<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Forgive my apparent ignoration. My only reason is that I did not find much Scriptural backing in your posts. For example, in your first cited post, you make 5 concise points about covenental continuity, but none of this you backed up with Scripture. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Henry,<br><br>If you go back to the top of thread you'll see that my original post was replete with Scripture references. (More than ten texts were referenced.) I have included it immediately below for your comments. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Henry,<br><br>Like my physical exercising, I've trimmed this discussion down the bare bones as well. In a nutshell, God's promise to save Abraham and his "seed" was without any conditions (Genesis 17:7). Abraham responded to God's unconditional promise of salvation in faith, which was first issued in Genesis 12, whereby he was justified (Genesis 15:6). Although God promised Abraham and his elect son Isaac salvation, God rejected Ishmael (Genesis 17:18-21). Nonetheless, Ishmael was to receive the outward sign of the covenant-promise, which was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff). In other words, God "administered" his covenant sign with the household of Abraham, even though God only "established" his covenant with the elect in Christ. The apostle Paul reminds us in Romans nine that the promise of salvation was not intended for every single person whom the outward administration of the covenant was to be administered. In fact, he tells us explicitly that the children of the "promise" are counted as Abraham's seed, and not the children of the flesh (Romans 9:8). Accordingly, all those who believe the promise are the true children of Abraham (Romans 9: 8; Galatians 3:9). Most importantly, the "seed" to whom the promise was made was actually Christ alone (Galatians 3:16). It is through union with Christ, the one seed, that we become the seed of Abraham. As Galatians 3:29 states, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, and heirs according to the promise." <br><br>We must keep in mind that Abraham was not Jewish. Sure, Israel according the flesh eventually came from Abraham's loins, but the promise was that Abraham would be the father of many nations. Israel did not even become a nation until 430 years after God called Abraham according to the promise (Galatians 3:17). So, contrary to what so many in the church today think, the sign of circumcision had primarily spiritual significance and not national or ethnic significance. As Romans 4:11 states, "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith..." The verse does not state that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of his ethnic origin. <br><br>In essence, God always had an elect people, which he formed into a nation about 2400 years into redemptive history. Now, God has taken the kingdom away from the nation of Israel and has started his final building project in the church. The church is the international people of God. Which is to say, when one is converted to Christ they need not become part of the nation of Israel; for Christ has sent his followers into the world to make disciples of all nations. <br><br>Finally, God commanded 4,000 years ago that the sign of the covenant be placed upon the males within the household of professing believers. Although the sign has changed from circumcision to baptism, God never rescinded the principle concerning the subjects who were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant promise. In the same way that all Israel was not Israel, all the church is not the church. Nonetheless, we are to place the sign of membership in the church upon those who qualify, per the instruction of God.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>After my initial post, all you asked for was a proof that Baptism has replaced circumcision. Although it was somewhat disappointing that you ignored the entire point of the argument, I went along with your request and stated: <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Then, not only did I supply you with the proof you asked for, I neatly organized for you (this time without Scripture) the principles that were delineated in my original post. These you will find in points one and two below. You should already agree with points three through five below, since they are agreeable to Baptist theology, so I did not see the need of proof-texting a defense. Accordingly, after issuing the five points below, I drew as sound conclusion. I trust you should find that the form of the argument that is pasted below is cogent. Accordingly, unless you can refute one of the steps in the “proof,” you should find the conclusion reliable.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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>Conclusion: 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 baptized.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron<br>
