Hey there thisnumbersdisconnected,
What do you mean by "God's presence"?
Circumcision/regeneration? Circumcision/baptism?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Iconoclast, Aug 28, 2013.
Page 2 of 2
-
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
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.Click to expand...
Ot believers were to administer the sign to their children before the children were grown.Do you believe we should also? -
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.Click to expand...Iconoclast said: ↑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?Click to expand... -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterEd B said: ↑Hello Iconoclast.
Short answer: No I don’t.Click to expand...
For me this gets into the question of whether I hold to some form of covenant theology.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
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. -
DrJamesAch said: ↑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.Click to expand... -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.Click to expand...
His feet have already stood on the Mount of Olives. -
Iconoclast said: ↑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.:confused:;):confused::eek:
His feet have already stood on the Mount of Olives.Click to expand... -
Iconoclast said: ↑thomas15
Or.....imagine a person who reads the bible and does not see God's Covenants and God's covenant dealings with man.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
His feet have already stood on the Mount of Olives.Click to expand...
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. -
Iconoclast said: ↑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.Click to expand...
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 Well-Known MemberSite SupporterI 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.Click to expand...
The Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem is now the Holy City.Rev.21.....is after the White Throne Judgement.No one is following Origen. -
Iconoclast said: ↑The Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem is now the Holy City.Rev.21.....is after the White Throne Judgement.No one is following Origen.Click to expand...
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! -
Iconoclast said: ↑The Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem is now the Holy City.Rev.21.....is after the White Throne Judgement.No one is following Origen.Click to expand...
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.Click to expand...
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 RevelationClick to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
Take care Icon, have a blessed day!Click to expand...
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.' -
Jope said: ↑Hey there thisnumbersdisconnected ... What do you mean by "God's presence"?Click to expand...
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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,Click to expand...
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.
Page 2 of 2