Old Testament believers have circumcised heart? Is circumcision of the heart New covenant sign?

[Jim6]

Did Old Testament believers have a circumcised heart? I have heard Baptist say that a circumcised heart/ regeneration is the new covenant sign, not baptism. If this is true is that saying no one else in the old covenant had a circumcised heart?

I read this which seems to say no one in the Old Testament had a circumcised heart…

“What is in view is spiritual circumcision, a circumcision of the heart that the OT promised (Lev 26:41–42; Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; Ezek 44:7; Rom 2:28–29; Phil 3:3). Here the contrast between the physical and spiritual needs to be drawn out. God gave physical circumcision to the seed of Abraham as a sign and seal of his covenant with Abraham. It did not equate with spiritual circumcision. Rather, God calls the physically circumcised to circumcise their hearts in Deut 10:16 and later promises to do the job himself (Deut 30:6). In context, this is a promise of grace for after their return from exile (see Deut 30:1–5).47 The Deuteronomic history plays out the failure of Israel to circumcise their hearts, and it is the Deuteronomic prophet Jeremiah who promises that it will ultimately come with the New Covenant (Jer 31:31–34).48 Thus, the circumcision without hands is the new covenant fulfillment of an old covenant promise. Physical circumcision is a type that anticipates the circumcision of the heart.”



Can anyone explain why they think baptism is not the New Testament sign of the covenant like circumcision was in the old? Also if anyone does believe baptism is the new covenant sign can you please explain where the Bible says this. Thank you!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Isn't it obvious that internal/heart circumcision is the spiritual reality the external ritual is meant to symbolize? Why wouldn't they realize this in the OT? Doesn't the fact Moses preaches thus bear witness to the way those ancients understood matters? Do we have the same religion as those people, or not? (accidentals notwithstanding)

 

[alexanderjames]

Where did you read this?
It is not just an OT promise, it's firstly an OT command. It would be falling into a dispensationalist error to believe that this is something reserved only for after the cross. Strong covenantal theology rectifies this misunderstanding.

 

[MatthewBall]

Brother,

This is a fantastic book (written by my own Minister) that traces the reality of the circumcision of the heart (regeneration) throughout all of Scripture, including the OT. I'd highly recommend reading it: https://reformedforum.org/product/regeneration-and-redemptive-history/

As our other brothers said above, there is simply no salvation apart from the circumcision of the heart by God's Spirit. This circumcision has taken place in the heart of every believer who has ever lived, OT and NT alike.

"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."- Ezekiel 36:26.

This was not merely a forward-looking promise to NT Saints, but a promise to all believers of all times.

 

[Jim6]

Are there any reformed baptists who could shed light on their views about this? I’m really wanting to understand in your view why you think regeneration is the new sign when Old Testament saints also were regenerated… or do you not believe that?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Regeneration (Circumcision of the Heart) is not a "sign", since it can't be seen by men.

Reformed Baptists wholeheartedly agree that the saints under the Old Covenant experienced regeneration (Circumcision of the Heart) just as saints under the New Covenant do.

 

[EvanF]

Are there any reformed baptists who could shed light on their views about this? I’m really wanting to understand in your view why you think regeneration is the new sign when Old Testament saints also were regenerated… or do you not believe that?

I'm not a baptist, but I do think that regeneration flows from the new covenant, including the regeneration of Old Testament believers.

Regeneration is evidence of election to salvation. Salvation is through justification and atonement in Christ. They were the fruit of Christ's covenant as much as we are.

However regeneration is not a sign, but is the thing later signified by baptism.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I have heard Baptist say that a circumcised heart/ regeneration is the new covenant sign, not baptism.

Do some Baptist really believe that? Well that's a little inconvenient wouldn't you say? Not only can man not see what's in the heart of another man, even a regenerate man may wait long and struggle much with sin until such time that the Lord would grant him Assurance of faith. Some get it quickly some seem to never get Assurance in this life.

When the Lord told Samuel that man looketh on the outward appearance but the Lord looketh on the heart, God was not reproving him in this fact. God was simply stating what is the case. I was an elder in the OPC for 10 years, and I was trained to judge only by outward appearance and for Bear judging the heart. Not because it was wrong but because it is impossible. How on Earth can that be a requirement for membership in a Baptist Church another one of them has any idea what's in the heart of the person who is the nearest and dearest to them. Jeremiah 17:9 says that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, and who can know it? Only with great difficulty do we come to know our own heart and even then it is imperfectly so.

Paul who had a complete lack of guilt in his conscience said that he does not trust in that but he will wait and the Lord will be his judge.

What do they teach them in those Baptist Churches?

1 Samuel 16:7 KJV
[7] But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

 

[paranymph]

Are there any reformed baptists who could shed light on their views about this? I’m really wanting to understand in your view why you think regeneration is the new sign when Old Testament saints also were regenerated… or do you not believe that?

There are Baptists who say this, but they are of the Progressive Covenantal stripe. (As others have pointed out, I don't know what Baptist would say OT believers were not circumcised in heart/regenerate). They (PC) are not Reformed Baptists.
You see this idea of heart circumcision replacing OT circumcision in the book Believer's Baptism edited by Schreiner and Wright. Though, ironically, the title of the book is "How Baptism is a Sign of the New Covenant in Christ." Their argument is that Colossians 2:11–14 speaks of the circumcision of the heart as the replacement of OT circumcision. So, the logic goes that heart circumcision (the "circumcision of Christ") replaces OT circumcision, and heart circumcision is pictured by water baptism. Therefore water baptism is applied only to those who have received the circumcision of Christ.

As to your question of how it could be a sign when OT saints are regenerated, my understanding is that they're saying the OT is looking forward to the day when such is true of all of God's people, e.g. Ezekiel 36. It was a shadowy reality in OT days, but always pointing forward to a greater fulfillment (Deut 30:6). For them, physical circumcision was a shadow pointing to a reality of the heart, and when the fullness of the reality comes (all of God's people are regenerate), the shadow would fade away.

This is not the argument I would make or the tack I would take from Colossians 2. Again, PC is not confessional Reformed Baptist. Reformed Baptist covenant theology sees baptism as a sign of entry into the new covenant.

 

[cthorn14]

Questions about circumcision of the heart seem to come up rather frequently. A significant difference between the reformed and most baptists seems to be the idea of a "sacramental union". This is the relationship between the sign and thing signified. The baptist confession and catechism avoid sacramental language altogether.

We generally agree that baptism is a sign of regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, amongst other things. A major difference is in the relationship of the sign and the thing signified. The baptist catechism teaches that baptism is "unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with [Christ]", while the Westminster Larger Catechism teaches that baptism is "a sacrament of the New Testament", meaning that it is both a sign and a seal of the thing signified, when received by faith.

The baptist is left with the problem that the "sign and seal" language is used to describe circumcision (Rom 4:11 KJV) with no NT equivalent. Baptists often maintain that the Old Testament ordinances are more physical, and the New Testament ordinances more spiritual, but Scripture testifies otherwise.

 

[paranymph]

Questions about circumcision of the heart seem to come up rather frequently. A significant difference between the reformed and most baptists seems to be the idea of a "sacramental union". This is the relationship between the sign and thing signified. The baptist confession and catechism avoid sacramental language altogether.

We generally agree that baptism is a sign of regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, amongst other things. A major difference is in the relationship of the sign and the thing signified. The baptist catechism teaches that baptism is "unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with [Christ]", while the Westminster Larger Catechism teaches that baptism is "a sacrament of the New Testament", meaning that it is both a sign and a seal of the thing signified, when received by faith.

The baptist is left with the problem that the "sign and seal" language is used to describe circumcision (Rom 4:11 KJV) with no NT equivalent. Baptists often maintain that the Old Testament ordinances are more physical, and the New Testament ordinances more spiritual, but Scripture testifies otherwise.

You're right to point out a difference in sign & seal language.
For consideration, Nehemiah Coxe, Discourse of the Covenants, p. 186:
"A seal is for confirmation, and assurance; and in this notion of a seal there may be some respect to that visible Mark and Character which remained in the flesh of him that was circumcised; for we read not that any other Ordinance (no not Baptism) is so called in Scripture; but in the New Testament the sealing of believers is attributed to the Holy Ghost."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Is there one Mediator of the Covenant of Grace or not? If another, how were OT believers saved?

 

[Jim6]

There are Baptists who say this, but they are of the Progressive Covenantal stripe. (As others have pointed out, I don't know what Baptist would say OT believers were not circumcised in heart/regenerate). They (PC) are not Reformed Baptists.
You see this idea of heart circumcision replacing OT circumcision in the book Believer's Baptism edited by Schreiner and Wright. Though, ironically, the title of the book is "How Baptism is a Sign of the New Covenant in Christ." Their argument is that Colossians 2:11–14 speaks of the circumcision of the heart as the replacement of OT circumcision. So, the logic goes that heart circumcision (the "circumcision of Christ") replaces OT circumcision, and heart circumcision is pictured by water baptism. Therefore water baptism is applied only to those who have received the circumcision of Christ.

As to your question of how it could be a sign when OT saints are regenerated, my understanding is that they're saying the OT is looking forward to the day when such is true of all of God's people, e.g. Ezekiel 36. It was a shadowy reality in OT days, but always pointing forward to a greater fulfillment (Deut 30:6). For them, physical circumcision was a shadow pointing to a reality of the heart, and when the fullness of the reality comes (all of God's people are regenerate), the shadow would fade away.

This is not the argument I would make or the tack I would take from Colossians 2. Again, PC is not confessional Reformed Baptist. Reformed Baptist covenant theology sees baptism as a sign of entry into the new covenan

Thank you for taking the time to answer.
How yould you explain the meaning of collosians 2:11-14 from a reformed Baptist view point? From much of my reading on this board it seems that the Baptist position is regeneration and then baptism signifies that.

You're right to point out a difference in sign & seal language.
For consideration, Nehemiah Coxe, Discourse of the Covenants, p. 186:
"A seal is for confirmation, and assurance; and in this notion of a seal there may be some respect to that visible Mark and Character which remained in the flesh of him that was circumcised; for we read not that any other Ordinance (no not Baptism) is so called in Scripture; but in the New Testament the sealing of believers is attributed to the Holy Ghost.

So wouldn’t it stand to reason that baptism is the sign and spiritual baptism is the seal, done by the Holy Spirit) Once faith comes all that baptism is a sign of becomes sealed to that person who was baptized.