Does baptism replace circumcision? (explain it to me like I am 8 years old)

Status
Not open for further replies.
But don't you see that the truly saved in the OT were saved by the same blood of Christ that we are saved by today? The church, the bride of Christ is, I repeat: the saved of all ages. The saints of the OT looked forward to the Messiah, the Suffering Servant of God who would die for their sins, the NT saints look back to that same Messiah, who died ONCE FOR ALL, who came to redeem to Himself ONE people. The church. Hallelujah.
I agree with you that the OT saints were saved just as we are now, all saved by the Cross of Christ on our behalf, and the saved of Israel were part of the NT Church, but the NT church was not in the OC, as that group was not here until the promised Messiah came and died and rose again, and the coming of the Holy Spirit in a new way at Pentecost..
 
Would you care to cite the Confession in support of your claims? I would not say your statement accurately represents the teaching of the Confession.
The LBC 1689 in Chapter 26 described the church of Christ, and the terms to me do indeed seem to indicate that the church mentioned there would be the NT one.
 
The LBC 1689 in Chapter 26 described the church of Christ, and the terms to me do indeed seem to indicate that the church mentioned there would be the NT one.

Are you referring to Paragraph 1?

"Paragraph 1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that fills all in all."
 
Are you referring to Paragraph 1?

"Paragraph 1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that fills all in all."
Yes, but really, all of the points seem to address the church as being here on earth at time of Christ forward.
 
Yes, but really, all of the points seem to address the church as being here on earth at time of Christ forward.

Maybe you are referring to Paragraph 2?

"Paragraph 2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted."
 
Yes, as again, that to me seems to be stating that the church would be now seen as being baptized believers into Yeshua.
 
Last edited:
Was the Saviour and the Gospel preached in the Old Testament and were those people who believed such as Abraham, Moses, or Isaiah considered to be in the Everlasting Covenant (or Covenant of Grace) that was established with Abraham(question mark)
 
Was the Saviour and the Gospel preached in the Old Testament and were those people who believed such as Abraham, Moses, or Isaiah considered to be in the Everlasting Covenant (or Covenant of Grace) that was established with Abraham(question mark)
The Promised Messiah was taught to them, and all who were saved were part of the redeemed of the Lord, and would be part of the NT Church Body, but the Church itself was in the NT NC, in my way of understanding the Baptist view on this issue.
There was something new God did in the person, work, and ministry of the Lord Jesus and now in the NC. NOT as Dispensational would hold to it, as those in the OT saved by Grace same way we now are, but the church itself came in NT.
 
The Promised Messiah was taught to them, and all who were saved were part of the redeemed of the Lord, and would be part of the NT Church Body, but the Church itself was in the NT NC, in my way of understanding the Baptist view on this issue.
There was something new God did in the person, work, and ministry of the Lord Jesus and now in the NC. NOT as Dispensational would hold to it, as those in the OT saved by Grace same way we now are, but the church itself came in NT.
We understand what you are saying, but please understand that that is NOT what the Reformed Baptist view is on this issue. Without further laboring the dead horse, I and others have told you what the position is, and have shown it from the LBCF. Your view may be well be held by many (though I know no one who does), but it's not the standard confessional viewpoint.
 
Yes. Sorry. My computer is old. I am still using Windows 7. A few of the keys are not working.
Oh, I can relate - I am reading these threads on a screen that was severely cracked when I dropped it a while back! (Like trying to drive with a busted windshield.) I was just wondering if that was some form of emphasis with which I was unfamiliar...

By the way, I miss Windows 7. This one has 8 - so frustrating at times (maybe that's why I dropped it!).
 
We understand what you are saying, but please understand that that is NOT what the Reformed Baptist view is on this issue. Without further laboring the dead horse, I and others have told you what the position is, and have shown it from the LBCF. Your view may be well be held by many (though I know no one who does), but it's not the standard confessional viewpoint.
The LBC 1689 Confession seems to be stating that the church was founded by Jesus , as the result of His death and resurrection, and that it was instituted in the NT times. That is my understanding of it, as are there not confessing Baptists who hold to the church starting up in NT times, and that the OT saints were included in that Body after the fact?
 
Does baptism replace circumcision?

What is the Presbyterian answer?
What is the baptist answer?

Can we say it is analogous to circumcision but doesn't replace it?

Also, why does a physical sacrament replace a physical type? Isn't the fulfillment or spiritual reality circumcision is pointing to actually circumcision of the heart (the new birth)?

Can you lead me simply through the proof-texts? And be fair to the other side.
Like you're 8 years old? Hmm....

My aren't you a precocious child. Who taught you such big words like analagous?

Well, it's like this. In the Old Testament God told people that they needed to have their hearts circumcised. He told them the same thing in the New Testament.

Circumcision is God giving us a new heart.

In the Old Covenant, he used a visible sign of circumcision to represent the aim that we would be circumcised of the heart. Some were circumcised who were not born from above but it was the purpose of the people of God that they would be taught His Word and learn to rely upon Him and His Promises. He gave them Priests and Prophets and Kings and gave them strict rules and regulations to teach them to rely not upon what good kids they were but upon Him. Do you remember how your daddy used tohold your hand when you crossed the street?

In the New Covenant, He gave us Christ and now all the things that the Priests, Prophets, and Kings represented were mere pictures of what Jesus would do for us. We learned that to be circumcised of the heart was a sign that we truly belong to Christ as the Holy Spirit gives us a new heart. It is now pictured to us in our baptism.

Daddies and Mommies circumcised their babies in the Old Covenant because they were bringing their kids up to fear the Lord and trust that God might circumcise the heart as they were taught about the mighty Promises and Acts of God.

Daddies and Mommies baptize their babies today in the NewCovenant because they are bringing their kids up to fear the Lord and trust in Christ. They trust that the Spirit might circumcise the heart as they are taught about the mighty Promises fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

Now, quit asking me questions. Your Mom has asked you several times to clean your room. Get to it before you get a spanking. Also, when's the last time you took a shower?
 
Last edited:
The LBC 1689 Confession seems to be stating that the church was founded by Jesus , as the result of His death and resurrection, and that it was instituted in the NT times. That is my understanding of it, as are there not confessing Baptists who hold to the church starting up in NT times, and that the OT saints were included in that Body after the fact?
None that I've ever encountered.
 
Federalism who see it that way.

There seems to some holding to the 1689 Federalist views though who would see it the same way I do at this time.
Perhaps you are a Federalist. You may want to read their material carefully and see whether you agree. To me it is a strange novelty, and even the little of it I know from recent weeks on this forum makes me not want to jump on their wagon. But to his own master each must stand or fall...
 
Perhaps you are a Federalist. You may want to read their material carefully and see whether you agree. To me it is a strange novelty, and even the little of it I know from recent weeks on this forum makes me not want to jump on their wagon. But to his own master each must stand or fall...
This viewpoint was started in the 17th century,so not really that new or novel, and their understanding of the church as it fits within Covenant theology of the scriptures to me fits the traditional Baptist understanding of it.
 
Last edited:
This viewpoint was started in the century, not really that new or novel, and their understanding of the church as it fits within Covenant theology of the scriptures to me fits the traditional Baptist understanding of it.
I meant it was new to me--my first encounter with Federalism was only when Pergamum began asking about it. I know nothing of the "Traditional Baptist understanding of CT;" I only know what I have read in the Confession, a few commentators, and the Bible. If my view is completely out of whack with baptists in the past, so be it--there's a whole crowd of us over here thinking the same un-traditional stuff.
 
I meant it was new to me--my first encounter with Federalism was only when Pergamum began asking about it. I know nothing of the "Traditional Baptist understanding of CT;" I only know what I have read in the Confession, a few commentators, and the Bible. If my view is completely out of whack with baptists in the past, so be it--there's a whole crowd of us over here thinking the same un-traditional stuff.
Which is fine, as the traditional Baptist approach is to allow for latitude into what one holds with on the teachings of scriptures, just as long within the bounds of orthodoxy.
 
This is a rather curious statement.
There are reformed Baptists who adhere to the 1689 Confession, and there are many more who would be seen as traditional/non Confessing baptists, who would allow for a greater latitude in how one views the truths and doctrines of the scriptures.
 
There are reformed Baptists who adhere to the 1689 Confession, and there are many more who would be seen as traditional/non Confessing baptists, who would allow for a greater latitude in how one views the truths and doctrines of the scriptures.
We would say that the non-confessing baptists are not traditional, and that they are not really baptists at all--in fact, it is because so many people of kooky beliefs (arminianism, dispensationalism, fundamentalism, etc, which are contrary to the confessions) took to themselves the name "baptist", that confessional baptists added the "Reformed" handle.
It is in an effort to show DIS-unity with the non-confessing that we do this today. The last thing we want (at least myself as an RB) is to be lumped in with every weirdo who has the effrontery to think he's a baptist without even knowing of the historical confessions that define us as a group.
 
We would say that the non-confessing baptists are not traditional, and that they are not really baptists at all--in fact, it is because so many people of kooky beliefs (arminianism, dispensationalism, fundamentalism, etc, which are contrary to the confessions) took to themselves the name "baptist", that confessional baptists added the "Reformed" handle.
It is in an effort to show DIS-unity with the non-confessing that we do this today. The last thing we want (at least myself as an RB) is to be lumped in with every weirdo who has the effrontery to think he's a baptist without even knowing of the historical confessions that define us as a group.
The problem with that thinking though would be that for better or worse, there are indeed Baptists who are not reformed as in Confession the 1689 , but they would see Baptists as being those who uphold the "Baptist distinctives", such as freedom between state and church, each local assembly is fully autonomous, and each christian can come to their own theology for example.
 
The problem with that thinking though would be that for better or worse, there are indeed Baptists who are not reformed as in Confession the 1689 , but they would see Baptists as being those who uphold the "Baptist distinctives", such as freedom between state and church, each local assembly is fully autonomous, and each christian can come to their own theology for example.

There is a difference between being Baptist and being baptistic.
 
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

While we presently call the bride of Christ, the Church, all believers, in every age rested on "that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." I believe this should suffice as answer. Sometimes terminology gets in the natural way of thinking, and confuses us.

We are the bride of Christ, as the elect Jews were. However, due to the difference in Christ's work being finished, we are no longer, as a body politic, a chose people, rather the Church in its maturity, under Christ, her true King, with no need for a Samuel or David or Solomon. Israel had all the physical types of Christ, now those types are fulfilled in Christ, whom the Old Testament Jews looked toward, making them members in the same body of believers as we, which, at present, is now called the Church, yet we are still Israel, God's people.

There is that continuity form the Old Covenant, as they looked forward to the future coming of the Messiah, we now look back upon the completed work of Christ. It is, simply, the maturity of the church. Under the Old Covenant, the body of believers were as a tempestuous youthful girl. Now, as a maturing young woman, being grown and led to that Marriage Super of the Lamb, when we the bride have been beautified for the bridegroom, and the consummation of that marriage, when we as clothed royally, the daughter of the King, are presented spotless to our saviour and heavenly husband Christ.
 
True, but there are Calvinistic Baptists, and those holding to free will salvation also, for example.

Yes. But, when you say, "they would see Baptists as being those who uphold the "Baptist distinctives", such as freedom between state and church, each local assembly is fully autonomous, and each christian can come to their own theology," I think you are drawing the circle a little to wide. I don't get around much, but it seems to me that this is a distinctive of more liberal/post modern evangelism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top