Circumcision of the heart

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

It is not uncommon to hear my esteemed Paedobaptist brethren attempt to discredit the Credobaptist position by asserting that Baptism is the new circumcision. While it is true that Baptism is correlated with circumcision, how does this assertion serve to nullify the Credobaptist position? As the Scriptures attest, circumcision is now of the heart, not of the flesh, and we circumcise our hearts through faith. This spiritual reality is indeed correlated with Baptism, which serves as the sign and seal of salvation, as well as an effectual means of grace.

 

[Polanus1561]

I see it as more of a defence against the Baptist allegation that children need faith to be baptized.

OT child - gets sign - must believe God's work to give what sign promised. Circum.
NT child - gets sign - must believe God's work to give what sign promised. Baptism.

 

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

Ok so now you’re admitting the child needs faith in order to have the promises attached effectively proving baptism isn’t efficable until faith.

 

[Polanus1561]

[Comment retracted as OP has kindly amended his reply #3 here]

 

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

Was hoping you would continue with the very well worded respectful language in your first post despite your young age. But be that as it may.

My apologies if my prior response came across as arrogant or ignorant. I’ll do better to remain respectful and Christ like.

 

[erickinho1bra]

Ok so now you’re admitting the child needs faith in order to have the promises attached effectively proving baptism isn’t efficable until faith.

I’m not a paedobaptist but I think one way to think of paedobaptism is to draw a really strong equal sign between circumcision and baptism.

Paedobaptist view (as far as I understand):
Did babies of OT believers need to be circumcized? Yes
Do babies of NT believers need to be baptized? Yes

Did circumcision alone save in the OT? No
Does baptism alone save in the NT? No

Did a circumcised child have to have faith in the Messiah to be saved in the OT? Yes
Does a baptized child have to have faith in Christ to be saved in the NT? Yes

Is circumcision generally a sign and seal of the righteousness that comes by faith and proof of what God has done to and for the individual (even if that child ends up not believing)? Yes
Is baptism generally a sign and seal of the righteousness that comes by faith and proof of what God has done to and for the individual (even if that child ends up not believing)? Yes

Paedobaptist brothers, if I misrepresented your view point, please forgive me and be gentle in your rebuke (I’m still learning what your believe )

 

[NickR]

It is not uncommon to hear my esteemed Paedobaptist brethren attempt to discredit the Credobaptist position by asserting that Baptism is the new circumcision. While it is true that Baptism is correlated with circumcision, how does this assertion serve to nullify the Credobaptist position? As the Scriptures attest, circumcision is now of the heart, not of the flesh, and we circumcise our hearts through faith. This spiritual reality is indeed correlated with Baptism, which serves as the sign and seal of salvation, as well as an effectual means of grace.

Friend,

I would be greatly helped in understanding your argument and claim if you cited the Scripture you are talking about and explained clearly from the text what you are arguing. However, I presume you are speaking about Colossians 2, so I'll cite it below and explain briefly why the text is used as evidence for Covenantal Baptism.

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, 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. 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, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. -Colossians 2:11-14 ESV

First of all, the context of this text is important to note. Before this passage in the first and the beginning of the second chapter Paul is discussing the preeminence of Christ and some practical implications for Paul's ministry. However, most relevant for our purpose is the discussion throughout the book in which Paul is discussing the preeminence of Christ and the fulfillment or change of various aspects of the Old Testament whether it be the ceremonial law and it's fulfilment (v. 16-23), or even the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision as is discussed in the text above. Throughout the text Paul is clearing things up for the Christians at Colossae, who were presumably being captivated by certain philosophies which required asceticism or legalism according to the ceremonial law, by explaining how they find their fulfilment in Jesus Christ. No longer do you have to observe new moon festivals and abstain from eating certain foods, for those things were shadows, and Christ is the fulfilment. No longer do you have to observe special Sabbath festivals (the text does not teach the abrogation or entire fulfillment of the weekly Sabbath, but of special high days and festivals found in the ceremonial law), because Christ is the fulfilment. Having said that, when Paul enters into his discussion on Circumcision he is showing how Christ and the new dispensation brought about by Him in the Covenant of Grace has brought about a replacement of the Old Testament sacrament which was circumcision. Paul is clearly talking about the spiritual aspect of baptism and relating it to the spiritual aspect of circumcision. The two are not merely complimentary or similar, circumcision was a precursor for the sacrament of baptism in the New Testament. That is to say, baptism replaces circumcision as the entry sign and sacrament for the people of God, which is the Church. Paul is clearly speaking about the spiritual aspect of circumcision and how in the New Testament that reality is realized in baptism. (See the Westminster Confession 27.5)

As a Baptist presumably committed to the London Confession, I don't believe we have any disagreement yet. Both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists agree with this scheme. However, where we will diverge is over the continuity which paedobaptists believe is inherent in both sacraments. A Paedobaptist would look at this text and claim that it gives ample warrant to understand continuity in the way in which the sacrament is to be administered. That is to say, if the sacrament of Circumcision, directly replaced by baptism in the New Testament (remember Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians generally both agree on this), is to be given to infants in the Old Testament, there is no reason to not administer the sacrament to infants in the New Testament. In fact, there is abundant reason to administer the sacrament to infants if the two are related in the way in which this text demonstrates. If the substance of the Sacraments in the New Testament are the same as those of the Old Testament as the WCF states, you'll have a difficult time explaining why the infants of believers are all of the sudden (without any Scriptural mention) no longer privy to the sacrament, after a few thousand years of salvation history including them (James Bannerman uses this argument in a good book you should check out called I Will Build My Church, published by Westminster Seminary Press).

To wrap up my rambling, I would encourage you to rethink the idea that circumcision is now of the heart. Brother, circumcision was always of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16), that's exactly what Paul is so beautifully explaining in this text. In Christ we have been circumcised of heart, cut off from the world and claimed by God. The same spiritual truth is true in both spiritual circumcision which occured in the Old Testament and spiritual baptism which occurs in the New. Your salvation is a freely given gift, just as the salvation of Abraham was. And God so cares for us and desires that we be reminded of His promise to save that He gave us a sacrament, just as He did Abraham. O brother, give thanks for the loving kindness of God in reminding you of His promise to save.

Your servant in our majestic Lord Jesus Christ,
Nick R.

 

[JeffR]

Each point has a point, and seeing the posts here has helped me think more clearly about this issue. In my humble opinion, as valid as each is, it isn't a fundamental matter, and it's lamentable that in the past there was such persecution over such a thing.

 

[Polanus1561]

I’m not a paedobaptist but I think one way to think of paedobaptism is to draw a really strong equal sign between circumcision and baptism.

Paedobaptist view (as far as I understand):
Did babies of OT believers need to be circumcized? Yes
Do babies of NT believers need to be baptized? Yes

Did circumcision alone save in the OT? No
Does baptism alone save in the NT? No

Did a circumcised child have to have faith in the Messiah to be saved in the OT? Yes
Does a baptized child have to have faith in Christ to be saved in the NT? Yes

Is circumcision generally a sign and seal of the righteousness that comes by faith and proof of what God has done to and for the individual (even if that child ends up not believing)? Yes
Is baptism generally a sign and seal of the righteousness that comes by faith and proof of what God has done to and for the individual (even if that child ends up not believing)? Yes

Paedobaptist brothers, if I misrepresented your view point, please forgive me and be gentle in your rebuke (I’m still learning what your believe )

Excellent. But I would not say "proof of what God has done" - what has God done here?
I would say: It is a visible sign or message of what God promises - which is to be received by faith.

 

[TheInquirer]

Colossians 2 links circumcision of the heart (not the flesh), faith, being made alive, forgiveness of sins, which are marks of salvation, with baptism. For the life of me, I could never understand why a paedobaptist would ever want to get anywhere near that text in defending baptizing an unregenerate infant.

Brother, circumcision was always of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16),

That’s not correct - there is a circumcision of the flesh and a circumcision of the heart, a distinction Paul makes in Romans 2:28-29.

If you are correcting the idea that there was no circumcision of the heart in the OT, then I agree with you.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I could never understand why a paedobaptist would ever want to get anywhere near that text in defending baptizing an unregenerate infant.

Probably because our confession states that baptism is a a sign and seal of, among other things, regeneration.

 

[erickinho1bra]

Excellent. But I would not say "proof of what God has done" - what has God done here?
I would say: It is a visible sign or message of what God promises - which is to be received by faith.

Forgive me if that was incorrect. I think I wrote “Is baptism generally a sign and seal of the righteousness that comes by faith and proof of what God has done to and for the individual (even if that child ends up not believing)? Yes” because I think I’ve heard it taught that circumcision and baptism is a sign that God has called you out. It is not something you do (i.e. join yourself to God’s people), but it is something God does (cf. He called out Abraham and his children after him to enter into the promise in Genesis 17:7).

Is this incorrect? Is baptism in the paedobaptist view not a sign of God calling out someone and declaring them to be His (Exodus 13:2; Ezekiel 16:20-21)?

 

[LittleFaith]

Forgive me if that was incorrect. I think I wrote “Is baptism generally a sign and seal of the righteousness that comes by faith and proof of what God has done to and for the individual (even if that child ends up not believing)? Yes” because I think I’ve heard it taught that circumcision and baptism is a sign that God has called you out. It is not something you do (i.e. join yourself to God’s people), but it is something God does (cf. He called out Abraham and his children after him to enter into the promise in Genesis 17:7).

Is this incorrect? Is baptism in the paedobaptist view not a sign of God calling out someone and declaring them to be His (Exodus 13:2; Ezekiel 16:20-21)?

It is the external sign and seal of the covenant promise which God makes effectual in the hearts of the elect according to his will.

 

[cthorn14]

That’s not correct - there is a circumcision of the flesh and a circumcision of the heart, a distinction Paul makes in Romans 2:28-29.

It's true, one may have the sign without necessarily possessing the thing signified. However, there is a sacramental union between the two. Says Berkhof, "Where the sacrament is received in faith, the grace of God accompanies it. According to this view the external sign becomes a means employed by the Holy Spirit in the communication of divine grace". See also Belgic Confession Art. 33.

It's this reformed understanding of sacramental union that causes us to go to passages like Colossians 2 in defense of paedobaptism. If baptism is only a sign of salvific benefits, then your point is valid. However, paedobaptists and anti-paedobaptists generally don't share a common understanding of sacramental union.

 

[LittleFaith]

It's true, one may have the sign without necessarily possessing the thing signified. However, there is a sacramental union between the two. Says Berkhof, "Where the sacrament is received in faith, the grace of God accompanies it. According to this view the external sign becomes a means employed by the Holy Spirit in the communication of divine grace". See also Belgic Confession Art. 33.

From a paedobaptist viewpoint, what are the implications of this for a child from whom baptism is withheld in accord with the credobaptist view? Yes, this is related to a similar question raised in the baptism thread started by @erickinho1bra .

 

[cthorn14]

From a paedobaptist viewpoint, what are the implications of this for a child from whom baptism is withheld in accord with the credobaptist view? Yes, this is related to a similar question raised in the baptism thread started by @erickinho1bra .

From a purely confessional perspective, we can't say much beyond this.

WCF 28.6: Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

More could likely be said from a pastoral perspective, but I am not qualified in that department. It should be noted that in many cases withholding the sacrament is a sin of ignorance.

 

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

Friend,

I would be greatly helped in understanding your argument and claim if you cited the Scripture you are talking about and explained clearly from the text what you are arguing. However, I presume you are speaking about Colossians 2, so I'll cite it below and explain briefly why the text is used as evidence for Covenantal Baptism.

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, 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. 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, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. -Colossians 2:11-14 ESV

First of all, the context of this text is important to note. Before this passage in the first and the beginning of the second chapter Paul is discussing the preeminence of Christ and some practical implications for Paul's ministry. However, most relevant for our purpose is the discussion throughout the book in which Paul is discussing the preeminence of Christ and the fulfillment or change of various aspects of the Old Testament whether it be the ceremonial law and it's fulfilment (v. 16-23), or even the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision as is discussed in the text above. Throughout the text Paul is clearing things up for the Christians at Colossae, who were presumably being captivated by certain philosophies which required asceticism or legalism according to the ceremonial law, by explaining how they find their fulfilment in Jesus Christ. No longer do you have to observe new moon festivals and abstain from eating certain foods, for those things were shadows, and Christ is the fulfilment. No longer do you have to observe special Sabbath festivals (the text does not teach the abrogation or entire fulfillment of the weekly Sabbath, but of special high days and festivals found in the ceremonial law), because Christ is the fulfilment. Having said that, when Paul enters into his discussion on Circumcision he is showing how Christ and the new dispensation brought about by Him in the Covenant of Grace has brought about a replacement of the Old Testament sacrament which was circumcision. Paul is clearly talking about the spiritual aspect of baptism and relating it to the spiritual aspect of circumcision. The two are not merely complimentary or similar, circumcision was a precursor for the sacrament of baptism in the New Testament. That is to say, baptism replaces circumcision as the entry sign and sacrament for the people of God, which is the Church. Paul is clearly speaking about the spiritual aspect of circumcision and how in the New Testament that reality is realized in baptism. (See the Westminster Confession 27.5)

As a Baptist presumably committed to the London Confession, I don't believe we have any disagreement yet. Both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists agree with this scheme. However, where we will diverge is over the continuity which paedobaptists believe is inherent in both sacraments. A Paedobaptist would look at this text and claim that it gives ample warrant to understand continuity in the way in which the sacrament is to be administered. That is to say, if the sacrament of Circumcision, directly replaced by baptism in the New Testament (remember Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians generally both agree on this), is to be given to infants in the Old Testament, there is no reason to not administer the sacrament to infants in the New Testament. In fact, there is abundant reason to administer the sacrament to infants if the two are related in the way in which this text demonstrates. If the substance of the Sacraments in the New Testament are the same as those of the Old Testament as the WCF states, you'll have a difficult time explaining why the infants of believers are all of the sudden (without any Scriptural mention) no longer privy to the sacrament, after a few thousand years of salvation history including them (James Bannerman uses this argument in a good book you should check out called I Will Build My Church, published by Westminster Seminary Press).

To wrap up my rambling, I would encourage you to rethink the idea that circumcision is now of the heart. Brother, circumcision was always of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16), that's exactly what Paul is so beautifully explaining in this text. In Christ we have been circumcised of heart, cut off from the world and claimed by God. The same spiritual truth is true in both spiritual circumcision which occured in the Old Testament and spiritual baptism which occurs in the New. Your salvation is a freely given gift, just as the salvation of Abraham was. And God so cares for us and desires that we be reminded of His promise to save that He gave us a sacrament, just as He did Abraham. O brother, give thanks for the loving kindness of God in reminding you of His promise to save.

Your servant in our majestic Lord Jesus Christ,
Nick R.

Hello Brother, I am referring to Romans 2:26-29 as well as I might add to the discussion Romans 3:1. I think Paul here is making the clear distinction that physical circumcision (which baptism now signifies) is not what makes you holy or set apart. It is the faith attached. So infants in this analogy would be incapable of baptism because there is no faith or circumcision of the heart to have the need of the sign and seal which is Baptism.

 

[LittleFaith]

Hello Brother, I am referring to Romans 2:26-29 as well as I might add to the discussion Romans 3:1. I think Paul here is making the clear distinction that physical circumcision (which baptism now signifies) is not what makes you holy or set apart. It is the faith attached. So infants in this analogy would be incapable of baptism because there is no faith or circumcision of the heart to have the need of the sign and seal which is Baptism.

By that argument, infants would also be incapable of circumcision.

 

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

It's true, one may have the sign without necessarily possessing the thing signified. However, there is a sacramental union between the two. Says Berkhof, "Where the sacrament is received in faith, the grace of God accompanies it. According to this view the external sign becomes a means employed by the Holy Spirit in the communication of divine grace". See also Belgic Confession Art. 33.

It's this reformed understanding of sacramental union that causes us to go to passages like Colossians 2 in defense of paedobaptism. If baptism is only a sign of salvific benefits, then your point is valid. However, paedobaptists and anti-paedobaptists generally don't share a common understanding of sacramental union.

I believe that Baptism is the means of salvation and that it saves, along with the Sacrament of the Eucharist. However, the promises attached to Baptism are only effective when one has faith in them. This effectively proves Credobaptism, as it places the condition of the promise upon someone's faith.

By that argument, infants would also be incapable of circumcision.

That notion disregards the idea that God was using the sign of circumcision as a way to set apart Israel.

 

[NickR]

Hello Brother, I am referring to Romans 2:26-29 as well as I might add to the discussion Romans 3:1. I think Paul here is making the clear distinction that physical circumcision (which baptism now signifies) is not what makes you holy or set apart. It is the faith attached. So infants in this analogy would be incapable of baptism because there is no faith or circumcision of the heart to have the need of the sign and seal which is Baptism.

Thanks for clarifying!

First of all, I think we both agree that the physical aspect of both circumcision and baptism is not salvific (WCF 27.3). Rather, it is the spiritual which is salvific. So when spiritual baptism occurs we are regenerated, and when spiritual circumcision occurred as Moses speaks about or as Paul speaks about in the New Testament regeneration occurred.

If you're arguing that the spiritual aspects of both baptism and circumcision are the same and correlate as I wrote in my previous response, your effectively arguing for infant baptism. If baptism means the same thing as circumcision did in the Old Testament, infants should be baptised for the same reason as they were circumcised in the Old Testament.

I would investigate the concept of sacramental union. I'll quote the WCF below on sacramental union so you understand where I am coming from.

"There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and the effects of the one are attributed to the other." WCF 27.2

 

[MyCrows]

I believe that Baptism is the means of salvation and that it saves, along with the Sacrament of the Eucharist. However, the promises attached to Baptism are only effective when one has faith in them. This effectively proves Credobaptism, as it places the condition of the promise upon someone's faith.


That notion disregards the idea that God was using the sign of circumcision as a way to set apart Israel.

So one who was baptized as an infant, apart from present faith, who later comes to true faith in Jesus Christ is unsaved apart from being baptized again?

 

[LittleFaith]

I believe that Baptism is the means of salvation and that it saves, along with the Sacrament of the Eucharist. However, the promises attached to Baptism are only effective when one has faith in them. This effectively proves Credobaptism, as it places the condition of the promise upon someone's faith.

Ok, interesting argument. So you believe the sacrament itself is efficacious when received by faith? I've traditionally associated that way of thinking with Roman Catholics, not Baptists.

That notion disregards the idea that God was using the sign of circumcision as a way to set apart Israel.

Also an interesting point, but circumcision in the OT was also supposed to point to circumcision of the heart, as attested in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.

 

[dsanch1120]

Do you watch Redeemed Zoomer on YouTube? Your sacramental views seem very similar to his, although you don’t take the paedobaptist position.

This effectively proves Credobaptism, as it places the condition of the promise upon someone's faith.

Who says that infants can’t have faith?

That notion disregards the idea that God was using the sign of circumcision as a way to set apart Israel.

Perhaps he is using baptism to do the same for the church. The children are holy by virtue of a believing parent and the promise of the covenant is for them as well as their parents.

 

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

Do you watch Redeemed Zoomer on YouTube? Your sacramental views seem very similar to his, although you don’t take the paedobaptist position.

Who says that infants can’t have faith?

Perhaps he is using baptism to do the same for the church. The children are holy by virtue of a believing parent and the promise of the covenant is for them as well as their parents.

I not only watch my Brother in Christ Redeemed Zoomer but am often in communication with him and other people in the Theology community on YouTube and Instagram.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I believe that Baptism is the means of salvation and that it saves, along with the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

What confessional statements do you turn to for support on this? As far as I am aware, all of the confessions acceptable on PB state that the sacraments are means of grace, not salvation.

 

[LittleFaith]

@Young_Baptist_Zoomer just a friendly fyi - I don't think that a sacramental view of baptism (i.e. one that attributes intrinsic efficacy to the act itself) would be considered a confessional viewpoint for either paedobaptists or credobaptists - though not being an expert on Baptist theology I welcome correction if I am wrong on the latter point.

I only say that because this is a board that highly values confessional adherence, so I would advise some degree of circumspectness when it comes to putting forward non-confessional views. That's not intended to censor you in any way but just to give you a gentle alert appropriate to the context.

 

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

What confessional statements do you turn to for support on this? As far as I am aware, all of the confessions acceptable on PB state that the sacraments are means of grace, not salvation.

Q.96 of The Baptist Catechism Also known as Keach’s Catechism or The 1695 Catechism

@Young_Baptist_Zoomer just a friendly fyi - I don't think that a sacramental view of baptism (i.e. one that attributes intrinsic efficacy to the act itself) would be considered a confessional viewpoint for either paedobaptists or credobaptists - though not being an expert on Baptist theology I welcome correction if I am wrong on the latter point.

I only say that because this is a board that highly values confessional adherence, so I would advise some degree of circumspectness when it comes to putting forward non-confessional views. That's not intended to censor you in any way but just to give you a gentle alert appropriate to the context.

My view is in line with the 1689 LBCF aswell as The Baptist Catechism Also known as Keach’s Catechism or The 1695 Catechism.

 

[LittleFaith]

Did you mean Q95?

The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.[1]

 

[Young_Genevan_Zoomer]

Did you mean Q95?

The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.[1]

#96
Question How do baptism and the Lord's supper become effectual means of salvation?
Answer Baptism and the Lord's supper become effectual means of salvation, not for any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ, 1 and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them. 2

 

[LittleFaith]

Q98 appears to rule out an ex opere operato view rather clearly.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.[1]