Circumcision? Baptism? Difference?

[JesusFan]

. . .

That is why we do believers Baptism, as we see a direct link between having been saved and testifying by that outward sign to the present spiritual reality

 

[JesusFan]

That's one way of several that I know baptism isn't a requirement for salvation. If baptism was a requirement for salvation the bible certainly would have had a chapter or two explaining it.

The only direct references in NT would be to those who already have professed faith in Jesus as Messiah, any others would be inferred, based upon bringing into the text our theologyregarding basically is the NC the fulfillment of the OC, or else is a brand new One ?

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Bapism is not effectual, it is symbolic.

Circumcision did not give faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16), it symbolized the faith of God's people in the promise, which true faith not all the people possessed.

 

[CrowCross]

We Baptists do not see that though as included in infant water baptism, as we hold to baby dedication, pledging before God and Assembly to raise and nurture them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. My inquiry is that I just do not see any spiritual difference between babies sprinkled with water or being dedicated

I agree. I don't see God getting all upset over it. Sprinkling is all over the bible. Though there is some who will say sprinkling doesn't reflect the death, burial and resurrection.

Personally, I prefer the dedication ceremony.

I do see a problem when we as parents or a congregation fail to...raise and nurture them....after pledging before God and Assembly that we will.

 

[JesusFan]

Bapism is not effectual, it is symbolic.

Circumcision did not give faith in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16), it symbolized the faith of God's people in the promise, which true faith not all the people possessed.

Still trying to see what spiritual blessings come to a baby via water Baptism instead of being dedicated to the Lord

 

[fastfredy0]

That's one way of several that I know baptism isn't a requirement for salvation. If baptism was a requirement for salvation the bible certainly would have had a chapter or two explaining it.

I don't see a chapter or two explaining how Old Testament saints are saved.

 

[JesusFan]

I don't see a chapter or two explaining how Old Testament saints are saved.

I see them as being saved, but were not yet in heaven

 

[Arial]

I think you nailed it!

Amen!

And another thing---. What has also been lost or grossly neglected is the understanding of and importance of covenant and covenant community. It becomes just a word to us, but it is everything. All the promises and forward motion of Redemption in history rest squarely on the covenant relationship God has with his people. It is our surety and our hope. Trusting God rests on covenant relationship.

So, when it is said that infant baptism places the babe in the covenant community, a vast number of Christians do not know what that means or the gravity of it.

The babies and children of parents who are in the covenant with God are not left outside of it in the cold. They are baptized into it in the same way that the circumcision of Jewish infants was a sign that they were members of that covenant community. The only adults that were circumcised were those after the covenant was formed (there must have been a loud human wailing and gnashing of teeth on that day! ) and any strangers who wanted to be a part of the covenant community. Same thing with the baptism of adults who are regenerated into faith

 

[CrowCross]

I don't see a chapter or two explaining how Old Testament saints are saved.

The point was if baptism is a requirement for salvation...the bible would have spoken about it in detail.

As to the old Testaments guys...I would start with Heb 11 and then work backwards into the OT.

 

[Arial]

We Baptists do not see that though as included in infant water baptism, as we hold to baby dedication, pledging before God and Assembly to raise and nurture them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. My inquiry is that I just do not see any spiritual difference between babies sprinkled with water or being dedicated

There probably isn't any difference in in the principle behind it. Baptism however follows more closely to the wording of the Bible in a covenant sense. Remember too, that the church was being born and established in the NT. Jesus had just been crucified, raised from the dead, ascended back to the Father as our King, our High Priest, mediator of the new covenant. Those who heard and could understand and believe were adults. So, it is to be expected that it would be adults who were being baptized as a sign of the new covenant relationship. What it is not, is proof that only adults should be baptized.

It is the Bible that makes a covenant sign connection of baptism and relates it directly to circumcision in the old covenant. Covenant community is the critical issue here, not salvation.

 

[fastfredy0]

I see them as being saved, but were not yet in heaven

I agree that O.T. guys could be saved, I just don't see an O.T. chapter or two as to what they had to do or be given in order to be saved.

 

[Eleanor]

I don't see a chapter or two explaining how Old Testament saints are saved.

Ge 15:5-6:

Abraham believed in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed, Jesus Christ, Gal 3:16) and God credited (imputed) it as righteousness (Ge 15:6), the same way we are saved.

 

[makesends]

Still trying to see what spiritual blessings come to a baby via water Baptism instead of being dedicated to the Lord

I thought @Eleanor just implied it DOESN'T bring spiritual blessings; it is only symbolic. Certainly circumcision was only symbolic. She's just showing a difference in what is symbolized.

 

[CrowCross]

I agree that O.T. guys could be saved, I just don't see an O.T. chapter or two as to what they had to do or be given in order to be saved.

The idea was concerning water baptism as a requirement for salvation. The bible has much, much, much to say about faith, belief etc. but virtually nothing concerning water baptism other than it occurred.

Did I say much, much, much to be said about it? John 3:16 is just one. But when it comes to a chapter or two about how to be baptized...after all some see water baptism as requirement....yet the bible doesn't tell us how to get baptized.
Does the pouring of water or the sprinkling of water count? Must you be totally immersed?
Is there a requirement as to who is allowed to baptize an individual?

As I said, if water baptism is a requirement for salvation...the bible left us hanging out there high and dry.

 

[JesusFan]

The idea was concerning water baptism as a requirement for salvation. The bible has much, much, much to say about faith, belief etc. but virtually nothing concerning water baptism other than it occurred.

Did I say much, much, much to be said about it? John 3:16 is just one. But when it comes to a chapter or two about how to be baptized...after all some see water baptism as requirement....yet the bible doesn't tell us how to get baptized.
Does the pouring of water or the sprinkling of water count? Must you be totally immersed?
Is there a requirement as to who is allowed to baptize an individual?

As I said, if water baptism is a requirement for salvation...the bible left us hanging out there high and dry.

God always saved by the basis of the Cross of Christ, as always been saved by grace alone, thru faith alone

 

[JesusFan]

There probably isn't any difference in in the principle behind it. Baptism however follows more closely to the wording of the Bible in a covenant sense. Remember too, that the church was being born and established in the NT. Jesus had just been crucified, raised from the dead, ascended back to the Father as our King, our High Priest, mediator of the new covenant. Those who heard and could understand and believe were adults. So, it is to be expected that it would be adults who were being baptized as a sign of the new covenant relationship. What it is not, is proof that only adults should be baptized.

It is the Bible that makes a covenant sign connection of baptism and relates it directly to circumcision in the old covenant. Covenant community is the critical issue here, not salvation.

Those who are in that community of faith would be same as being in the NC, believers in Jesus as their Messiah

 

[Arial]

Those who are in that community of faith would be same as being in the NC, believers in Jesus as their Messiah

You are not making the distinction between the sign of covenant community and the content of the covenant. If I am understanding you correctly you also say the dedication of infants and the baptism of infants are doing the same thing and intended to do the same thing. So where is the conflict or the reason for saying infants should not be baptized?

Compare the purpose of circumcision to the old covenant with the purpose of baptism in the new covenant.