Circumcision/regeneration? Circumcision/baptism?

[Jope]

Hey there thisnumbersdisconnected,

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.

What do you mean by "God's presence"?

 

[Ed B]

I am no theologian but for me idea 3 comes closest to what I believe. I base that to some degree on Colossians 2: 6-15. A simple reading of the English Bible, which is all I am capable of, tells me that baptism is the sign of our covenant illustrating our regeneration in Christ and replaces the OC circumcision of the flesh.

6 Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (ESV)

The practice of the Apostles to baptize new converts right away tells me it was not just a thing we do after counseling and completing a connection class. It was the first act of obedience, the sign of our covenant, and the pubic profession of our faith. Only it is superior to OC circumcision in another way: both genders get to participate.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (ESV)

I see no conflict in accepting baptism as the sign of our covenant while maintaining that the act itself is not a sacrament as the Romans would define it.

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


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.

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:

 

[Iconoclast]

Ed B;

The practice of the Apostles to baptize new converts right away tells me it was not just a thing we do after counseling and completing a connection class. It was the first act of obedience, the sign of our covenant, and the pubic profession of our faith. Only it is superior to OC circumcision in another way: both genders get to participate.

Galatians 3:28

I see no conflict in accepting baptism as the sign of our covenant while maintaining that the act itself is not a sacrament as the Romans would define it.

Hello Ed
Ot believers were to administer the sign to their children before the children were grown.Do you believe we should also?

 

[Ed B]

Hello Iconoclast.

Short answer: No I don’t.

For me this gets into the question of whether I hold to some form of covenant theology. I have an uncle-in-law who is a Presbyterian minister and have had fun discussions about this. I somewhat understand the reason behind why they baptize their infants who are born into a covenant family. But for now, I am not ready to embrace covenant theology to this level because the examples in scripture point to our sign of the covenant being for the elect after they respond to the Gospel.


There is no explicit example of Christian baptism of infants. It has to be implied either through a system of theology such as Covenant theology or through implied possibilities such as the Philippian Jailer and his family. We don't know if the Jailer had children too young to respond to the Gospel who baptized as part of his household.

When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” 29 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Ed B;


Hello Ed
Ot believers were to administer the sign to their children before the children were grown.Do you believe we should also?

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Iconoclast.

Short answer: No I don’t.

Me neither:thumbsup::wavey:

For me this gets into the question of whether I hold to some form of covenant theology.

Ed....I believe all christians have some "form" of covenant theology as covenants are at the heart of many core teaching. We differ on some aspects of it.What i am concerned about is baptists who deny any covenant teaching as it is all through the bible:thumbsup:

I have an uncle-in-law who is a Presbyterian minister and have had fun discussions about this. I somewhat understand the reason behind why they baptize their infants who are born into a covenant family.

They make a biblical case for it.....I do not think it is the correct case however.I believe we should understand why they believe as they do, and why we believe somewhat differently.

many baptists fight against them, but cannot explain why they believe as they do which is very ignorant for several reasons ,and shows a very defective understanding of scripture.

But for now, I am not ready to embrace covenant theology to this level because the examples in scripture point to our sign of the covenant being for the elect after they respond to the Gospel.

Sounds good to me....:thumbsup:

There is no explicit example of Christian baptism of infants. It has to be implied either through a system of theology such as Covenant theology or through implied possibilities such as the Philippian Jailer and his family. We don't know if the Jailer had children too young to respond to the Gospel who baptized as part of his household.

Agreed My friend.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Wow what a lot of useless rhetoric on this subject.

If circumcision represented the spiritual condition of a person transferred to the NT by baptism, then women are hopeless.

I guess nobody ever thought for a minute that there were OT Israelites that were circumcised who were NOT SAVED (all of the wicked kings of northern Israel were circumsized Jews). Circumcision was never intended to symbolize that a person was saved, it was used to show a physical difference between Jews and other nations.

 

[thomas15]

Wow what a lot of useless rhetoric on this subject.

If circumcision represented the spiritual condition of a person transferred to the NT by baptism, then women are hopeless.

I guess nobody ever thought for a minute that there were OT Israelites that were circumcised who were NOT SAVED (all of the wicked kings of northern Israel were circumsized Jews). Circumcision was never intended to symbolize that a person was saved, it was used to show a physical difference between Jews and other nations.

It really comes down to the fact that an individual can read and study Scripture and quote it at length but that doesn't mean they actually believe the words contained in it.

 

[Iconoclast]

thomas15

It really comes down to the fact that an individual can read and study Scripture and quote it at length but that doesn't mean they actually believe the words contained in it.

Or.....imagine a person who reads the bible and does not see God's Covenants and God's covenant dealings with man. The whole church has seen it through time,and yet a person reads a bible and fails to see it.

His feet have already stood on the Mount of Olives.

 

[thomas15]

thomas15



Or.....imagine a person who reads the bible and does not see God's Covenants and God's covenant dealings with man. The whole church has seen it through time,and yet a person reads a bible and fails to see it.

His feet have already stood on the Mount of Olives.

Well thanks for the fine example of that old saying that "kids do say the funniest things!"

 

[DHK]

thomas15
Or.....imagine a person who reads the bible and does not see God's Covenants and God's covenant dealings with man.

Imagine a person who keeps rejecting what the Bible says:
Romans 9:4--the covenants were given to Israel.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--According to the Scriptures God speaks in different ways to his people who live in different times (dispensations) according to his own sovereign will.
He is not bound by a man's system of "covenants." He works as he will according to His will at different times. He works according to his will and his grace.

The whole church has seen it through time,and yet a person reads a bible and fails to see it.

One cannot see that which is not there.

His feet have already stood on the Mount of Olives.

Which episode are you referring to?

When Christ comes to the Mount of Olives:
As His feet touch that mountain it will be cleft in two;
A great valley will be formed;
A great war will break out;
All of Israel's enemies will be destroyed;
The Antichrist and the False Prophet will be thrown into the Lake of Fire;
All Israel (the remnant) will be saved;
The Millennial Kingdom will begin;
We also who have previously believed in him will also reign (literally) with him.
The curse on this earth will be removed.
It will be transformed back to its Garden of Eden state.
All the world will worship Christ.

 

[DrJamesAch]

thomas15



Or.....imagine a person who reads the bible and does not see God's Covenants and God's covenant dealings with man. The whole church has seen it through time,and yet a person reads a bible and fails to see

His feet have already stood on the Mount of Olives.

Funny I've been to the Mount of Olives several times (I don't live very far from there, takes about an hour to get there) and I haven't seen where the Mount is split where Jesus supposedly landed already.

I also thought that Revelation 21:27 mentions that nothing will enter into Jerusalem that defiles, works abominations or makes a lie, and yet it is still occupied by Muslims and Catholics.

Where are the 12 walls of Jerusalem? I haven't seen those either. Oh that must be something that only Covenant Theologians can see. Well if you ever come to Israel please tell me what they look like since apparently I've been blinded.

Revelation also shows that DEATH was cast into the lake of fire, but people are still dying.

You Covenanters and Preterists (Gentry for example) say Nero was the antichrist, but yet Nero committed suicide when Paul said that the man of sin would be destroyed from the brightness of Christ's coming.

You claim AD 70 was the fulfillment of the armies that attacked Jerusalem, yet in Revelation 9 these armies (PLURAL, not a SINGULAR army like Rome) came from the EAST. Rome is WEST of Jerusalem.

You claim the temple in Ezekiel 40-48 was the fulfillment of the temple in Revelation. COUNT THE CHAMBERS. They're not the same temple

I could spent another 15 minutes writing out over one hundred different events that HAVE NOT occurred, but as long as Covenant Theology maintains an allegorical view of interpretation you can claim that Alf was the beast and nobody is allowed to question it.

The "whole church" has NOT seen it because the allegorical interpretion of Origen was rejected by the church and the same interpretation method of Origen used by Augustine to develop amillennial theology wasn't even popular until 400 years after the church was founded. There is no Bible believing churches found anywhere before Augustine that accepted the amillennial view from which post-millennialism, covenant theology, preterism and dominionism are the bastard cousins of.

 

[Iconoclast]

I also thought that Revelation 21:27 mentions that nothing will enter into Jerusalem that defiles, works abominations or makes a lie, and yet it is still occupied by Muslims and Catholics.

The Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem is now the Holy City.Rev.21.....is after the White Throne Judgement.No one is following Origen.

 

[thomas15]

The Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem is now the Holy City.Rev.21.....is after the White Throne Judgement.No one is following Origen.

I don't know who or what you are following but I can say with a certain amount of confidence that your theology renders useless much of the prophetic Scriptures including much of the gospel of Matthew and the book of Revelation.

In a real debate with people seeking the truth, there are rules. The side with the weakest position has several options, among them are intimidation, insult the opposition and what I call the sledgehammer approach. The sledgehammer approach is your tool of choice since the forum will not tolerate in insult approach.

Speaking for me personally I couldn't care less what you say and that is mainly because most of what you put up here is simply lifted from other sources who you think have it right. But still, for the last two years or so I have asked and not received a Biblical answer to the basic question at the heart of covenant theology. But I don't expect you to have that answer because the full time professional presbyterian covenant theology defenders at the PB board don't have one either.

Take care Icon, have a blessed day!

 

[DrJamesAch]

The Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem is now the Holy City.Rev.21.....is after the White Throne Judgement.No one is following Origen.

"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name" Revelation 3:12

New Jerusalem is not IN HEAVEN it's ON EARTH, and it occurs AFTER the tribulation, BEFORE the NEW HEAVENS and NEW EARTH occur after the thousand years.

Also, if Revelation was the fulfillment of the destruction of Jerusalem, explain this,

"And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." Revelation 20:9. Did fire come down out of heaven and devour Titus and his armies? Of course not.

Notice THIS battle happens at JERUSALEM, and in Revelation 19 when Christ returns WITH HIS SAINTS FROM HEAVEN, not saints as 'priests reigning spiritually ON EARTH", the event occurs at MEGIDDO. Revelation 16:16.
Now do I need to post a map to show you the difference or can you manage that on your own!

 

[Iconoclast]

thomas15

I don't know who or what you are following but I can say with a certain amount of confidence that your theology renders useless much of the prophetic Scriptures including much of the gospel of Matthew and the book of Revelation.

I understand what you are saying and how it could seem that way to you.I am "following after truth" wherever I can find it.
I am not dogmatic on many aspects of eschatology and still have many questions and much to learn.Strangely enough I was so confident when I thought I was premill and had it figured out.
I am confident that we are victorious by the blood of the Lamb and that he will return on the last day:thumbs:

I have been leaning toward postmill ideas and teaching in that I cannot answer it in a way that I am sure of. Amill is held by most of the reformed that I know and it does not bother me.I just find it is sort of general as to its teaching . The postmill seems to try and match the verses more in detail than the Amill.
When I read or listen to some of the better teachers...they sound really good,until I hear those points countered by the other side.

So...I am a bit of a mix.

your theology renders useless much of the prophetic Scriptures including much of the gospel of Matthew and the book of Revelation

No...I believe I am forced to go where the Apostles point to by saying how many of thosde passages are fulfilled as the gospel spreads....

I have said it often....in romans 9-15...isa.is quoted 17 times about gentiles coming into the Kingdom.....now...

In a real debate with people seeking the truth, there are rules.

Benjamin tries to get me with this whole debate rules reasoning.I am not as concerned with scoring debate "points"....I do not see theological discussion as if there is a lawyer who defends a guilty client and gets him acquitted by law loopholes, even though he is guilty. I prefer to see what you have to offer scripturally.

The side with the weakest position has several options, among them are intimidation, insult the opposition and what I call the sledgehammer approach. The sledgehammer approach is your tool of choice since the forum will not tolerate in insult approach.

I am not sure what you mean,unless you refer to me cutting and pasting good sources that you cannot really respond to, biblically.

Speaking for me personally I couldn't care less what you say and that is mainly because most of what you put up here is simply lifted from other sources who you think have it right.

That is correct Thomas. I post good sources that offer good verses for the most part....of course I mostly agree with them.Why would I post what I think is error? If I cut and paste it saves me time as I type slowly.
In person ...there is no cut and paste....just face to face interaction with open bibles. I have attempted to meet several persons face to face...not so easy. I am in ohio now having lunch, heading to Ca. for tues/weds deliveries. along I -80.....to I -5.....if you will be along the interstate I would meet with you anytime...but you are down near Dorney Park on 78..correct.

But still, for the last two years or so I have asked and not received a Biblical answer to the basic question at the heart of covenant theology. But I don't expect you to have that answer because the full time professional presbyterian covenant theology defenders at the PB board don't have one either.

Thomas.....you have been answered but reject the answers, The brothers on PB are biblically strong and if you are not up to it, they will shred any weak argumentation. I have been biblically corrected several times there and am thankful for any such correction.There are times when I believe I have stood my ground as a RB.

Take care Icon, have a blessed day!

Take no care,neither be anxious brother....then the day will be blessed...
Jesus said:
34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
20 teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,) and lo, I am with you all the days -- till the full end of the age.'

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Hey there thisnumbersdisconnected ... What do you mean by "God's presence"?

They believe the works of the Law enabled them to walk in His presence, that He did not despise them because they were "good." Most of the time.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ach


"

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name" Revelation 3:12

New Jerusalem is not IN HEAVEN it's ON EARTH,

This passage you quote says it is in Heaven,,,,then comes down..It is the dwelling place of God with His Covenant people from all ages...it comes to earth on the last day...

It's rule and authority is found in Jesus incarnation and building His NT church....The Israel of God...Christian Israel...

Real Christians are already citizens of this heavenly city.
20 For our citizenship is in the heavens, whence also a Saviour we await -- the Lord Jesus Christ --

21 who shall transform the body of our humiliation to its becoming conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working of his power, even to subject to himself the all things.