Please help me with baptism versus circumcision discussion !

Not open for further replies.


Puritan Board Junior
Dear members,

This day i hath a discussion with a baptism member. Myself iam a paedo-baptism believer (sinds 1.5 year) in a Baptist church. And then we hath a discussion about circumcision and baptism, how they are the same and heaving the same meaning (circumcision of the heart, the re-birth).

And this member of course said that this view was complete foolish to believe that baptism became instead or fulfilled circumcision, because he said (1) it in no where written in Gods Word, (2) because there were many example"(tm)s in the book of Acts, where believing Jews where still circumcised even though baptised as believers in the Messiah.
So he said, if baptism came instead of circumcision than, the Jews would not be circumcised also. I told, him that it was done (in case with Timothy in Acts 16) because of the testimony to the Jews, because how could non-circumcised Jew share the Gospel in a synagogue? But he said, that this argument still does not explain the fact that baptism came instead of circumcision.

Now, today I came with a though from the scripture, where we (maybe) can make the conclusion that baptism came instead of circumcision. Please keep in mind i am not a theologian, and probably i made a mistake, so please (those who hold to covenant theology) correct me and help, with the next statement:

To enter in the covenant of Abraham, you hath to be circumcised, this was not only for the Jews but also for the proselytes, so all who stood in a covenant relationship received the sigh (again, also the proselytes), see : Exodus 12:48, so it was a commanded for non national Jews a "œeternal sigh" (Gen 17:13).

So if it was a "eternal sigh" (circumcision for the proselytes who joined together with the Jews) in the "œsame covenant of Abraham", than why do the Gentiles in the new covenant after Pentecost not to be circumcised?,

Because we read in Gen.17 :13, that it was "œeternal sigh" and "œGentiles believers (proselytes) where not excluded from it "œ !
I think (if iam right) that the eternal sigh of the covenant people did not changed, but only the form from circumcision into baptism. Because sinds the day of Pentecost, there was no need anymore to circumcised the Gentiles, while it was written in Gen, 17:13 and Exodus 12:48, that the circumcision was a eternal sigh also for the Gentiles, but we see that instead of circumcision they did baptism.

So is this not a clear prove that baptism came instead of circumcision? Because if it was not, than why are Gentiles not circumcised, because it (again) a commanded from God for eternity?

Is this a good prove, or not? Please help me, and correct me. Because I don"(tm)t want to use argument for my infant baptism view, if this is not a prove from the scripture?

I hope it is clear what i wrote, because english is not my first language ?

Iam looking foreword to hear from you,


voided user1

Puritan Board Freshman
As a Baptist I can say we believe in the eternal sign too. At this point, that sign is not baptism but the circumcision not wrought with hands. No where have I seen at any point in Scripture anything that says physical baptism is the replacement for physical circumcision. By the way, you mean "eternal sign" not "eternal sigh."


Puritanboard Clerk
[quote:b2554bd4e1="Wymer168"] At this point, that sign is not baptism but the circumcision not wrought with hands. No where have I seen at any point in Scripture anything that says physical baptism is the replacement for physical circumcision. By the way, you mean "eternal sign" not "eternal sigh."[/quote:b2554bd4e1]

I take it that you are referring to Colossians 2:11ff? Are you then saying that there are no external signs and seals of the covenant? The Baptist tries to get around the infant baptism argument by saying that the New Covenant sign is for the regenerate only, despite the comparison between circumcision and baptism in this argument--which certainly implies the same procedures as circumcision. Now, the Baptist will then respond that it is the "circumcision not made with hands" (I know, I was a Baptist and that was my argument). But if that is the case, then why have physical baptism at all? To quote the Lutheran, Rod Rosenblatt, "you have all that water and it doesn't do any thing."

However, you can safely draw from that passage: baptism replaces circumcision in this passage (both sides will agree on that). If that is so, then to whom was the sign applied? Even the OT prophets said to circumcise their hearts. If you use Colossians as an argument for regeneration(as implied in the OT prophets), then you are proving too much. All that that can be used for is to say that God requires his people to have a proper heart response to the covenantal union.

I will stop here because I don't want to make the mistake of deriving my theology of the covenants from my theology of baptism. Taking my cue from Doug Wilson (don't hang me, guys! This was in his early days), I ought to derive my theology of baptism from my theology of the covenants.

Good night, brethren.
Not open for further replies.