Circumcision/regeneration? Circumcision/baptism?

[Iconoclast]

Where do you as a baptist weigh in on this issue.In another thread these ideas were put forth???

Idea 1-

What do you think is the distinction between the two covenants?

New Testament baptism is the expansion of Old Testament circumcision is it not?

Idea2-

Old Testament circumcision finds it's fulfillment in Nt regeneration.

Nt baptism points to our identification with Christ...showing outwardly the inward reality of Spirit baptism having united us savingly to Jesus.

Nt baptism points to our identification with Christ in His death ,and our new life in Him.

Idea3-

Neither is any more a symbol of regeneration than the other.

Almost NNE disputes that they are both THE signs of the covenant- one the sign of the old testament and the other the sign of the new.

Therefore, there is no reason to assume the dichotomy.

We don't do circumcision as a sign of the covenant anymore.

What do we do? We do baptism.

Therefore, baptism is the New Testament version of Old Testament circumcision.

idea 4-

No sir. I am baptist. I only ever baptize believers and that by immersion. But the Presbyterian position is not without merit. I think we baptists like to pretend that they have no good grounds for baptizing babies when they do.

Idea5-

To get that, would have to make OT circumcision as equivalent as the NT Baptism, which baptists tend not to do

How do you see it? interact with any or all of these ideas...or express your own "baptist understanding"......feel free to use scripture:thumbs::wavey::type:

 

[Van]

The physical circumcision means nothing, but Paul taught that being spiritually circumcised, i.e. the circumcision of the heart, means everything. The NT saints are the true circumcision. When we are baptized spiritually into Christ, we undergo the circumcision done without hands, the circumcision of Christ. So the removal of our sin burden by Christ is the true circumcision, and it is part of our Spiritual Baptism into Christ. Colossians 2:11

 

[Yeshua1]

Where do you as a baptist weigh in on this issue.In another thread these ideas were put forth???

Idea 1-


Idea2-


Idea3-


idea 4-




Idea5-



How do you see it? interact with any or all of these ideas...or express your own "baptist understanding"......feel free to use scripture:thumbs::wavey::type:

Circumcision in the OT was used as means to identify one who was part of the covenant of Isreal God had made, but was NOT a seal that person would be a 'true isrealite" as defined by God, one who expressed faith int he God of isreal, while NT baptist also a sign of a person bein gunder Covenat of God, but was real really saved...

NOT the same thing!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There is no connection between baptism and circumcision whatsoever.

The proof is in the reality that circumcision was performed on every male, but he a newborn into the Jewish community or a slave purchased to serve the family. It has no connection to his spiritual life whatsoever.

Baptism, on the other hand, is prescribed as a public testimony of what God has done within. A non-believer is not allowed baptism, because it is an outward sign of an inner faith and change, something the non-believer has not experienced.

In short, the Old Covenant had a physical means of entrance into God's presence, which we also know is not possible. In contrast, the New Covenant has a spiritual means of entrance: one must believe and be saved.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van

The physical circumcision means nothing, but Paul taught that being spiritually circumcised, i.e. the circumcision of the heart, means everything.

While it meant quite a bit during the OC.....Jesus has fulfilled it for us.

The NT saints are the true circumcision.

3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.:thumbsup:

When we are baptized spiritually into Christ, we undergo the circumcision done without hands, the circumcision of Christ. So the removal of our sin burden by Christ is the true circumcision, and it is part of our Spiritual Baptism into Christ. Colossians 2:11

:thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeshua1

Circumcision in the OT was used as means to identify one who was part of the covenant of Isreal God had made

,
:thumbs:

but was NOT a seal that person would be a 'true isrealite" as defined by God, one who expressed faith int he God of isreal,

:thumbs:

while NT baptist also a sign of a person bein gunder Covenat of God, but was real really saved.

..


????? not sure what you are saying here.

NOT the same thing!

If not the same,why is it different?

 

[Iconoclast]

thisnumbersdisconnected

There is no connection between baptism and circumcision whatsoever.

many believe there is.

The proof is in the reality that circumcision was performed on every male, but he a newborn into the Jewish community or a slave purchased to serve the family. It has no connection to his spiritual life whatsoever.

If it had "no connection" what was it's purpose.Why was it commanded ,so much that the apostles had to consider this question in Acts 15?


Baptism, on the other hand, is prescribed as a public testimony of what God has done within. A non-believer is not allowed baptism, because it is an outward sign of an inner faith and change, something the non-believer has not experienced.

In short, the Old Covenant had a physical means of entrance into God's presence, which we also know is not possible.

I had a godly Presbyterian Pastor say to me that baptists have no entrance, no door to get people into proximity to God. how would you respond to that?

In contrast, the New Covenant has a spiritual means of entrance: one must believe and be saved.

:thumbs: And yet...in the OC....children were considered as members of the covenant.Where would you pinpoint the change?

 

[Iconoclast]

We don't do circumcision as a sign of the covenant anymore.

What do we do? We do baptism.

Therefore, baptism is the New Testament version of Old Testament circumcision.

This as written is the Presbyterian view.I do not think you mean this as it stands written however.

 

[DHK]

Where do you as a baptist weigh in on this issue.In another thread these ideas were put forth???

Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

The covenants were given to Israel, not to NT believers.
The only "covenant" that we have is our relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ, that promise of eternal life and forgiveness of sins that he has given us along with his indwelling when by faith we trusted him as Lord and Savior.

Baptism and Circumcision have nothing in common; absolutely nothing!
The NT does speak of the circumcision of the heart which spiritually and allegorically refers to salvation. It is a figure of speech of course. Nothing is actually "cut."

Baptism is purely symbolic of a believer's death and burial to his old life of sin, and the resurrection of a new life in Christ. There is no picture of circumcision there. The picture is in Romans 6:3,4. It is clear. It always follows belief and is always immersion as the word itself means.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

The covenants were given to Israel, not to NT believers.

This is why people should flee false dispensational ideas.....

all Christians are saved by God's covenant....to say it is not for nt believers is bizarre.

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
We are saved by the Covenant love of God in sending His Son for the covenant children.....you err greatly on this...

The only "covenant" that we have is our relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ, that promise of eternal life and forgiveness of sins that he has given us along with his indwelling when by faith we trusted him as Lord and Savior.

This is anti scriptural....
1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

The Covenant was in place before creation....

Baptism and Circumcision have nothing in common; absolutely nothing!

This is an over-statement

The NT does speak of the circumcision of the heart which spiritually and allegorically refers to salvation. It is a figure of speech of course. Nothing is actually "cut."

yes....Christ has fulfilled it for us..

Baptism is purely symbolic of a believer's death and burial to his old life of sin, and the resurrection of a new life in Christ. There is no picture of circumcision there. The picture is in Romans 6:3,4. It is clear. It always follows belief and is always immersion as the word itself means.

:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

DHK

Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

This is why people should flee false dispensational ideas.....

Romans 9:4 is not anti-scriptural nor is it false. It is scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit. That makes your philosophical ideas false; not my Scriptural beliefs.

all Christians are saved by God's covenant....to say it is not for nt believers is bizarre.

Acts 16:31 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
Another false philosophical idea.
I just quoted you the Bible. One is saved by faith in Christ; not by God's covenant. Nowhere does it say that in the Bible. That is man's idea or imagination; not Scripture.

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
We are saved by the Covenant love of God in sending His Son for the covenant children.....you err greatly on this...

This entire passage has nothing to do with salvation. It is from Ephesians, and Paul is speaking to both Gentile and Jewish believers. He is explaining to them how both Gentile believers and Jewish believers are one in Christ. There is no more a "wall" between them. They are one in Christ. It is not a salvation passage. The "covenants" were given to Israel.

This is anti scriptural....

Why would having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ be anti-Scriptural?
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. That is his promise. I believed. He saved. Fairly simple isn't it.

1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

I like the Bible too. Your point?

The Covenant was in place before creation....

Even if you believe that, Israel, to whom the covenants were given, did not exist before Creation. So your statement is irrelevant.

 

[Aaron]

Circumcision was a putting away of the filth of the flesh, so is baptism. Where circumcision was a sign of the covenant prior to the advent of the promised seed, baptism is a sign of the covenant afterward.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Romans 9:4 is not anti-scriptural nor is it false. It is scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit. That makes your philosophical ideas false; not my Scriptural beliefs.

DHK....Evidently you did not understand my post properly judging by this response.Let me clarify it for you.


I did not say Rom9:4 was anti-scriptural,or false....I did not say that as you suggest.This I believe to be your way of trying to avoid dealing with your error...making as if...I am against plain scripture verses....to refresh your memory ,,here is what I did say-

This is why people should flee false dispensational ideas.....

all Christians are saved by God's covenant....to say it is not for nt believers is bizarre.

Let's be clear....i will speak for me.....you can speak for you...
this does not say; anything about rom.9:4 being unscriptural, or false.
Do not bear false witness against me.


Paul is speaking about Covenant promises that had been passed on to the Israelites. That is quite true.That does not address the whole idea of gentiles being included in God's Covenant plan......that is why I posted Eph 2....

The charge by many that baptists often have a highly defective view of the covenants if shown by what you post. It is not a crime to be learning or struggling to understand all of the teaching about, all of the progressively revealed covenants.
Many avoid working through the passages necessary to have a working knowledge of them. That is understandable.What is not as understandable is to just blow off the whole teaching and be critical in a way that demonstrates you are without understanding,and in fact not finding truth on this.....but falsehood.

Acts 16:31 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
Another false philosophical idea.
I just quoted you the Bible.

In trying to "win an argument" you offer this sarcasm in a condescending fashion but it just shows you are without the correct teaching, in fact it does not seem to be close to truth.

Yes...those who believe in Jesus will be saved.To say the basis is not found in God;s covenant is unbiblical false teaching.

One is saved by faith in Christ; not by God's covenant

.

You have just done that right here.You divide what God has put together, as if they are mutually exclusive ideas.This is ....WRONGLY DIVIDING THE WORD .....AS DISPENSATIONALISM SPECIALIZES IN.

You adherance to that system has led to this error as well as many others.

Nowhere does it say that in the Bible. That is man's idea or imagination; not Scripture.

Really.....
14 The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.

25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.

26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.


70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

You could not be more wrong on this DHK.....leave your false dispy ideas and seek the truth on this.

This entire passage has nothing to do with salvation. It is from Ephesians, and Paul is speaking to both Gentile and Jewish believers. He is explaining to them how both Gentile believers and Jewish believers are one in Christ.

And you believe this passage has nothing to do with salvation???If you asked the question it would be okay...but to declare it has nothing to do with salvation is strange indeed.

There is no more a "wall" between them. They are one in Christ. It is not a salvation passage. The "covenants" were given to Israel.

You completely miss the whole point of the passage....gentiles were in times past apart from the Covenants.....but now ...they are included .
They are included because of the Covenant of redemption made among the persons of the Godhead. they are included because of the Covenant of grace extended to men In Christ.
If you were teaching these wrong ideas in front of a class...they should come and escort you out and bring you to scripture rehab:wavey:
Seriously DHK to say this section of scripture has nothing to do with salvation, and then to imply that I am speaking against scripture is wrong all the way around.

Why would having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ be anti-Scriptural?

This is just what I am talking about.....either show anywhere I have ever said this ....you think that by making this ridiculous assertion that somehow it improves your POV???? If you cannot show me saying this....[and not what you speculate, that you thought i said}....if you cannot show it you are committing a 9th commandment violation.

If you feel what I post is in error...show it by what I POST....not what you twist my post to say:thumbsup:

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. That is his promise. I believed. He saved. Fairly simple isn't it

.

Yes...truth is simple...so is studying why it is so...without your dispy lunacy.

I like the Bible too. Your point?

My point is your post gave a wrong time frame...Titus has it correct...you do not , that is the point.....here it is once again....you say when you believe, Titus says before the world was....

Quote:
The only "covenant" that we have is our relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ, that promise of eternal life and forgiveness of sins that he has given us along with his indwelling when by faith we trusted him as Lord and Savior.
This is anti scriptural....

1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Even if you believe that, Israel, to whom the covenants were given, did not exist before Creation. So your statement is irrelevant.

DHK.....The Covenant of redemption was in place before creation itself.
God had already been dealing with man based on Covenant....

this is even seen in the language given to Moses describing God' s dealing with Noah.....I will make MY COVENANT with you...

Israel was not the only people included in the Covenant. It was given to them because they were singled out to be given the scriptures....so of course they were a part of it....

3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.


You do not have to share my view, or that of the historic church.Do not bear false witness against me though :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

DHK




DHK....Evidently you did not understand my post properly judging by this response.Let me clarify it for you.

I understood your post perfectly. Rom.9:4 states quite clearly that the covenants were given to Israel. Either one believes what it states or he doesn't. I believe what Romans 9:4 teaches.

I did not say Rom9:4 was anti-scriptural,or false....I did not say that as you suggest.This I believe to be your way of trying to avoid dealing with your error...making as if...I am against plain scripture verses....to refresh your memory ,,here is what I did say-

This is why people should flee false dispensational ideas.....

You are in error. Dispensational theology is not false. Thus you are confused and look at the Bible in an erroneous manner.

all Christians are saved by God's covenant....to say it is not for nt believers is bizarre.

The Bible says that we are saved by faith, not by covenant. You are in error and have set up a system of "works salvation." As Romans 9:4 states the covenants belong to Israel.

Let's be clear....i will speak for me.....you can speak for you...
this does not say; anything about rom.9:4 being unscriptural, or false.
Do not bear false witness against me.

I bear witness to what the Lord says through the Apostle Paul.
The covenants belong to Israel. Nothing could be more clear in Romans 9:4.

Paul is speaking about Covenant promises that had been passed on to the Israelites. That is quite true.That does not address the whole idea of gentiles being included in God's Covenant plan......that is why I posted Eph 2....

Eph.2 is not speaking of Gentiles being included in "God's covenant plan." You read the Scriptures through biased and rose-colored glasses. He is simply explaining to the believers at Ephesus how all these believers (Gentiles and Jews) are now one in Christ. There is no more division. The wall between them is broken down. That is the teaching of the passage. There is no covenant for the gentiles there. The covenants are given to Israel. We are all one in Christ; not one in Israel. You have it backwards.

The charge by many that baptists often have a highly defective view of the covenants if shown by what you post. It is not a crime to be learning or struggling to understand all of the teaching about, all of the progressively revealed covenants.
Many avoid working through the passages necessary to have a working knowledge of them. That is understandable.What is not as understandable is to just blow off the whole teaching and be critical in a way that demonstrates you are without understanding,and in fact not finding truth on this.....but falsehood.

What is falsehood?
I was Catholic for 20 years. They believe in Covenant theology.
So do the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, the Anglicans and many others.
I don't. It is error. It is the wrong way of interpreting the Bible.

In trying to "win an argument" you offer this sarcasm in a condescending fashion but it just shows you are without the correct teaching, in fact it does not seem to be close to truth.

Yes...those who believe in Jesus will be saved.To say the basis is not found in God;s covenant is unbiblical false teaching.[/quote]
I will repeat it again:
Acts 16:31 is not a falsehood.
The falsehood is to believe that one is saved through a covenant. Where does it say that in Scripture. This is the second time I ask you and you have no answer.

You have just done that right here.You divide what God has put together, as if they are mutually exclusive ideas.This is ....WRONGLY DIVIDING THE WORD .....AS DISPENSATIONALISM SPECIALIZES IN.

You adherance to that system has led to this error as well as many others.

My adherence was and is to the Word of God. I simply quoted you Acts 16:31, and you accuse me of wrongly dividing the Word. How does posting one verse wrongly divide the Word?

Really.....

You could not be more wrong on this DHK.....leave your false dispy ideas and seek the truth on this.

I am not wrong. You posted a string of Scriptures that have to do with God's covenant between Jehovah and Israel. That has nothing to do with the NT believer. The covenant were given to Israel.

And you believe this passage has nothing to do with salvation???If you asked the question it would be okay...but to declare it has nothing to do with salvation is strange indeed.

The book of Ephesians was written to believers. They didn't need to be saved. If you don't know why Paul was writing that passage you should find out.

You completely miss the whole point of the passage....gentiles were in times past apart from the Covenants.....but now ...they are included .
They are included because of the Covenant of redemption made among the persons of the Godhead. they are included because of the Covenant of grace extended to men In Christ.
If you were teaching these wrong ideas in front of a class...they should come and escort you out and bring you to scripture rehab:wavey:
Seriously DHK to say this section of scripture has nothing to do with salvation, and then to imply that I am speaking against scripture is wrong all the way around.

You are biased when you read the Scripture, and furthermore need to establish an historical context before you jump to such conclusions.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Note that in the originals there were no chapter divisions. You stopped at the end of chapter two, but it continues in chapter three where Paul specifically mentions this dispensation of grace.
Twice then he mentions a mystery which has been hid until now. In verse five the mystery has now been revealed. What is it?
It is this: That the Gentiles should be...of the same body....in Christ by the gospel. There is no covenant here. We are all one in Christ. It is by faith, not by covenants and works as you teach. Go back to chapter two and read 2:8,9

This is just what I am talking about.....either show anywhere I have ever said this ....you think that by making this ridiculous assertion that somehow it improves your POV???? If you cannot show me saying this....[and not what you speculate, that you thought i said}....if you cannot show it you are committing a 9th commandment violation.

You said "we are saved by the covenants." That is as close to heresy as one can get.
The only "covenant" that Christ makes is that one when we trust him as Savior and consequently have a personal relationship with him. I don't need any other covenant. I have a personal relationship with Christ.

Yes...truth is simple...so is studying why it is so...without your dispy lunacy.

I hope you are not calling Paul a "lunatic" who spoke of the dispensation of grace in Ephesians 3.

DHK.....The Covenant of redemption was in place before creation itself.

That is only your opinion. You assert this without scripture.

God had already been dealing with man based on Covenant....

God deals with individuals in His own way and in his own time. He is not confined by YOUR "defined" covenants. As if you could contain God and box Him in by your covenants is an absurd idea.

this is even seen in the language given to Moses describing God' s dealing with Noah.....I will make MY COVENANT with you...

Noah found grace in the sight of the Lord. God dealt with him in grace.
As a result of his obedience he made a covenant. The covenant was one-sided.

Israel was not the only people included in the Covenant. It was given to them because they were singled out to be given the scriptures....so of course they were a part of it....

That depends what covenant you are talking about. The "sign of the covenant" is the Sabbath, and in Exodus 31 it also is one-sided. It is for Israel only and for their generations forever. It will not cease for Israel even if they disobey.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I understood your post perfectly

.

Thank you for your response DHK.I will say that you stand by your position and your theological system which I no longer share with you. I believe that the system you follow has led you into much serious error or I would not speak directly agasinst it. These errors are quite serious in that I do not believe you can understand what I am offering to you scripturally.
As soon as it differs from your ideas you shut down and retreat to dispensationalism in all of it's failed ideas.
This goes so far as to speak against truth seeing it as error.At least our discussion of these things will demonstrate the differences and let the readers examine where they fit into the dicussion.

Rom.9:4 states quite clearly that the covenants were given to Israel.

yes it does say that.
And jn 3:7 says that Nicodemus must be born from above;
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
It clearly states that. So with your method of interpretation....if jn 3:7 says this to Nicodemus....only he was told he needed to be born from above...we cannot look anywhere else:wavey: That is what you are doing with Rom9:4...and with the teaching of covenants. as you say this;

Either one believes what it states or he doesn't. I believe what Romans 9:4 teaches.

In like manner...I believe what Jn 3:7 teaches...Nicodemus must be born from above.

You are in error. Dispensational theology is not false. Thus you are confused and look at the Bible in an erroneous manner.

One of us is wrong on this.I think I know who it is!
Both are not correct:thumbsup:You state what you believe......I will remain with my understanding and we will not find agreement.

The Bible says that we are saved by faith, not by covenant.

The scripture does not wrongly divide truth.We are saved by the Covenant work of the Lord Jesus Christ...through repentance and faith which are God given gifts.The scripture does not teach and either or as you evidently do.

You are in error and have set up a system of "works salvation." As Romans 9:4 states the covenants belong to Israel.

No one who believes as I do....ever believes in a salvation by works, no one.
That you repeat this idea from time to time shows you do not understand at all the position. At this time it does not appear you will unless and until you take a fresh look at the discussion.

I bear witness to what the Lord says through the Apostle Paul.
The covenants belong to Israel. Nothing could be more clear in Romans 9:4

.

I bear witness in the same way to Jn 3:7.....being born from above was for Nicodemus...Jesus said...YE...must be born again.

Eph.2 is not speaking of Gentiles being included in "God's covenant plan."

That you say this is astounding to me,and you even repeat it.You were so busy getting in the phrase..."dispensation of grace, that you ignnored the central teaching of what that means...which is this DHK....

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel

1]fellowheirs...??? with who DHK? the non -covenant gentiles, In Christ are now....fellow heirs with the elect remnant of Covenant keeping Jews..imagine that!

2]the same body.......no heavenly people/earthly people...who remain two distinct people...no .no...ONE NEW MAN

3]partakers of His promise........His promise, His oath, and yes....His covenant.....just like the word used in titus which I quoted...promise.....is the Covenant.....you know...the One that is not used according to your ideas.

4] In Christ by the gospel.....the Covenant and the kingdom are all a part of the gospel....they are all comntained in Acts 16:31...whether you believe it is so ,or not.

You read the Scriptures through biased and rose-colored glasses. He is simply explaining to the believers at Ephesus how all these believers (Gentiles and Jews) are now one in Christ.

I do not divide up God's truth when God has revealed it as a complete whole as he reveals His eternal purpose to the church. The very thing dispensationism stands on "rightly dividing the scripture...has turned into wrongly dividing what God has put together.

There is no more division. The wall between them is broken down. That is the teaching of the passage. There is no covenant for the gentiles there.

Again you miss the whole point of gentile inclusion in the covenant.That is why it is written and you look at it ,dance around it, and miss it.:thumbsup:

The covenants are given to Israel. We are all one in Christ; not one in Israel. You have it backwards.

One of us has it quite backwards...I know who it is!

What is falsehood?
I was Catholic for 20 years. They believe in Covenant theology.
So do the Presbyterians, the Lutherans, the Anglicans and many others.
I don't. It is error. It is the wrong way of interpreting the Bible.

This is why many baptists are defective in the whole area of Covenant as I posted.You are the poster child of this.I believe it to be based on the wrong system....Dispensational error.

Yes...those who believe in Jesus will be saved

.
Yes by His mercy and grace found in the Covenant of redemption and grace.

The falsehood is to believe that one is saved through a covenant.

This statement is sure folly.To deny this fact is error.Jesus was sent by the Father to accomplish all of the terms of the Covenant. You can stay opposed to it. I will believe it.

Where does it say that in Scripture. This is the second time I ask you and you have no answer.

The teaching is found all through scripture...first revealed in Gen 3:15mostly found uses words like Covenant , Oath, Promise, Loyal Love,Mercy.
it does not always say the exact word.....Covenant....like when Acts 16:31 speaks of being "saved"...does not use the words...born from above.

maybe that is why you do not "see it" even though it is in many places.

My adherence was and is to the Word of God. I simply quoted you Acts 16:31, and you accuse me of wrongly dividing the Word. How does posting one verse wrongly divide the Word?

One verse does not stand alone...they stand in relation to God's complete revelation.One verse does not contradict any other as your system does ,wrongly dividing truth.

I am not wrong.

You are quite wrong on this teaching...no doubt.:wavey:

You posted a string of Scriptures that have to do with God's covenant between Jehovah and Israel. That has nothing to do with the NT believer. The covenant were given to Israel.

Some see it...some do not yet, but will in time, some will not see it.

The book of Ephesians was written to believers. They didn't need to be saved. If you don't know why Paul was writing that passage you should find out.

This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand but you revert to your poor method of interaction as if I do not know it was written to the church.
I know exactly why he was writing about God's electing love before time...His covenant mercies...that is what i express to you DHK...as you look but do not see it as it evidenced by what you post.

You are biased when you read the Scripture,

As if perhaps you are not??? Everyone is DHK.....even you my friend.

and furthermore need to establish an historical context before you jump to such conclusions.

More of the same....

You said "we are saved by the covenants."

Yes Jesus is in Covenant with the other persons of the Godhead

That is as close to heresy as one can get.

No..your next quote here is:

The only "covenant" that Christ makes is that one when we trust him as Savior and consequently have a personal relationship with him.

You lack understanding of the very basis of the salvation you speak about.

I don't need any other covenant.

God alone decides the terms and persons included in the Covenant.He did that before the world was...not when you felt like it DHK...
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

yes ...before the world began...the Covenant of redemption and grace...thats when it was DHK ...not when you did something a few tears ago...nope...
1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

I have a personal relationship with Christ.

What you have is between you and God.

I hope you are not calling Paul a "lunatic" who spoke of the dispensation of grace in Ephesians 3.

That is only your opinion. You assert this without scripture.

No...not Paul. Only the system of dispensationalism which divides the truth and fragemnts it...that is lunacy.

God deals with individuals in His own way and in his own time. He is not confined by YOUR "defined" covenants. As if you could contain God and box Him in by your covenants is an absurd idea.

As I posted earlier God has revealed Himself as a Covenant keeping God...it is His idea and revelation...not an absurdity as you say-
14 The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

The covenant was one-sided.

God's covenant always is.

 

[The Biblicist]

repeat of the same

 

[The Biblicist]

Where do you as a baptist weigh in on this issue.In another thread these ideas were put forth???

Idea 1-


Idea2-


Idea3-


idea 4-




Idea5-



How do you see it? interact with any or all of these ideas...or express your own "baptist understanding"......feel free to use scripture:thumbs::wavey::type:

The connection is type versus antitype. The Old Covenant provided a TYPE of God's people and God's salvation.

Circumcision occurred 8 days AFTER physical birth thus a TYPE of new birth thus new birth being the antitype. The PHYSICAL circumcised Jewish male baby TYPIFIED the SPIRITUAL new born child of God.

Baptism occurs AFTER spiritual birth and thus is a TYPE of the inward washing and regeneration through the empowered gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:4-6; 1 Thes. 1:5; 2 cor. 4:6).

Under the OLD covenant all that was essential to be part of the covenant community was PHYSICAL circumcision without any SPIRITUAL circumcision and all PHYSICALLY circumcised must then be additional taught to know the Lord because that knowledge did not come with PHYSICAL birth.

Under the NEW covenant none need to be taught to know the Lord from the "least of them to the greatest of them" for they ALL know the Lord by the very act of entrance into that covenant (Jer. 31:34; Ezek. 36:26-27) by new birth (Jn. 17:3).

The "old" covenant people provided a TYPE of the "new" covenant people. However, even under the "old" covenant TYPE there were those circumcised in heart experiencing the antitype through the "blood of the everlasting covenant" which knows of no dispensational types and antitypes.

Finally, one must distinguish between the "old" and "new" covenants as PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS versus personal applications. As PUBLIC administrations they were both DECLARATIVE in nature and characterized by a PUBLIC qualified ministries, ordinances and house of worship. The public "old" covenant administration DECLARED the truth in types as well as in gospel preaching (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4;2; Isa. 53) as does the public "new" covenant administration DECLARE the truth in types (baptism, Lord's Supper) as well as gospel preaching. The PUBLIC administrations whether "old" or "new" do not convey these truths PERSONALLY to anyone but only PUBLICALLY declare them. Personal conveyance has always been through the HEAVENLY ADMINISTRATION ("the blood of the everlasting covenant) direct to the heart of the elect regardless of when they lived (1) Prior to Moses; (2) during the Mosaic administration (3) after the Mosiaic administration during the church administration as there has never been but one way, one Savior, one salvation, one gospel for all men in all times. Abraham is the model for salvation prior to both public administrations "old" or "new."

The superiority of the "new" over the "old" public administration is the difference between type and fulfillment. The "old" administration looks forward with anticipation to the first coming of Christ while the "new" public administration looks back at fulfillment and forward with anticipation to the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[Iconoclast]

The connection is type versus antitype. The Old Covenant provided a TYPE of God's people and God's salvation.

Circumcision occurred 8 days AFTER physical birth thus a TYPE of new birth thus new birth being the antitype. The PHYSICAL circumcised Jewish male baby TYPIFIED the SPIRITUAL new born child of God.

Baptism occurs AFTER spiritual birth and thus is a TYPE of the inward washing and regeneration through the empowered gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 6:4-6; 1 Thes. 1:5; 2 cor. 4:6).

Under the OLD covenant all that was essential to be part of the covenant community was PHYSICAL circumcision without any SPIRITUAL circumcision and all PHYSICALLY circumcised must then be additional taught to know the Lord because that knowledge did not come with PHYSICAL birth.

Under the NEW covenant none need to be taught to know the Lord from the "least of them to the greatest of them" for they ALL know the Lord by the very act of entrance into that covenant (Jer. 31:34; Ezek. 36:26-27) by new birth (Jn. 17:3).

The "old" covenant people provided a TYPE of the "new" covenant people. However, even under the "old" covenant TYPE there were those circumcised in heart experiencing the antitype through the "blood of the everlasting covenant" which knows of no dispensational types and antitypes.

Finally, one must distinguish between the "old" and "new" covenants as PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS versus personal applications. As PUBLIC administrations they were both DECLARATIVE in nature and characterized by a PUBLIC qualified ministries, ordinances and house of worship. The public "old" covenant administration DECLARED the truth in types as well as in gospel preaching (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4;2; Isa. 53) as does the public "new" covenant administration DECLARE the truth in types (baptism, Lord's Supper) as well as gospel preaching. The PUBLIC administrations whether "old" or "new" do not convey these truths PERSONALLY to anyone but only PUBLICALLY declare them. Personal conveyance has always been through the HEAVENLY ADMINISTRATION ("the blood of the everlasting covenant) direct to the heart of the elect regardless of when they lived (1) Prior to Moses; (2) during the Mosaic administration (3) after the Mosiaic administration during the church administration as there has never been but one way, one Savior, one salvation, one gospel for all men in all times. Abraham is the model for salvation prior to both public administrations "old" or "new."

The superiority of the "new" over the "old" public administration is the difference between type and fulfillment. The "old" administration looks forward with anticipation to the first coming of Christ while the "new" public administration looks back at fulfillment and forward with anticipation to the Second Coming of Christ.

Another good post,fitting much into this one.This should be a starting point for all baptists.As covenants are at the core of all that has come to pass in this world between God and man.:thumbs::wavey:
Certainly there is not much to object to here.

 

[convicted1]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Circumcision was a putting away of the filth of the flesh, so is baptism. Where circumcision was a sign of the covenant prior to the advent of the promised seed, baptism is a sign of the covenant afterward.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[thomas15]

There is no connection between baptism and circumcision whatsoever.

The proof is in the reality that circumcision was performed on every male, but he a newborn into the Jewish community or a slave purchased to serve the family. It has no connection to his spiritual life whatsoever.

Baptism, on the other hand, is prescribed as a public testimony of what God has done within. A non-believer is not allowed baptism, because it is an outward sign of an inner faith and change, something the non-believer has not experienced.

In short, the Old Covenant had a physical means of entrance into God's presence, which we also know is not possible. In contrast, the New Covenant has a spiritual means of entrance: one must believe and be saved.

Correct. Another proof is that Paul had the already believing and baptised Timothy (who's father was a Greek) circumcised. But fact does not work well in the context of covenant theology so the presbyterians on this board try to shrugg it off.