D
- Status
R
ryanoneil
Guest
The Israelites were marked with the covenant sign of circumcision, but their rebellion over the centuries proved that their hearts remained uncircumcised.
**“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “that I will punish all who are circumcised and yet uncircumcised - Egypt and Judah, and Edom and the sons of Ammon, and Moab and all those inhabiting the desert who clip the hair on their temples ; for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.” (Jer 9:25-26) **
Moses realized that this would continue until Yahweh circumcised the hearts of his people himself.
"Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live. (Deut 30:6)
Paul interprets this vision of Moses in sacramental terms in (Col 2:11-13), insisting that Christ accomplishes in Baptism what circumcision only signified in ancient Israel. It is the moment when God cuts away from our hearts the fleshy desires that keep us from loving and obeying him as we should.
Don’t expect those exact words, but Peter says as much in (Act 15:7-11). The judaizers argued circumcision, the rite of initiation into the covenant family, was absolutely necessary for salvation. Peter says NO! Jews and Gentiles alike are saved by faith in Christ and not by the flint knife. The precedent he argues is: when the Spirit first came to the Gentiles as a sign that God accepted them into the Church (Acts 10:44-48) And their rite of initiation was Baptism.
"Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?" He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 10:47-48)
They were not restricted from it. So it was to their advantage not to be hindered by possible scandel in their ministry among the Jews.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I see your understanding and repectfully disagree.
C
Carlan
Guest
you certainly are entitled to your opinion.
CA loves to evangelize the whole Truth, you may accept it or not. Those who do will join up, and those who don’t are quiet free to move on.
I believe Irenaeus meant that through Baptism we all , babies, Children ,old people have to die to ourselves in Him in Baptism so as to be able to live with him now and forever. Perhaps others here can explain this Truth somewhat more clearly and thoroughly than I.
Peace, Carlan
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Are you suggesting that there is no ritual of initiation that incorporates people into the family of God?
C
cruisin
Guest
Thanks Dokimas.I think you’re onto something.
I think that trust in God has always been what He wants from us. Circumcision was a sign of separation form the rest of the world. This was given to Abraham long before the Creation of the nation of Israel as known after the escape from Egypt.
The Idea’s of signs like baptism or or Circumcision was to show who’s we are. they don’t prove or do anything within themselves. It is a matter of the heart. Listen to what King David wrote:
Psalms 51:17\The offerings of God are a broken spirit; a broken and sorrowing heart, O God, you will not put from you.
Only with a righteous heart do these signs do any good.
I can bring a sinner to church and dunk him in water, but if he has no desire to change is heart and accept the gift God gives through Christ, that is redemption, the only outcome is he/she is wet .
my :twocents: what ever it’s worth.
H
hawkeye
Guest
I would say Baptism is the new circumcision, we’re now justified by Baptism not by circumcision, if circumcision were necessary to be justified, then where would that leave the ladies ?
D
Dokimas
Guest
If I understand your post — correct.
T
Third_Day
Guest
So what Jesus is "really " saying is “unless one is born of embryonic fluid and the Spirit. he cannot enter the kingdom of God”
That doesn’t make sense. Everyone is born of embryonic fluid yet you say that Jesus says **“unless **one is born of embryonic fluid”.
Your interpretation means that there are some who are not born of embryonic fluid. Exactly who is that?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
LOL…that’s awesome.
H
humble_maid
Guest
Peace be with you,
This is your inconsistency; your continual inability to understand what is being said. Again you provide no quotes, scriptures, references only your IMO. Are you afraid to say what you believe instead of simply respectfully disagreeing with us(not just catholics I might add). Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but when someone starts a thread like this one, you are at least expected to explain and not just agree or disagree. Maybe I am wrong but that is IMHO.
**YOU are the one who said infants cannot receive baptism. Why? (in your IMO (back it up with scripture) Secondly, you said that it is the blood of Christ that saves? So what do we do to be saved? What is the process? Why do you need baptism if the blood of Christ alone saves and not baptism? **
God Bless
H
humble_maid
Guest
Peace be with you,
Who are you or anyone else for that matter, to judge if a sacrament is meaningless? What the Lord Gives is sanctified regardless of the person’s heart who partakes. If he partakes unworthily, he calls judgement upon himself.
The Lord Jesus fed the multitude fish and bread. Did He ask only those whose hearts were true to Him to eat among His Presence? Did they all partake of this special meal? YES, even those who then left Him when He gave the sermon about eating His flesh and drinking His blood? Therefore does Jesus discriminate against anyone, NO. He calls them first and then eats with them. If they are unworthy they will merit His judgement, but for those who are worthy, they will merit His salvation.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
If I understand you correctly, you believe that circumcision is a sign that doesn’t really do anything in the Old Covenant and baptism is a sign that doesn’t really do anything in the New Covenant. If that is the case (Ironically), you should be arguing that baptism is the new circumcision.
We would just be arguing it for different reasons.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Remember the topic is ‘born again’. So the simple answer to your first statement is ‘yes’.
In context, IMO, it makes more sense than believing ‘water’ refers to baptism. I don’t remember any mention of baptism in His discussion with Nickodemus. Being born was there and surely the Word of God was (name removed by moderator)lies as it was proceeding out of the mouth of Jesus.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Then wait until you see my response.
D
Dokimas
Guest
There is NO evidence that one infant was baptized in the NT. There are many examples of repentant adults being baptized. I could bring out every example to show you and NONE would have infants in them. I’ll do so if you choose.
We are saved by grace through faith says Paul. IMO, that means trusting in Jesus.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Rebuke accepted.
D
Dokimas
Guest
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.If I understand you correctly, you believe that circumcision is a sign that doesn’t really do anything in the Old Covenant and baptism is a sign that doesn’t really do anything in the New Covenant. If that is the case (Ironically), you should be arguing that baptism is the new circumcision.
We would just be arguing it for different reasons.
B
blazerdave
Guest
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?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
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.
- Status