Is baptism the new circumcism?

[Dokimas]

So, if I’m reading you correctly, you are saying that infant circumcision in the OT is unrelated to the baptism of the NT. Do you reject the idea that there are signs, types, and foreshadows in the OT?

I do not believe there is a direct relationship between circumcism and baptism; IMO, the latter did not replace the former.

I do NOT reject that there are signs, types and foreshadows in the OT. The Tabernacle is the most imporant and amazing, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

I don’t see any discussion regarding embryonic fluid, either. What other element of Christianity implements water that Christ could be referring to? Do you honestly believe that a proper exegesis of the text forces you to focus not on baptism, but rather, on the biological effects of childbirth? The entire context of Christ’s words is on the new birth, not physical birth. When He says water and the Spirit, that little “and” word in Greek connects water and Spirit as being ONE action. Not physical birth, then followed years later by the Spirit.

We should not be looking for Nicodemus’ reaction, but rather, to what the words of Christ point to. When Christ told the Pharisees that if the temple be destroyed, it will be raised three days later, we don’t say “Well, the Pharisees never mentioned the resurrection, so that’s not what Christ could have been talking about.” It is no small thing that the very next episode in John involves Baptism.

If there is a discussion about being born (and it was brought up by Nichodemus) then embryonic fluid is as least implied.​

The Word of God washes. Therefore, it implies water, IMO.​

Are you saying that EVERY person that gets baptized gets the Holy Spirit? You did say the two are ‘one’ because of the word ‘and’.

 

[TriuneUnity]

If there is a discussion about being born (and it was brought up by Nichodemus) then embryonic fluid is as least implied.

Yes, and Jesus says that the natural birth, which involves embryonic fluid, is corrupt. He is not then going to turn around and insert the natural birth into salvation. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Besides, embryonic fluid is not water.​

The Word of God washes. Therefore, it implies water, IMO.

And it uses water, for the water used in Baptism is connected to the Word of God. “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” This is Christ’s command, hence, God’s word.​

Are you saying that EVERY person that gets baptized gets the Holy Spirit? You did say the two are ‘one’ because of the word ‘and’.

Yes, I am saying that.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I do not believe there is a direct relationship between circumcism and baptism; IMO, the latter did not replace the former.

In the book of Galatians, Dokimas, what does St. Paul contrast the works of the law (which include circumcision, Gal. 5:3) with in 3:27?

 

[Dokimas]

TriuneUnity in black; Doki in color.

Yes, and Jesus says that the natural birth, which involves embryonic fluid, is corrupt. He is not then going to turn around and insert the natural birth into salvation. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Besides, embryonic fluid is not water.​

If you’d rather think that a ritual saves then that’s up to you.-

And it uses water, for the water used in Baptism is connected to the Word of God. “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” This is Christ’s command, hence, God’s word.​

Agreed.

Yes, I am saying that. No faith needed, it just happens by the water?

 

[Dokimas]

In the book of Galatians, Dokimas, what does St. Paul contrast the works of the law (which include circumcision, Gal. 5:3) with in 3:27?

Gal 5:
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.​

Gal 3:
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Don’t understand your question or point.

 

[TriuneUnity]

=Dokimas;6534065]TriuneUnity in black; Doki in color.

Yes, and Jesus says that the natural birth, which involves embryonic fluid, is corrupt. He is not then going to turn around and insert the natural birth into salvation. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Besides, embryonic fluid is not water.​

If you’d rather think that a ritual saves then that’s up to you.-

God saves, through Baptism. The anti-ritualism is meaningless. Ritual for the sake of ritual is nothing. Ritual instituted by God, with God’s command and promise, is a wholly other subject.

And it uses water, for the water used in Baptism is connected to the Word of God. “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” This is Christ’s command, hence, God’s word.​

Agreed.

Yes, I am saying that. No faith needed, it just happens by the water?

That which is connected to the water of Baptism, God’s Word, is what gives the gift of faith.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Gal 5:
3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.​

Gal 3:
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Don’t understand your question or point.

What is Paul saying has done away with the circumcision of the law?

 

[ryanoneil]

The fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Garden most likely, in and of itself, was of little consequence, IMO. What made it important was the ‘obedience’ factor - which is of great importance. God could have put an invisible shield around the tree. He didn’t. Why? For obedience sake. That’s of GREAT concequence.

What are you saying? That we must be obedient before we are initiated into God’s covenant family?

 

[cruisin]

The fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Garden most likely, in and of itself, was of little consequence, IMO. What made it important was the ‘obedience’ factor - which is of great importance. God could have put an invisible shield around the tree. He didn’t. Why? For obedience sake. That’s of GREAT consequence.

question?

A cookie jar is setting on the kitchen counter full of cookies. The youngest child ( say 5 years old) of the house comes along, sees the cookie jar, knowing that it is full of cookies, removes the lid and 1 cookie and proceeds to eat it. At what point was it wrong for the child to eat the cookie ? Or was it? Who gets to decide and when?

The cookie in itself is not of any consequence. It is only part of the equation. If the creator of the cookie tell the youngest child not to eat any of them before he eats his supper, and then disobediently eats one without permission. the obedience factor comes into play. it isn’t about how good he was before or after the incident, because of the one time the child becomes disobedient ( sinful), he broke 1 of the commandments didn’t he?

Paul wrote that only because of the law did he find understanding that he could not keep the law and needed something more, and that was Christ.

I chose to be baptized, not to be initiated into a club, but to identify myself with Christ.

Read Romans chapter 6.

If God poured out the spirit on the uncircumcised before baptism can one say that baptism is always required first? Acts chapter 10 around verse 38. It is always about a changed heart.

I believe that the true sign is when one sees the fruits of the Spirit being shown. for Baptism is a one time act that only gets one wet without true remorse and repentance before.

just my :twocents: for what it’s worth.

 

[Third_Day]

=Dokimas;6533825]-
Remember the topic is ‘born again’. So the simple answer to your first statement is ‘yes’

. In John 3:3 and 3:7 the Greek word for born “again” is anothen which also means “from above”. An acceptable interpretation is " one must be born from above".

In context, IMO, it makes more sense than believing ‘water’ refers to baptism.

Check the scriptures. Water and baptism are together. Go from John 3:3 to John 3:22 and what does it say? “John also was** baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there”**

In Acts 8:38 the Eunich said this to Philip "See, here is** water**! What is to prevent my being baptized"

I don’t remember any mention of baptism in His discussion with Nickodemus.

In John 1:31 Jesus is** baptized **in water and the Spirit in the form of a dove “remained on him”.
In John 3:9 Jesus says this to Nicodemus “are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?” What did Nicodemus not understand? Water and Spirit. As a teacher of Israel he should have know what Paul tells us in 1 Cor:10:2 " our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea and **all were baptized **into Moses in the cloud and the sea"
Once again you have water (the sea) and the **Spirit **(the cloud)

Nicodemus should have known what Peter tells us in 1 Peter 3:20 -21" in the days of Noah…eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" In the Genesis account of the flood ( Gen 8:6-12) we have the flood (water) and the dove (spirit).

Nicodemus also should have known the story of creation . Genesis 1:2 "and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters "

The earth was without form and void and then it was baptized in **water and Spirit **and became a new creation. Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, should have known that.

 

[Dokimas]

. In John 3:3 and 3:7 the Greek word for born “again” is anothen which also means “from above”. An acceptable interpretation is " one must be born from above".

Check the scriptures. Water and baptism are together. Go from John 3:3 to John 3:22 and what does it say? “John also was** baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there”**

In Acts 8:38 the Eunich said this to Philip "See, here is** water**! What is to prevent my being baptized"

In John 1:31 Jesus is** baptized **in water and the Spirit in the form of a dove “remained on him”.
In John 3:9 Jesus says this to Nicodemus “are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?” What did Nicodemus not understand? Water and Spirit. As a teacher of Israel he should have know what Paul tells us in 1 Cor:10:2 " our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea and **all were baptized **into Moses in the cloud and the sea"
Once again you have water (the sea) and the **Spirit **(the cloud)

Nicodemus should have known what Peter tells us in 1 Peter 3:20 -21" in the days of Noah…eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you" In the Genesis account of the flood ( Gen 8:6-12) we have the flood (water) and the dove (spirit).

Nicodemus also should have known the story of creation . Genesis 1:2 "and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters "

The earth was without form and void and then it was baptized in **water and Spirit **and became a new creation. Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, should have known that.

Good points. Thanks for using the Bible for your response.

You make a good point, but in my favor, IMO. The point is your last one about Nicodemus. You are correct that he should have known all you said. And yet, he understood Jesus to mean that one had to get back in him mother’s womb. Thus my understanding may have merit.

 

[Dokimas]

Barnes commentary on the verse in question pretty much supports you.

"Ver. 5. Be born of water. By water, here, is evidently signified baptism. Thus the word is used in #Eph 5:26 Tit 3:5. Baptism was practised by the Jews in receiving a Gentile as a proselyte. It was practised by John among the Jews; and Jesus here says that it is an ordinance of his religion, and the sign and seal of the renewing influences of his Spirit. So he said #Mr 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” It is clear from these places, and from the example of the apostles #Ac 2:38,41 8:12,13,36,38 9:18 Ac 10:47 48 16:15 33 18:8 22:16 Ga 3:27, that they considered this ordinance as binding on all who professed to love the Lord Jesus. And though it cannot be said that none who are not baptized can be saved, yet Jesus meant, undoubtedly, to be understood as affirming that this was to be the regular and uniform way of entering into his church; that it was the appropriate mode of making a profession of religion; and that a man who neglected this, when the duty was made known to him, neglected a plain command of God. It is clear, also, that any other command of God might as well be neglected or violated as this, and that it is the duty of everyone not only to love the Saviour, but to make an acknowledgment of that love by being baptized, and by devoting himself thus to his service. But, lest Nicodemus should suppose that this was all that was meant, he added that it was necessary that he should be born of the Spirit also. This was predicted of the Saviour, that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire , #Mt 3:11. By this is clearly intended that the heart must be changed by the agency of the Holy Spirit; that the love of sin must be abandoned; that man must repent of crime and turn to God; that he must renounce all his evil propensities, and give himself to a life of prayer and holiness, of meekness, purity, and benevolence. This great change is in the Scripture ascribed uniformly to the Holy Spirit, #Titus 3:5 1Th 1:6 Ro 5:5 1Pe 1:22. "​

 

[Dokimas]

From Clarke’s commentary on the Bible – John 3:

Verse 5. Of water and of the Spirit To the baptism of water a man was admitted when he became a proselyte to the Jewish religion; and, in this baptism, he promised in the most solemn manner to renounce idolatry, to take the God of Israel for his God, and to have his life conformed to the precepts of the Divine law. But the water which was used on the occasion was only an emblem of the Holy Spirit. The soul was considered as in a state of defilement, because of past sin: now, as by that water the body was washed, cleansed, and refreshed, so, by the influences of the Holy Spirit, the soul was to be purified from its defilement, and strengthened to walk in the way of truth and holiness.

  When John came baptizing with water, he gave the Jews the plainest intimations that this would not suffice; that it was only typical of that baptism of the Holy Ghost, under the similitude of fire, which they must all receive from Jesus Christ: {See #Mt 3:11}. Therefore, our Lord asserts that a man must be born of water and the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost, which, represented under the similitude of water, cleanses, refreshes, and purifies the soul. Reader, hast thou never had any other baptism than that of water? If thou hast not had any other, take Jesus Christ’s word for it, thou canst not, in thy present state, enter into the kingdom of God. I would not say to thee merely, read what it is to be born of the Spirit: but pray, O pray to God incessantly, till he give thee to feel what is implied in it! Remember, it is Jesus only who baptizes with the Holy Ghost: {See #Joh 1:33}. He who receives not this baptism has neither right nor title to the kingdom of God; nor can he with any propriety be termed a Christian, because that which essentially distinguished the Christian dispensation from that of the Jews was, that its author baptized all his followers with the Holy Ghost. 

  Though baptism by water, into the Christian faith, was necessary to every Jew and Gentile that entered into the kingdom of the Messiah, it is not necessary that by water and the Spirit (in this place) we should understand two different things: it is probably only an elliptical form of speech, for the Holy Spirit under the similitude of water; as, in #Mt 3:3, the Holy Ghost and fire, do not mean two things, but one, viz. the Holy Ghost under the similitude of fire—pervading every part, refining and purifying the whole.

 

[Dokimas]

If a person can loose one’s salvation and be saved again, and water baptism plays a role in all this, why doesn’t the person get baptized each time she/he comes back to Jesus?

 

[Third_Day]

If a person can loose one’s salvation and be saved again, and water baptism plays a role in all this, **why doesn’t the person get baptized each time **she/he comes back to Jesus?

As the word of God tells us there is “one Lord,one faith, one baptism” Eph. 4:5
And just as you can be circumcised only once, you can be baptized only once.

 

[Third_Day]

Good points. Thanks for using the Bible for your response.

You make a good point, but in my favor, IMO. The point is your last one about Nicodemus. You are correct that he should have known all you said. And yet, he understood Jesus to mean that one had to get back in him mother’s womb. Thus my understanding may have merit.

How does Nicodemus make your point? He questions Jesus and asks how can a man enter the womb a second time. He was thinking like you are. Jesus explains it to him again and he still doesn’t get it… In John 3: 9 Nicodemus says “how can this be?” Then Jesus answered him “you are a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?”
Dokimas, you are a Christian and you do not understand this.

 

[Dokimas]

As the word of God tells us there is “one Lord,one faith, one baptism” Eph. 4:5
And just as you can be circumcised only once, you can be baptized only once.

Baptism covers the person that needs salvation over and over again?

 

[Dokimas]

How does Nicodemus make your point? He questions Jesus and asks how can a man enter the womb a second time. He was thinking like you are. Jesus explains it to him again and he still doesn’t get it… In John 3: 9 Nicodemus says “how can this be?” Then Jesus answered him “you are a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?”
Dokimas, you are a Christian and you do not understand this.

Maybe Nicodemus was asking the second time, ‘How can a person be born of the Spirit?’​

I’m sure there’s much I don’t understand. I understand this, that it is Jesus that has the Words of eternal life.

 

[blazerdave]

As the word of God tells us there is “one Lord,one faith, one baptism” Eph. 4:5
And just as you can be circumcised only once, you can be baptized only once.

Amen!