Circumcision? Baptism? Difference?

[Carbon]

The spiritual blessings granted to us by now being found in Christ comes thru saving faith in Him, not thru the water baptism , and the Great Commission is directed to making disciples and baptizing them in the blessed Trinity, and its hard to disciple babies

Even us discipling adults dont get them saved. Unless you believe you have the power to give a dead sinner life? Who is to say one isn't regenerated as an infant, or one still in the womb, or at 2 or 3? Let's face it, we just dont know. @Arial gave a great explanation. Maybe reread it?

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/circumcision-baptism-difference.3337/post-129069

 

[Carbon]

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.

But the NT interprets the OT, not the other way around. It's very important to remember that.

 

[Carbon]

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

Amen. And only those who are united to Christ and who are members of his body have a right to present their children for baptism

 

[Carbon]

Baptism signifies union with Christ and membership in his body. It means this for both adults and infants. So in respect of efficacy, baptism is for infants precisely what it is for adults, namely, the divine testimony to their union with Christ and the divine certification and authentication of this great truth.

 

[Carbon]

Baptism signifies union with Christ and membership in his body. It means this for both adults and infants. So in respect of efficacy, baptism is for infants precisely what it is for adults, namely, the divine testimony to their union with Christ and the divine certification and authentication of this great truth.

Though infants are not capable of the intelligent exercise of faith , they are, nevertheless, susceptible to God’s efficacious grace in uniting them to Christ, in regenerating them by His Spirit, and in sprinkling them with the blood of Christ.

 

[Carbon]

Though infants are not capable of the intelligent exercise of faith , they are, nevertheless, susceptible to God’s efficacious grace in uniting them to Christ, in regenerating them by His Spirit, and in sprinkling them with the blood of Christ.

This grace, in the bonds of an everlasting covenant, infants may fully possess,

 

[Carbon]

This grace, in the bonds of an everlasting covenant, infants may fully possess,

This is what baptism signifies and seals, and no warrant can be elicited for the assumption that in respect of efficacy this sign or seal has any other effect in the case if infants than in the case of adults. (Murray)

 

[CrowCross]

But the NT interprets the OT, not the other way around. It's very important to remember that.

Not always.

 

[Carbon]

Not always.

No? Would you mind pointing out where it does not apply?
Thanks

 

[CrowCross]

No? Would you mind pointing out where it does not apply?
Thanks

I already did. Heb 11. Heb. 11 points back to the OT and how they were saved.

 

[Eleanor]

I already did. Heb 11. Heb. 11 points back to the OT and how they were saved.

The NT interprets in the light of the NT how they were saved in the OT.
Salvation was by faith (Ge 15:6) in the promise (Ge 15:5, Seed).
The NT Heb 11 interprets how OT salvation is fulfilled in the promise, faith in Jesus Christ, bringing understanding forward, from promise to reality, not taking it backwards simply to the promise.

 

[Carbon]

I already did. Heb 11. Heb. 11 points back to the OT and how they were saved.

And the author tells us how. Faith. That is the only way of salvation, always has been

Is that all you have then?

 

[JesusFan]

Amen. And only those who are united to Christ and who are members of his body have a right to present their children for baptism

The NC though "community of faith" would be only those who area actually in it

 

[JesusFan]

And the author tells us how. Faith. That is the only way of salvation

The basis o heir salvation was the Cross of Christ. always has been for any lost sinner getting saved by God

 

[JesusFan]

This is what baptism signifies and seals, and no warrant can be elicited for the assumption that in respect of efficacy this sign or seal has any other effect in the case if infants than in the case of adults. (Murray)

The Bible does not assume though are part of the Body of Christ, as they would be first professing that they are

 

[Carbon]

The NC though "community of faith" would be only those who area actually in it

I think you missed what I’m
Trying to say

 

[Carbon]

The Bible does not assume though are part of the Body of Christ, as they would be first professing that they are

Do you know the difference between the visible church and the spiritual?
Do you understand the NC or the OC?

Respectfully, I’m not so sure you do

 

[Arial]

I already did. Heb 11. Heb. 11 points back to the OT and how they were saved.

No, it isn't. Many scriptures in the NT point back to the OT and clarify (interpret) what could not be seen then as it was only revealed in the person and work of Christ. Heb 11 is a discussion on what faith is, and those in the OT had it. If anything that would be the NT interpreting the events in the OT.

 

[Rella]

Immersion is not a requirement in baptism

As a matter of fact you can find it said in the Didache......


One early Christian document known as the Didache gave brief but specific instructions about the act of baptizing and about which type of water is to be preferred:

Concerning baptism, baptize in this way: after speaking all these words, baptize into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in living water. If you do not have living water, baptize in other water; if you are not able in cold water, in warm. If you do not have either, pour water on the head three times into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Didache first lists water that is flowing from a "living" source—living in this context means naturally flowing, like a river or stream. And it seems that the Didache assumes that the baptized are plunged into this water three times. However, if there were no sufficient pool of living water, a pool of cold water would suffice. Cold water likely would have most recently been "living water," flowing from the earth (and, more practically, also likely would have had fewer impurities and bacteria). If no cold water were available, warmer water (we might think "room temperature") would suffice for plunging the baptized. And if no water pool of sufficient size were available, then, the Didache counseled, pouring water over the baptized's head three times was appropriate.

Which I might add in my church... the Minister holds a baby, if it is small enough and cups his hand over the baptismal font, and scoops water and pours it on the baby's head.... THREE times he does this.

 

[Rella]

I am not seeing this as a dividing issue, but would suggest also that if we take into account JUST inspired apostolic teachings in the inspired sacred scriptures, would seem to support Believers water Baptism , as infant mode would be forcing upon it either the theology of identifying circumcision corresponding to water baptism, or else by impose upon text the Covenant view of the OT "community of faith"

It should not be ignored....

5 entire households....Cornelius' household , Crispus' household, The Jailer' house household, Lydia's household and Stephanus' household... were baptised.

From what I have read that would include extended families... servants... even slaves.

I have been in many a debate that says BUT NOT THE CHILDREN. And when I ask what they did with the children while everyone was busy getting baptized it is radio silence.

No where have I read it say Dont bring the kids. And there would be some in every family and househoild as this was long before birth control