Perhaps you are not understanding what circumcision actually signified in the OT? scratchchin The Judaisers in the NT made a fundamental error in assuming that circumcision was inextricably bound to one's salvation, aka: justification by faith + works. Nowhere in Scripture can it be found that "infant baptism replaces circumcision". What Scripture says is:

Acts 7:8 (ASV) 8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so [Abraham] begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac [begat] Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs.

Romans 2:25-28 (ASV) 25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. 26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? 27 and shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:

Galatians 6:13-15 (ASV) 13 For not even they who receive circumcision do themselves keep the law; but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. 14 But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world. 15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Colossians 2:11-14 (ASV) 11 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, [I say], did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; 14 having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross;
You are new here and have no clue as to what some of us paedobaptists believe in regard to the definition/meaning of baptism. It does NOT signify the actual salvation of ANYONE. It is rather a symbol; visual representation of the Gospel, i.e., that just as the water of baptism removes the dirt from the body, so does Christ's blood cleanse one's soul of sin... TO ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH!. Thus, baptizing an infant does NOT indicate the infant is saved or will be saved. And no less true, an adult who is baptized, that baptism does NOT indicate the salvation of that individual. IF one wishes to disagree, then the incontrovertible argument is... EVERYONE without exception who is baptized IS infallibly saved. Capisce? grin

NOTE: There are two perspectives that one MUST take into account on this matter: 1) the objective, and 2) the subjective. The first is "what is" and the second is "what applies to an individual".

Do a search on this Board and on the website for discussions on baptism if you like and articles at the latter for a thorough informed presentation. Because of the nature of that topic and the 'heat' which typically results, I have made it clear here over the years that debates on this subject should not be encouraged.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]