Is baptism the new circumcism?

[Dokimas]

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?

 

[blazerdave]

I would offer Colossians 2:11-12 as a possible reply? Baptism is the mark of the New Covenant, and it is the “circumcision not made with hands.”

 

[beeliner]

I think the point of the passage is the separation of Christianity from Judaism.

Peter seemed to believe that in order to become a Christian one had to become a Jew first.

Paul saw Christianity differently and of course ultimately prevailed.

Still, many Christian boys are circumcised to this day out of respect for the circumcision of their Saviour, though there are hygienic reasons also.

 

[blazerdave]

Sorry…I just realized that I responded to the “Did the early church think baptism took the place of circumcision?” question and forgot to address the Timothy question.

I think he had Timothy circumcised so that they could have greater fellowship with the Jewish community in that region. Since it was known that Timothy’s father was Greek, performing this covenant sign on him would make it easier to interact with those for whom Gentile contact was frowned upon.

The question usually follows “Then why wasn’t Titus circumcised?” It’s a tricky question, but I think it’s because the issue there had more to do with refuting legalistic professing Christians. In Timothy’s case, they were to be “all things to all men” and did not want to automatically close the door to the Jewish communities in which Paul wanted to teach and preach. In neither case does baptism as a new covenant sign necessarily factor in to Paul’s decision, in my opinion.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

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?

I am Catholic and I think you raise a valid point. I would have to concede that they certainly could have told the Christian Jews that circumcision was succeeded by baptism, if the doctrine was known. They apparently were not teaching that doctrine to the Jewish Christians at this time.

Revelation was still incomplete during the Apostolic ministry. The prison epistles of St. Paul were written last, in the 60’s. Colossians is one of these letters. It contains revelation that was not necessarily available during the missionary journeys described in Acts. One can imagine that St. Paul’s many episodes with Jewish Christians and the strife over circumcision was something that he pondered long over. Colossians 2 appears to the answer to this difficulty.

Whether it was a known teaching during his time at Lystra and Derbe, by the time he wrote Colossians, he seemed to understand baptism as doing in the New Testament, what circumcision did in the Old. There is no question that baptism, even if you don’t believe it regenerates as Catholics and many other Protestants do, baptism is that introductory sacrament/ordinance which brings the baptized fully into God’s covenant community just as circumcision does in Gen. 17.

Rory

 

[Dokimas]

I would offer Colossians 2:11-12 as a possible reply? Baptism is the mark of the New Covenant, and it is the “circumcision not made with hands.”

IMO, reading the Colossian verses carefully it’s not about circumcism of the flesh but of the heart which happens to all who give their lives to Jesus. If you’re truly a Christian your heart has been circumcized.

 

[blazerdave]

IMO, reading the Colossian verses carefully it’s not about circumcism of the flesh but of the heart which happens to all who give their lives to Jesus. If you’re truly a Christian your heart has been circumcized.

I understand! I mainly brought it up because it’s a place where circumcision and baptism are mentioned side-by-side…where Christ fulfills circumcision for us, and we are then “buried with him in baptism…”

 

[Carlan]

IMO, reading the Colossian verses carefully it’s not about circumcise of the flesh but of the heart which happens to all who give their lives to Jesus. If you’re truly a Christian your heart has been circumcised.

In other words Doki, Baptism cleanses( circumcises,the heart and soul) of all sin. Justifies us and fills us of God’s gift of sanctifying grace renewing our inner self and making us holy, we Catholics believe it is a life long process. If we persevere till the end we will be saved, we will know it for sure when we reach those pearly gates! Not until then.
God bless, Peace. Carlan

 

[cruisin]

Paul also equates baptism with death. read chapter 6 of his letter to the Romans.

Ro 6:3 Or are you without the knowledge that all we who had baptism into Christ Jesus, had baptism into his death?

I think the issue is that when we accept baptism we accept Christs Redemption. We choose to give up the old life and live for Christ. We accept the new covenant that God prepared for us through Christ.

 

[Carlan]

Paul also equates baptism with death. read chapter 6 of his letter to the Romans.

Ro 6:3 Or are you without the knowledge that all we who had baptism into Christ Jesus, had baptism into his death?

I think the issue is that when we accept baptism we accept Christs Redemption. We choose to give up the old life and live for Christ. We accept the new covenant that God prepared for us through Christ.

Yes Cruisin, all by the grace of God, Actual grace drawing us to accept Christ’s redemption, faith in the heart leads to justification, confession on the lips leads to salvation.
Father of love, by the outpouring of your grace you increase the number who believe in you.Thank you! Carlan

 

[Third_Day]

Yes. Baptism is the new circumcision. This is what the “circumcision party” (Gal 2:12) rejected. Paul adressed this group in Gal.1:7-8 “not that there is another gospel of Christ but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ”
They were perverting what the apostles had been preaching, that baptism replaced circumcision.

This is what the Counil of Jerusalem was all about. The christians at Antioch “rejoiced at the exhoratation” ( Acts 15:31)when they were read the entire letter from the Council stating that they did not have to be circumcised, only baptized. Paul clearly tells us that baptisim is the “circumcision made without hands” and he calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ”.

 

[Dokimas]

In other words Doki, Baptism cleanses( circumcises,the heart and soul) of all sin. Justifies us and fills us of God’s gift of sanctifying grace renewing our inner self and making us holy, we Catholics believe it is a life long process. If we persevere till the end we will be saved, we will know it for sure when we reach those pearly gates! Not until then.
God bless, Peace. Carlan

No, the Blood of Jesus cleanses us from those things. Baptism is an outward sign to others that we want to be identified with what Jesus did, IMO.​

It is a gift from God which we can NOT earn by being baptized. It’s freely given to all who trust in Him.

 

[Dokimas]

Paul also equates baptism with death. read chapter 6 of his letter to the Romans.

Ro 6:3 Or are you without the knowledge that all we who had baptism into Christ Jesus, had baptism into his death?

I think the issue is that when we accept baptism we accept Christs Redemption. We choose to give up the old life and live for Christ. We accept the new covenant that God prepared for us through Christ.

I think you’re onto something.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes. Baptism is the new circumcision. This is what the “circumcision party” (Gal 2:12) rejected. Paul adressed this group in Gal.1:7-8 “not that there is another gospel of Christ but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ”
They were perverting what the apostles had been preaching, that baptism replaced circumcision.

This is what the Counil of Jerusalem was all about. The christians at Antioch “rejoiced at the exhoratation” ( Acts 15:31)when they were read the entire letter from the Council stating that they did not have to be circumcised, only baptized. Paul clearly tells us that baptisim is the “circumcision made without hands” and he calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ”.

I curious where you found the understanding that what was being prevented was the teaching of baptism being the new circumcism?

 

[humble_maid]

No, the Blood of Jesus cleanses us from those things. Baptism is an outward sign to others that we want to be identified with what Jesus did, IMO.​

It is a gift from God which we can NOT earn by being baptized. It’s freely given to all who trust in Him.

Peace be with you,

Dokimas you are confusing me. First, you said in your other thread that baptism is about **redemption and forgiveness **and one must conscienciously accept it to become baptized. You agree that is a form of dying in one’s former self and being born in a new form through Christ. Right so far? Now you say that it is only the blood of Jesus that saves(cleanses) us all. This is true, but it would assume that even non-believers are saved like the muslims and jews, since Jesus died for all of us. The spilling of His blood is what brings salvation to us all. All we need to do is to believe in this and voila, we are saved? Then there is no need for this Baptism which to you is only an outward sign?
I thought that circumcision is the outward sign and that it failed to bring people to God; hence St.Paul stating the ‘circumcision of the heart’. This is an inward sign. Furthermore, didn’t Jesus say to the pharisee that ‘verily a man must be born again in order to come to God’?

Jn 3:3-7

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Doki, you are contradicting yourself. Please explain.

God Bless

 

[Third_Day]

I curious where you found the understanding that what was being prevented was the teaching of baptism being the new circumcism?

Read about the “Judaizers”. They believed that one must be circumcised to be saved. Acts 15:1 and 15:5. Paul debated them but could not convince them that circumcision was not necessary. Romans and Galatians addresses the beliefs of the Judaizers. Paul tells the Colossians “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”
It seems clear that when you take all of scripture, baptism becomes the entry way into the New Testament kingdom of God wheras circumcision was the entry way into the Old Testament kingdom of God. The circumcision party would not accept that teaching.

 

[Carlan]

Peace be with you,

Dokimas you are confusing me. First, you said in your other thread that baptism is about **redemption and forgiveness **and one must conscienciously accept it to become baptized. You agree that is a form of dying in one’s former self and being born in a new form through Christ. Right so far? Now you say that it is only the blood of Jesus that saves(cleanses) us all. This is true, but it would assume that even non-believers are saved like the muslims and jews, since Jesus died for all of us. The spilling of His blood is what brings salvation to us all. All we need to do is to believe in this and voila, we are saved? Then there is no need for this Baptism which to you is only an outward sign?
I thought that circumcision is the outward sign and that it failed to bring people to God; hence St.Paul stating the ‘circumcision of the heart’. This is an inward sign. Furthermore, didn’t Jesus say to the pharisee that ‘verily a man must be born again in order to come to God’?

Jn 3:3-7

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Doki, you are contradicting yourself. Please explain.

God Bless

HM, sometime I think our dear Doki just wants to be contrary. Sometimes its like trying to swallow those big ole pills!, hope you forgive me Doki.,Carlan

 

[Carlan]

Acts 15:

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?

God calls ALL to baptism.
Circumcision in the Old Testament prefigured baptism. St. Paul uses the terms, “circumcision of the heart” and the “circumcision of Christ” (Romans 2:29, Col. 2:12-17) to describe the reality of circumcision being a spiritually inward act, not merely an outward sign. The Old Testament type that was circumcision is now baptism.

Baptism was foretold in the Old Testament. Ezekiel 36:25 states, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.”

When Nicodemus asked Jesus how a person is born again, he replied, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” (John 3:5).

This is echoed by St. Peter 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.”

When St. Peter baptized Cornelius the Centurion, he baptized his entire household including children and servants. (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14)

Just as with the Old Covenant and circumcision, the faith of the parents/guardians will guide the baptized child in the faith with the help of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant.

The Early Church Father knew FAR better than Many Protestants of today:
Origen
The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.
(Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

---

God bless,Peace, Carlan

 

[Dokimas]

Peace be with you,

Dokimas you are confusing me. First, you said in your other thread that baptism is about **redemption and forgiveness **and one must conscienciously accept it to become baptized. You agree that is a form of dying in one’s former self and being born in a new form through Christ. Right so far? Now you say that it is only the blood of Jesus that saves(cleanses) us all. This is true, but it would assume that even non-believers are saved like the muslims and jews, since Jesus died for all of us. The spilling of His blood is what brings salvation to us all. All we need to do is to believe in this and voila, we are saved? Then there is no need for this Baptism which to you is only an outward sign?
I thought that circumcision is the outward sign and that it failed to bring people to God; hence St.Paul stating the ‘circumcision of the heart’. This is an inward sign. Furthermore, didn’t Jesus say to the pharisee that ‘verily a man must be born again in order to come to God’?

Jn 3:3-7

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Doki, you are contradicting yourself. Please explain.

God Bless

I never said baptism saves.​

Obedience isn’t a good reason to be baptized?​

Outward signs like circumcism, baptism and communion (Eucharist) are meaningless (or worse) to a person whose heart is not after Jesus. To them, these are worthless at best, causes judgement at worst.​

Many evangelicals believe the ‘water’ in John 3:5 is speaking of the Word of God. I, however, believe it’s speaking of physical birth. Looking carefully at the context, I think it is plausible to believe as I do.

 

[Dokimas]

HM, sometime I think our dear Doki just wants to be contrary. Sometimes its like trying to swallow those big ole pills!, hope you forgive me Doki.,Carlan

I try never too turn the other cheek when a good argument is going on. ​

BTW, no need to apologize.