Circumcision? Baptism? Difference?

[Carbon]

What is the difference? I'm not saying there is no difference, nor am I saying there is a difference. What do you think? Can you use scripture to prove your belief?


Personally, I believe, as Calvin said, "baptism is for the Christian what circumcision previously was for the Jews."
Dont they signify one and the same thing afterall?

 

[David Lamb]

What is the difference? I'm not saying there is no difference, nor am I saying there is a difference. What do you think? Can you use scripture to prove your belief?


Personally, I believe, as Calvin said, "baptism is for the Christian what circumcision previously was for the Jews."
Dont they signify one and the same thing afterall?

One obvious difference between baptism and circumcision is that baptism is for all believers in Christ, whereas circumcision was restricted to male babies. Another difference is that circumcision gives a permanent physical sign; the water used in baptism soon dries. The biggest difference, as I see it, is that circumcision marked entry (by natural birth) into a physical kingdom, whereas baptism signifies entry into God's spiritual kingdom.

 

[JesusFan]

What is the difference? I'm not saying there is no difference, nor am I saying there is a difference. What do you think? Can you use scripture to prove your belief?


Personally, I believe, as Calvin said, "baptism is for the Christian what circumcision previously was for the Jews."
Dont they signify one and the same thing afterall?

No, not a direct correspondence, as now under the NC, those who are only the redeemed are commanded to get water baptized, as by faith are already included now in the Community of Faith , as the sealing by and of th Holy Spirit would be the sign now

 

[Eleanor]

One obvious difference between baptism and circumcision is that baptism is for all believers in Christ, whereas circumcision was restricted to male babies. Another difference is that circumcision gives a permanent physical sign; the water used in baptism soon dries. The biggest difference, as I see it, is that circumcision marked entry (by natural birth) into a physical kingdom, whereas baptism signifies entry into God's spiritual kingdom.

Keeping in mind that in the kingdom (field, vine) there are both wheat and tares, fruitful and unfruitful branches. . .right?

 

[Rella]

What is the difference? I'm not saying there is no difference, nor am I saying there is a difference. What do you think? Can you use scripture to prove your belief?


Personally, I believe, as Calvin said, "baptism is for the Christian what circumcision previously was for the Jews."
Dont they signify one and the same thing afterall?

Well first of all.... circumcision is for boy babies only. Never little girls.

But on this I tend to agree with Calvin...But I bet few if any on here believe this, even though they follow Calvin's theology.

“Reason would tell us that baptism is rightly administered to babies. The Lord did not give circumcision long ago without making them (infants) partakers of everything represented by circumcision. He would have been deceiving his people with a sham, if he had reassured them with false signs. The idea is very shocking. He distinctly states that the circumcision of the infant is the seal of covenant promise. If the covenant remains firm and unmoved, this is just as relevant to the children of Christians today as it was to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament…The truth of baptism applies to infants, so why do we deny them the sign? The Lord himself formally admitted infants to his covenant, so what more do we need?


John Calvin, Institutes of the christian religion, 4:16:5 (Beveridge Edition)

 

[makesends]

Keeping in mind that in the kingdom (field, vine) there are both wheat and tares, fruitful and unfruitful branches. . .right?

Can you explain why you are saying that? I don't get the implication you are making there.

 

[CrowCross]

Well first of all.... circumcision is for boy babies only. Never little girls.

But on this I tend to agree with Calvin...But I bet few if any on here believe this, even though they follow Calvin's theology.

“Reason would tell us that baptism is rightly administered to babies. The Lord did not give circumcision long ago without making them (infants) partakers of everything represented by circumcision. He would have been deceiving his people with a sham, if he had reassured them with false signs. The idea is very shocking. He distinctly states that the circumcision of the infant is the seal of covenant promise. If the covenant remains firm and unmoved, this is just as relevant to the children of Christians today as it was to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament…The truth of baptism applies to infants, so why do we deny them the sign? The Lord himself formally admitted infants to his covenant, so what more do we need?


John Calvin, Institutes of the christian religion, 4:16:5 (Beveridge Edition)

I agree with a lot of Calvinism....but I would like to see the line of biblical theology....verses and commentary...that demonstrate the above.

I haven't looked into this issue for a long, long time but from what I understand a babies baptism or some call christening is a dedication of the child to God and a promise for the parents and congregation to raise that child in a christian fashion.

I'm not sure spiritually how infant baptism allows for the "seal of covenant promise"...BUT only if the covenant remains firm and unmoved.
What does that even mean? Where is it in the bible?

I'm not challenging anyone....I simply want to understand line of biblical theology. After that I then may challenge or perhaps agree.

 

[Eleanor]

Can you explain why you are saying that? I don't get the implication you are making there.

The post was in response to David's post. . . Baptism signifies entrance into God's kingdom.

Baptism works like circumcision. . .which was not salvation, but simply a setting apart among God's people (kingdom). . .yes?

For the born again, baptism signifies/ symbolizes their dying to sin and rising with Christ to live a new life

 

[makesends]

David Lamb said:
One obvious difference between baptism and circumcision is that baptism is for all believers in Christ, whereas circumcision was restricted to male babies. Another difference is that circumcision gives a permanent physical sign; the water used in baptism soon dries. The biggest difference, as I see it, is that circumcision marked entry (by natural birth) into a physical kingdom, whereas baptism signifies entry into God's spiritual kingdom.

Keeping in mind that in the kingdom (field, vine) there are both wheat and tares, fruitful and unfruitful branches. . .right?

Can you explain why you are saying that? I don't get the implication you are making there.

The post was in response to David's post. . . Baptism signifies entrance into God's kingdom.

Baptism works like circumcision. . .which was not salvation, but simply a setting apart among God's people (kingdom). . .yes?

For the born again, baptism signifies/ symbolizes their dying to sin and rising with Christ to live a new life

So, you are paralleling the wheat and the tares with the inclusion of the Children of Israel within the group of Real Israel, but not OF Real Israel, if I'm understanding the reference. My question is, then, that is the difference— that the reprobate Children are only circumcised as a symbolic gesture of allegiance to a group, but Baptism is more than that—it is a symbol of inclusion in Christ? I'm still not sure what you are saying.

 

[makesends]

I agree with a lot of Calvinism....but I would like to see the line of biblical theology....verses and commentary...that demonstrate the above.

I haven't looked into this issue for a long, long time but from what I understand a babies baptism or some call christening is a dedication of the child to God and a promise for the parents and congregation to raise that child in a christian fashion.

I'm not sure spiritually how infant baptism allows for the "seal of covenant promise"...BUT only if the covenant remains firm and unmoved.
What does that even mean? Where is it in the bible?

I'm not challenging anyone....I simply want to understand line of biblical theology. After that I then may challenge or perhaps agree.

"...and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." The years ago principle of the federal head of the family may have some relevance here.

 

[Rella]

I agree with a lot of Calvinism....but I would like to see the line of biblical theology....verses and commentary...that demonstrate the above.

I haven't looked into this issue for a long, long time but from what I understand a babies baptism or some call christening is a dedication of the child to God and a promise for the parents and congregation to raise that child in a christian fashion.

I'm not sure spiritually how infant baptism allows for the "seal of covenant promise"...BUT only if the covenant remains firm and unmoved.
What does that even mean? Where is it in the bible?

I'm not challenging anyone....I simply want to understand line of biblical theology. After that I then may challenge or perhaps agree.

It is not approved of by anyone unless it is your church doing such.

There is no where in the bible that says to baptize children.

I have been told from some assorted forum members that The Jailer, Lydia, Crispus, Cornelius, and Stephanus' who had their entire families baptized that any children were not. These household could have included extended members, servants... someone suggested slaves but no children so when I ask what they did with the kids it is total silence.... They must have taken them to the neighbor because if a neighbor came in to watch them the neighbor would have been baptized... but not the kids.....

Ok... but then we are told... 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
But baptism is a no no.

I no longer care , honestly. I have had a gereat many tell me I am not save and I never will be saved.. after their specific denomination refused to immerse my mother and myself.... about 9 years ago.....

And due to health issues, my mother is now gone and I could not be..... so if our Heavenly Father says I am not worthy..... ????

Anyway, it is a subject that many churches still do infant baptisms... including mine.... but unless all those people actually do join a
forum they will never know there may be a problem.

 

[JesusFan]

Well first of all.... circumcision is for boy babies only. Never little girls.

But on this I tend to agree with Calvin...But I bet few if any on here believe this, even though they follow Calvin's theology.

“Reason would tell us that baptism is rightly administered to babies. The Lord did not give circumcision long ago without making them (infants) partakers of everything represented by circumcision. He would have been deceiving his people with a sham, if he had reassured them with false signs. The idea is very shocking. He distinctly states that the circumcision of the infant is the seal of covenant promise. If the covenant remains firm and unmoved, this is just as relevant to the children of Christians today as it was to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament…The truth of baptism applies to infants, so why do we deny them the sign? The Lord himself formally admitted infants to his covenant, so what more do we need?


John Calvin, Institutes of the christian religion, 4:16:5 (Beveridge Edition)

But per Baptist theology, infants are not part of the Body of Christ spiritually until born again, so the infant getting wet would not alter that fact

 

[JesusFan]

David Lamb said:
One obvious difference between baptism and circumcision is that baptism is for all believers in Christ, whereas circumcision was restricted to male babies. Another difference is that circumcision gives a permanent physical sign; the water used in baptism soon dries. The biggest difference, as I see it, is that circumcision marked entry (by natural birth) into a physical kingdom, whereas baptism signifies entry into God's spiritual kingdom.



So, you are paralleling the wheat and the tares with the inclusion of the Children of Israel within the group of Real Israel, but not OF Real Israel, if I'm understanding the reference. My question is, then, that is the difference— that the reprobate Children are only circumcised as a symbolic gesture of allegiance to a group, but Baptism is more than that—it is a symbol of inclusion in Christ? I'm still not sure what you are saying.

Under the NC, the stated principle was that its administered to those who had believed and received Jesus as Savior and Lord , as that was outward sign testimonial had already received salvation and was in the NC now

 

[JesusFan]

I agree with a lot of Calvinism....but I would like to see the line of biblical theology....verses and commentary...that demonstrate the above.

I haven't looked into this issue for a long, long time but from what I understand a babies baptism or some call christening is a dedication of the child to God and a promise for the parents and congregation to raise that child in a christian fashion.

I'm not sure spiritually how infant baptism allows for the "seal of covenant promise"...BUT only if the covenant remains firm and unmoved.
What does that even mean? Where is it in the bible?

I'm not challenging anyone....I simply want to understand line of biblical theology. After that I then may challenge or perhaps agree.

The entry in tto Body of Christ and into the NC would be faith in Jesus, not water baptism

 

[makesends]

Under the NC, the stated principle was that its administered to those who had believed and received Jesus as Savior and Lord , as that was outward sign testimonial had already received salvation and was in the NC now

By "it's" (administered) I assume you mean baptism. I understand that. But I don't understand what you are trying to add here, to the question of what @Eleanor was saying. But, I'm getting old.

 

[Soyeong]

Personally, I believe, as Calvin said, "baptism is for the Christian what circumcision previously was for the Jews."

If that were the case, then Jews who have already been circumcised would not need to become baptized.

 

[Carbon]

If that were the case, then Jews who have already been circumcised would not need to become baptized.

Jesus ushered in a better covenant, one of which the elect Jews are part.

 

[Carbon]

Keeping in mind that in the kingdom (field, vine) there are both wheat and tares, fruitful and unfruitful branches. . .right?

There sure are; however, I am having a problem seeing how this relates. Do you mind exlaining? Forgive me, I'm a bit slow at times.

 

[Carbon]

One obvious difference between baptism and circumcision is that baptism is for all believers in Christ, whereas circumcision was restricted to male babies. Another difference is that circumcision gives a permanent physical sign; the water used in baptism soon dries. The biggest difference, as I see it, is that circumcision marked entry (by natural birth) into a physical kingdom, whereas baptism signifies entry into God's spiritual kingdom.

John Murray wrote:
Baptism is an ordinance instituted by Christ and is the sign and seal of union with him. This is just saying that it is the sign and seal of membership in that body of which Christ is the head. The body of which Christ is the head is the church (cf. Eph 5:23-30).
Hence, baptism is the sign and seal of membership in the church. What then in the church?

There is the church as invisible and the church as visible. There is no man or organization of men that is able infallibly to determine who are regenerate and who are not.


As I previously said, baptism is for Christians what circumcision was for the Jews.
"Sure, circumcision was a literal sign, and we must estimate baptism to be the same (Calvin)"

Paul in Ch 2 of Colossians makes neither more spiritual than the other. He says that we were circumcized in Christ, not by a circumcision made with hands, when we laid aside the body of sin which dwelt in our flesh. This he calls the "circumcision of Christ" [Col 2:11].
Afterwards to explain this statement, he adds that in baptism we were "buried with Christ" [Col 2:12]. What do these words mean, except that the fulfillment and truth of baptism are also the truth and fulfillment of circumcision, since they signify one and the same thing.


I think its quite obvious, and this truth is plain to see.

Col 2:11 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

 

[CrowCross]

To those who baptize infants...
When an infant is baptized....does it have to be immersion to count?