Henry,<br><br><br>What is most unfortunate is that you have ignored many of the arguments. Two of my posts were ignored in their entirety.<br><br>On one occasion I stated:<br><br>I think the passage that Pilgrim referenced is perfect, but do we really need a passage to say that baptism replaced circumcision. Please consider the following:<br><br>1. In the O.T. the children of professing believers were included among the visible people of God. <br><br>2. In the O.T. all males who were included among the visible people of God were to receive the mark of circumcision. <br><br>3. Circumcision has been done away with. <br><br>4. The visible people of God under the new economy are to receive baptism. <br><br>5. God nowhere in his word tells us to no longer include the children of professing believers in the visible people of God. <br><br>Since the visible people of God are to receive baptism (pt. 4 above), and God has not told us to no longer count the children of professing believers as being among the visible people of God (pt. 5 above), the conclusion is: the children of professing believers are to be baptised. <br><br>Giving more consideration to the Colossians passage, it explicitly teaches that true circumcision is not made with hands but rather, it is made when someone is spiritually circumcised by Christ, which occurs when one is united to him in spiritual baptism. Now then, since spiritual baptism is truly spiritual circumcision, and physical circumcision has been done away, doesn’t it make sense that water baptism has replaced physical circumcision? If not, then water baptism would not represent spiritual baptism! <br><br>In His Service,<br><br>Ron<br><br>Then there was this post:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]<br> <br>I think the big misconception here lies in not understanding the differences between the old and new covanents. The covenant with Abram was not a covanent of salvation (well, perhaps indirectly, becuase of Jesus' lineage). It was first and formost a covanent made with him and his offspring to bless them, etc. God was very explicit that the covanent lied with his offspring and dealt primarily with them. <br> </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br><br>Henry,<br><br>On the contrary, in my opinion. God promised that he would bless Ishmael, but there was no salvation for him. In other words, Ishmael who was not a child of promise was granted blessing (which is what you say the covenant contemplated), but his father Abraham wanted him to "live before God." Moreover, when Abraham believed the promise of the covenant he was justified, not just "blessed." Finally, Romans nine argues strenuously that the covenant was one of promise for the elect and that it pertained to salvation.<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Ron <br>
