Featured Circumcision/regeneration? Circumcision/baptism?

Hey there thisnumbersdisconnected,

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

 

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.

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 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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

One cannot see that which is not there.

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

"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!

 

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.