Baptism

[guanophore]

I prefer to make a doctrine from what the NT says.

Yes, this is one of the errors emanating from the Reformation.

Right doctrine is to be received, not made or extrapolated individually from pages. We are to receive it from the authorized Source, which is Apostolic.

The NT was not formed until the doctrine had already been delivered to the Church. That is why it is so important not to separate the NT from the Apostolic Teaching that produced it.

• Show me the link between circumcism and baptism in the NT and I’ll accept it. However, I’m not sure it’s an imortant understanding.

I don’t believe that people who read the Scripture in a state of separation from the Apostolic Teaching will necessarily get it. I just posted one of the scriptures on another baptism thread. If the reader does not recognize that the Apostles never separated the action of the HS from the water, then the point will not be grasped.

Scripture is clear that baptism joins us with Him in His death and resurrection. We are “buried” with him and rise to a new way of life. When this happens, we are sealed with the promised HS, and washed in the “waters of regeneration”. It is called the circumcision made without hands because the HS quickens to life the soul of the believer who is baptized, calling upon His name.

 

[zach_dunn]

I prefer to make a doctrine from what the NT says. Show me the link between circumcism and baptism in the NT and I’ll accept it. However, I’m not sure it’s an imortant understanding.

I’d like to extend the quotation from TheosisM’s post:

Colossians 2:11-14
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

The circumcision of Christ? I feel this is literally too obvious to try to talk out of, what else could it mean besides baptism? Before we partake in the circumcision of Christ, we are dead in trespasses due to our uncircumcision; the parallelism between dead in trespasses and being buried into death with Christ [cf. Rom 6:4] is unmistakable. And we would presume that the opposite of being buried in trespasses and uncircumcision is that of being forgiven our trespasses and being circumcised, correct? This is all accomplished through baptism.

 

[guanophore]

I assume Colossians 2:11-12 will be cited:

11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Thanks, Theosis.

Why on earth would you “ponder LDS”?