administration[/i:23732d2176] of the Covenant of Grace. Respectfully, I disagree. Rather it is an adumbration of the C of G.

Had any other individual in the world believed what was promised to Abraham, he would have believed a falsehood. God has not promised to me or to you to give the land of Canaan to our descendants. Nor has He promised that we shall be the fathers of many nations. The latter promise was literally fulfilled in Abraham's descendants by Hagar and Keturah, the former in the Israelites.

A third promise was that God would be a God to Abraham and to his seed. This was literally fulfilled again in the Children of Israel (cf. Deut 29:10-13; Psalm 147:19-20). But His being a God to the Israelites brought down His punishments upon them for their disobedience (Amos 3:1-2), and surely no nation has suffered so grievously and for so long as Israel after the flesh.

Yet each of these promises have a spiritual fulfilment as well as a literal one. For Abraham is the father of all who believe (Rom 4:11). His spiritual descendants inherit not an earthly Canaan but a heavenly one (Heb 11:16). They are not merely 'many nations' and '12 princes' (Gen 17:20) but ' ...of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.......kings and priests to our God' (Rev 5:9). And God has promised, 'Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more' (Heb 10:17) and again, 'There is therefore now no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus' (Rom 8:1).

These spiritual blessings come only through the true Seed (Gal 3:16) and they come only by faith (Gal 3:7). Therefore a fleshly ordinance, circumcision, administered to fleshly descendants, is no longer appropriate. Instead baptism, symbolizing the dying to the old life and rising to new life in Christ Jesus is to be administered to those who profess faith in Him (Acts 2:41).

Every blessing,
Steve
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
Steve,

Your hermeneutic consistently blunders by describing circumcision as a "physical" sign, as if baptism were not! Ridiculous. Both circumcision and baptism are physical signs. How can you be sure that every man or woman whom you baptize are "spiritually in Christ". You do not know who makes up the body of the elect anymore than I do. Therefore the physical/spiritual sign distinction holds no weight. The true "spiritual sign" is the fruit of the Spirit not water.

Further Abraham's covenant does not have "literal" fulfilment and less literal "spiritual" fulfilment. That's such a shaky interprerative ground to stand on. Notice that Israel is described in Romans 11:18-24 as a branch of [b:ec6ef49b2c]one[/b:ec6ef49b2c] olive tree. There is a root, and that root is the Covenant of Grace, we are the branches that have been grafted in. We are the sons of Abraham whom God was able to raise up from the stones (Matt 3:9). If Isaac and Ishmael's descendants are the complete "literal" fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant and the land received by David and Solomon was [b:ec6ef49b2c]the[/b:ec6ef49b2c] land promised then what have the Gentiles been grafted into that physical Israel is no longer privy too? Please, please answer that one!



[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Ianterrell]
 

grace2U

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Ian,
Well, people certainly haven't become any more courteous since I was here last:rolleyes:

Would you kindly show me where exactly I described circumcision as a "physical" sign?

Thanks!

Steve

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by grace2U]
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:596b42eb5f][i:596b42eb5f]Originally posted by grace2U[/i:596b42eb5f]
These spiritual blessings come only through the true Seed (Gal 3:16) and they come only by faith (Gal 3:7). Therefore a fleshly ordinance, circumcision, administered to fleshly descendants, is no longer appropriate. Instead baptism, symbolizing the dying to the old life and rising to new life in Christ Jesus is to be administered to those who profess faith in Him (Acts 2:41).
[/quote:596b42eb5f]

Here is where you described circumcision as a physical sign.

I am sorry if I came off as discourteous, because that isn't my intention. But I'm wondering if you would answer my questions directly.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Ianterrell]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top