Bruce,
Ceremonially, yes.

I am certain that this could be considered as providential hindrances.

This is speculation.

Again, speculation.

So then you agree that they are recipients of a circumcision; above you seem to be saying they are'nt circumcised?

Correct. And how was this accomplished? As you have said above. I just want to keep the discussion clear for Mark.

How was the blood spilled upon them if not by their federal heads circumcision? Right; some of the ceremonial stuff.....

I agree.

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

This is the key question.

See Daniel's (Poiman) post.

A good conscience is a response of faith, a response to covenant inclusion. It is not a requirement in order to receive either the OT or NT covenant, but a requirement of the covenant upon receiving the sign, whether OT or NT. Even if circumcisioin and baptism are deemed unrelated, yet this certainly remains quite intact.

But surely there must be some relation of circumcision to baptism, since all the OT signifies and points to the NT. Christ's coming and work of salvation revealed to us the mysteries of faith concealed in the OT. The OT saints longed to know what we now commonly know through the NT. Surely it is not a stretch to believe that OT circumcision be related to baptism, since both are God's signs to us that He has called un into His covenant. Neither of these signify our accepting of His invitation, our response to God; they both signify God's inclusion of us into His covenant. Both are an obedience of faith; they require of us to have a clear conscience within that covenant, not in order to be received into it. We are received by grace, and that not by our own doing. This was as true for the OT sign as for the NT sign. How can circumcision and baptism not be related? These things are the things the OT covenant members longed to know about their membership in it.

__________________
JohnV :detective:

John Vandervliet
Ontario, Canada
member of: Canadian Reformed Church
"In coming to understand anything we are rejecting the facts as they are for us in favour of the facts as they are" C.S Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism

Physical Ordinance:
Scripturally, circumcision was done unbeknownst to the person receiving it.
Scripturally, baptism was done after the person repented.

Spiritual Ordinance:
Scripturally, God circumcised the heart of the elect sometime after the physical circumcision.
Scripturally, God caused a 'good conscience' to be manifest in the elect before water-baptism. (1Pet 3:21)

__________________
Frank
member/Reformed Baptist Church, NJ
1689 BCF
Technician in NewYork
Titus 2:13
...looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus...

What? How do you know this?

Two ways;
Simple logic-- did God circumcise the heart before the 8th day of a person? A person can't know he is a sinner even on the 8th day. He has no knowledge. An infant is as an imbecile(yes, all speculation but atleast for me I know I was an imbecile about my sins even at 10 years old).

Conversion (ordo salutis-ly speaking) happens at the start of sanctification. Regeneration (or the new man) is the change that causes conversion. The new-man(change of desires from world-directed to God-directed) happens after the circumcision of the heart. What evidence of the new-man, or of conversion is there for a person who doesn't even know he's a sinner, God's will, the seperation of God and man, the gospel? All of these are required to rightly understand that a person desires the will of God only after God has converted them. You cannot desire the will of God until the circumcision of the heart. These are pretty much why I don't believe paedobaptism in the first place.

I just noticed the romans 4:11 verse. I wasn't referring to adult circumcision, I was referring to the global understanding of circumcision which is the eigth day. Adult circumcision is so rare that it's probably less than a fraction of one percent of the people who's done that. Obviously you can be circumcised of the heart and then unknowingly disobey God's will by being physically circumcised in adulthood, which would be trying to be made right by the law. But even then, if God has truly regenerated a person and justified him, I very much doubt he will desire to be made right by circumcision. He obviously doesn't understand what Christ did for him then. So in any case, even after being circumcised of the heart, I doubt anyone would go and get circumcised.

I meant infant circumcision in the prior post.

Hi Scott,

I assume he is referring to those who are seeking their salvation (to be justified…) by the Law of Moses and the acts it requires.

The verse I quoted was Galatians 5:6. I think I see where you are coming from, though I could be wrong, and have been many times before. Still, I am not sure how the context of ‘those who seek to be justified by the law’ changes the meaning of verse 6. Circumcision (the act of removing the foreskin) now has zero significance to the Christian whether legally, practically or in any other sense (except perhaps hygiene).

The Old Covenant, I would assume.

__________________
Mark
Independent baptist
Singapore

You're on the brink of gettin it. This person Paul was speaking of was looking to the circumcision for justification. This is the crux of this passage; circumcision never justified. In that, this passage has nothing to do with your original premise which was:

The sign whether it be circumcision in the old or baptism in the new "means something"; they just don't justify!


Specifically, the Covenant of Works; The covenant of works is still intact. If it were possible, like Adam, if he had kept the C of W's perfectly, he would have been justified by it. Thats why Paul says:

I assume you are refering to my reference to the bar mitzvah (son of the covenant). My point is that this ceremony placed him under the command of God, but that apart from this ordinance, there is no command. None. The males are commanded to go, females are not. Boys certainly didn't partake. "What do you mean by this service?" And you need a transition moment when boys become men, hence the "son of the covenant." This is most certianly related to the exam Jesus underwent at age 12. Thereafter he would go up to the feast.
First it must be demonstrated that the women were expected to participate in the memorial Passover. There is no Scriptural example I know of, with the possible exception of the (non-memorial) initial Passover, where the whole house appears to have (may have) eaten the meal. In Numbers 9, there is the first memorial Passover. Unclean men ask "what are we to do?" Moses receives allowance for them to keep it in the second month. Where is the question from the unclean women? No place.

Second, even if you assumed that women could partake if they were not unclean, there would be a huge number of Israelite women who NEVER partook of a Passover. Some women are as regular as Big Ben.
No, its not speculation at all. Its one reason why women (and children) weren't required to attend the yearly feasts. What's speculative is claiming that women, who weren't actually circumcised, participated in the Passover which demanded the rite.
Just show me one single verse to support what I contend is real speculation. I can show you the verses that command the males to appear 3X a year (Ex. 23:17; 34:23; Dt. 16:16).
No, I'm simply saying they participated in the cleanness (or uncleanness) of the nation--something that in some cases was only expressed outwardly by the menfolk. Likewise, the men and women of the nation participated in the priesthood vicariously; they were not therefore equally priests with the Levites through a "transmission" of sorts.
How it was accomplished was BY FAITH. I think OT believing women thought of themselves as privileged to be Israelites and as clean as their fathers and husbands and sons and as the nation, and did desire and hold dear the regeneration (circumcision) of their own hearts. But I don't supposed that they considered themselves as though they were bodily circumcised, just "virtually". That strikes me as amounting to sexual confusion. They were acceptable because their representatives were acceptable, and they believed the federal principle.
Women stood in the congregation, Ex. 24:8, and were sprinkled with the cleansing blood of the covenant. Likewise, they were atoned for on Yom Kippur.


Look, my point is--I don't feel as though we need to add complication to the question. The issue of female's participation in various matters of Old Covenant administration is simply diversionary. The answer to that question is a simple: "God removed an additional mark of separation in the transition from Old to New." End of story! He's allowed to do that. We don't need to resort to contortions of the federal principle (which is alive and well in both the OT and the NT) in order to justify baptism replacing circumcision. It just does, and that's that.

The crux of confusion is the claim that God made two different covenant arrangements with Abraham. And the idea that regeneration is itself a "sign" of a spiritual covenant. Regeneration is part of the reality of God's promise, not some invisible sign that doesn't "point" to anything because it can't be seen.

Peace.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Scott,

Sorry for my delayed response.

I think I see what you are getting at. Prehaps I was careless in my phrasing. I did not mean to say that the signs mean nothing. The point I was getting at was that circumcision in the OT meant something, but in the NT it means nothing. If I understand you correctly, you would say that that meaning has now been transferred to baptism. But circumcision, that surgical procedure, once meant something but does not anymore. My point was simply to demonstrate that between the old and the new there has been a change in the sign, hence we cannot take the OT passages on the sign and apply the directly without consulting the NT.

Mark,
Why can't we? It's a OT command that is eternal.

Scott,

My point was, if we read Gen 17 alone it sounds like circumcision is an eternal ordinance. But when we read the NT, we see that circumcision (the surgical procedure) has ceased to be an ordinance of the church. Even if you say it is now replaced by baptism, there has still been a change in the ordinance.

Circumcision of the flesh has been cleared up as a forshadow of the circumcision of the heart.