PB Folks, I have been thinking through this question: Who performed the act of circumcision in the OT? Was it the father? Was it the priest? I ask because I have seen some reformed people post a video in which the father is baptizing his baby daughter. So, the logic goes: if the father circumcised the baby in the OT, and we know that circumcision is replaced with baptism, then it follows that the father can also baptize the baby. No need for a minister to do it. From this particular line of reasoning, it hinges upon whether or not the father circumcised his baby. Now, I have read that the Great Commission helps us to understand Jesus was giving very specific commands to his disciples (teach and baptize), within the context of their authority, and those disciples then pass down their ministerial authority as they are appointing elders/ministers to churches.. So, if that line of reasoning holds (that line of authority involving the ability to baptize) then even if the father was the one who actually performed circumcision in the OT, that would be irrelevant because of redemptive historical progression. Of course, this issue would be much easier (who circumcised and therefore, who can baptize) if it were actually the case if the priest performed the circumcision.