Is baptism the new circumcism?

[Dokimas]

The Church is the “pillar and foundation of the truth”
THe “Truth” is always 100% correct because the Truth comes from God.

Truth, is by It’s nature 100% correct. Jesus said He was the TRUTH. The church is NOT the Truth.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas,

Sometimes indoctrination keeps us from seeing the reality so clearly presented in Holy Scripture. If you are taught that Baptism is only symbolic, you view Scripture through the lens of that bias. I know, because I have experienced this myself.

Please look at Colossians again. Ignore your indoctrination for a moment and pray for truth.

Colossians states very clearly: the circumcision without hands is the “putting off of the body of the flesh,” by “circumcision of Christ”----being “buried with Him in Baptism,” and “raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.”

John did not even proclaim a symbolic baptism. He proclaimed baptism for the repentance and forgiveness of sins. How can you believe baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit would be less than the baptism of John?

Anna

As you seem to suggest, we ALL are subject to bias. Bias, in and of itself is not right or wrong. It’s the cause of the bias that is correct or incorrect.​

Do you ask of me (put aside indoctrination) that you can do yourself?​

John’s baptism, in and of itself was NOT repentance and forgiveness. It was a sign that the baptized was repentant and as a result God was forgiving. A person that did so without really repenting was NOT forgiven (God sees the heart).​

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is NOT symbolic. It is Substance.

 

[Third_Day]

Truth, is by It’s nature 100% correct. Jesus said He was the TRUTH. The church is NOT the Truth.

According to scripture,
Jesus established the Church. Mat.16:18
The Church was built upon the foundation of the apostles. Eph. 2:20
Through the Church, the widsom of God would be made known. Eph 3:10
The Church is the fullness of Christ. Eph.1:22
According to scripture, the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” 1:Tim 3:15

You’re not disagreeing with me but with the word of God.

 

[Dokimas]

According to scripture,
Jesus established the Church. Mat.16:18
The Church was built upon the foundation of the apostles. Eph. 2:20
Through the Church, the widsom of God would be made known. Eph 3:10
The Church is the fullness of Christ. Eph.1:22
According to scripture, the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” 1:Tim 3:15

You’re not disagreeing with me but with the word of God.

I’m not sure you’re correct about your understanding of my position. I agree with those wonderful verses. I disagree with your understanding of those verses.​

The early church leaders (including Paul and Peter) made mistakes. Our mistakes don’t surprise God nor does it thwort His plan.

 

[Third_Day]

=Dokimas;6542574]-
I’m not sure you’re correct about your understanding of my position. I agree with those wonderful verses. I disagree with your understanding of those verses

.
It’s not "my " interpretation. For 1500 years there was only one Church, the Catholic Church under the authority of the successor of Peter. Those verses apply to that Catholic Church which is now 2000 years old and still under the authority of the successor of Peter, Pope Benedict XVI​

 

[Nominefili]

Acts 15:
1 ¶ And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren.
4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.
5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
6 ¶ Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.
7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
9 "and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.
13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me:
14 "Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
15 "And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, Says the LORD who does all these things.’
18 "Known to God from eternity are all His works.
19 "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God,
20 "but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
21 “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”​

Act 16:
1 ¶ Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek.
2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium.
3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.
4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.
5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.

Did the early church think baptism took the place of circumcism? No, IMO.

In Acts 15 some of the Jews wanted the Gentile converts to be circumcized. The discussion was taken to the church leaders. NOT one place was it said that the new converts did not need to be circumcized because baptism was taking its place. Sure they were not to be circumcized but not for that reason.

In Act 16 Paul had Timothy circumcized. Why, if in fact baptism took the place of circumcism?

Circumcision ensured one’s entrance into the holy covenant. In the same vein, our dear Lord Jesus Christ promises that, “whoever is baptized and believes in [Him] will be saved.” That sounds like a covenant to me.

 

[Carlan]

I try to, first be honest with myself, and then honest with you (collectively). I think it’s dangerous to think anyone (including any church) is 100% correct. There is only ONE perfectly correct Being.

RIGHT! Doki,
I am going to give it one more try with you, if this , Catholic theology, or much other Protestant theology on the subject doesn’t do it for you, I am moving on from your thread.

From The Rock:

Infant Baptism
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a “born again” experience—that is, after one has “accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.” At the instant of acceptance, when he is “born again,” the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after “being saved,” goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to “accept Jesus” in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Christ Calls All to Baptism

Although*** Fundamentalists ***are the most recent critics of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon. In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists (“re-baptizers”) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly. But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).

***Now Fundamentalists ***say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, “Suffer the little children to come unto me,” which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, “Now they were bringing even infants to him” (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means “infants”—children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior.” And that is precisely the problem. **Fundamentalists **refuse to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom. So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them?

I can continue with this or you can find the rest for yourself on ‘The Rock’, Paxand God Bless you, Carlan

 

[Splinker]

One small thing.

The command to circumcise is given to the father. If he fails to do it, the child is still a Jew and still privy to God’s covenant.

 

[Carlan]

One small thing.

The command to circumcise is given to the father. If he fails to do it, the child is still a Jew and still privy to God’s covenant.

Not such a small thing, Splinker. Food for thought!God bless, Carlan

 

[ryanoneil]

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

Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’ (Acts 22:16)

“wash away” comes from the Greek word “apolouo.” “Apolouo” means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin.

 

[Dokimas]

.
It’s not "my " interpretation. For 1500 years there was only one Church, the Catholic Church under the authority of the successor of Peter. Those verses apply to that Catholic Church which is now 2000 years old and still under the authority of the successor of Peter, Pope Benedict XVI​

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Dokimas]

Circumcision ensured one’s entrance into the holy covenant. In the same vein, our dear Lord Jesus Christ promises that, “whoever is baptized and believes in [Him] will be saved.” That sounds like a covenant to me.

Thanks for sharing your understanding.

 

[Dokimas]

One small thing.

The command to circumcise is given to the father. If he fails to do it, the child is still a Jew and still privy to God’s covenant.

Interesting.​

Also circumcism was for boys only (not girls). Baptism is for all.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .Also circumcism was for boys only (not girls). Baptism is for all.

Precisely!

This is one of the beautiful differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

Galatians 3 (ESV):
27 For as many of you as were **baptized into Christ **have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Notice, when you are baptized into Christ, you are the offspring of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.

Anna

 

[ryanoneil]

Interesting.​

Also circumcism was for boys only (not girls). Baptism is for all.

The grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant.

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female ; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:27-28)

 

[ryanoneil]

Precisely!

This is one of the beautiful differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

Galatians 3 (ESV):
27 For as many of you as were **baptized into Christ **have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Notice, when you are baptized into Christ, you are the offspring of Abraham and heirs according to the promise.

Anna

Exactly! That includes becoming heirs in hope of eternal life.

not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:5-7)

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Exactly! That includes becoming heirs in hope of eternal life.

not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:5-7)

He saved us by His spilt blood on the cross. Baptism is the outward sign of our acceptance of that gift of salvation.

 

[ryanoneil]

He saved us by His spilt blood on the cross. Baptism is the outward sign of our acceptance of that gift of salvation.

I agree, but we actually die with Christ and are raised also.

You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (col 2:12)

 

[Anna_Scott]

One small thing.

The command to circumcise is given to the father. If he fails to do it, the child is still a Jew and still privy to God’s covenant.

Splinker,

I’m really glad you are here. We need the Jewish perspective in our discussions.

Anna

 

[PRmerger]

Truth, is by It’s nature 100% correct. Jesus said He was the TRUTH. The church is NOT the Truth.

But it is the pillar and bulwark of truth, is it not, Dokimas?

And, the Church and Jesus are not separate; that is, it’s not an either/or. Christ is the head; the Church is His Body. By saying, “I follow Jesus, not the Church” one is saying he serves a decapitated Jesus, that is, a Head separated from the Body.