Circumcision vs. Baptism

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Briguy, Jan 27, 2003.

  1. Briguy

    Briguy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/briguy.gif>

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    0
    There has been some comparrision between Bap. and Circum. in relation to relating the Old cov. with the New Cov.. What I mean is that some folks, ED, perhaps has shown scripture which says that circumsission was required to be part of the OC. And then that is compared with Baptism being a requirement to enter the NC. Well, what about woman in the OC. If circumsission was a saving element, how were they saved, seeing they could not participate in this "rite"? Now, many teach that Baptism is required for both men and women. Is more being made of the connection between the OC and the NC then it should be? Should Baptism and Circumsission be compared at all???

    Looking forward to any replies [​IMG]

    In Christ,
    Brian

    [ January 28, 2003, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]
     
  2. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul said that baptism was the circumcision made without hands, so if an inspired writer made a comparison b/t the two, then I would say that it was ok to make a comparison.
     
  3. Briguy

    Briguy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/briguy.gif>

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jarlaxle,
    Thanks for the reply. I agree that there is NT comparison in a certain sense. Wasn't it also Paul who talked about a circumsission of the heart? What I am saying is to say that because C. was a requirement in the OC that B. is a requirement in the NC seems to be over stating the connection.

    In Christ,
    Brian
     
  4. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just thinking out loud...

    The OT covenant was also a limited covenant, based on birth and decent. The NT covenant is open to all.

    In the same way, could not the OT requirement of circumsision, which is imperfect, be an accurate forerunner for baptism in the NT, which IS perfect?

    Again, just random thoughts. ;)

    God bless,

    Grant
     
  5. Briguy

    Briguy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/briguy.gif>

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grant writes:
    ""Again, just random thoughts. """

    Grant, those thoughts were about as random as picking a red jelly bean out of a bag of red jelly beans ;) ;) :D :D

    Sorry Grant I just had to say that. How are you anyway? I hope things are well. I have been reading a couple different posts of yours on other threads, I was very excited to see that you "live out" your faith (i.e. inviting people to church telling them your praying for them, etc... I guess you could say your "loving others" and to me the Christian walk isn't even a walk unless your doing just that. Thanks for the encougement).

    Back to this topic. I really am still waiting to see how females knew they were part of the old covenant. I know what your were "thinking out-loud" and it is scriptual that the NC is a better covenant. Is Baptism, done by the hands of Men the way God would chose to include people in a perfect covenant? That just to me is illogical when God sees the heart of a person and knows from the begining of time who he is giving to Jesus as a gift (John 17). I have used John 17 before but it is always avoided, maybe because it is very deep but it does say what it says and can't be avoided. Anyway, I think I just rambled.

    Grant, keep loving those around you with the love of Christ. When it comes to loving others, we will agree everytime, I hope anyway ;) [​IMG] [​IMG]

    In Christian Love,
    Brian

    [ January 27, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Briguy ]
     
  6. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Brian,

    Yeah, I always love posting with you, as no matter how much we disagree, we never fight. [​IMG]

    Umm, I think my point was that because it is imperfect, we can now look back and see those imperfections. Women were obviously included in the covenant, but not so much visibly so. I think that was the point I was going after.

    Really, these are random! My eyes are starting to hurt from posting all afternoon! Gotta prepare for Bible study tonight still!

    God bless,

    Grant
     
  7. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    If circumcision were to be replaced by baptism why didn't the apostles explain that to the Jews that insisted Gentiles should be circumcised? Instead what they said was this:

    Nowhere do the apostles or elders say here, "Didn't you know, baptism is how we enter into this new convenant." If that had been the case, this would have been the place to bring that to their attention.

    ~Lorelei
     
  8. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus told His disciples to "baptize all nations." That includes Jews and Gentiles. Your verse above doesn't negate Jesus' own words that all are to be baptized, nor that they did it.

    God bless,

    Grant
     
  9. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian,

    Actually, the Jews looked at circumcision in much the same way as denominations such as the Church of Christ look at baptism today. They thought that one must have his penis wacked in order to be a Jew, yet Paul says:

    Likewise, a man is not a Christian if he is only one outwardly, nor is baptism merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Christian if he is one inwardly; and baptism is baptism of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. …

    Is there a way to create colored text in our posts?
     
  10. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it just shows that it wasn't done as a replacement for circumcision.

    ~Lorelei

    [ January 27, 2003, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Lorelei ]
     
  11. Frank

    Frank
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jarlaxle:
    I do not look at baptism the same way jews looked at circumcision. Why? The Bible simply does not teach so.I look at baptism as it appears on the pages of inspiration. Baptism is for the remission of sins by the blood of Jesus Christ through the power of the grace of God. Acts 2:38, Col. 2:12, Eph. 1:7, Rev. 1:5, Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-5. By the way,it is written in a form of doctrine or code as you put it. Romans 6:17,18. It is also important to recognize that the code or form requires one to obey it from the HEART. Also, I am not a part of any denomination. See Acts 2.
     
  12. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Briguy

    The NT (as noted below) decribes OT types as “figures” “shadows” “parables of time present” not exact matches. The NT reality is always greater and a perfect fulfillment of what was foreshadowed by the OT. Christ is the new Adam ( a perfect fulfillment of) not a duplicate of Adam.

    When babies were circumcised in the OT covenant they became one of God’s chosen people , a completely unmerited gift. When a baby is Baptised in the NC they become one of God’s chosen people a completely unmerited gift. Again it is a greater more perfect fulfillment of what is foreshadowed by circumcision.

    There are many many more examples of typology in the NT. Also remember how the apostles heart burned when Jesus opened up the OT scriptures to them.

    And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself…..Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

    As St Augustine said "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New."

    Romans 5:14
    But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.

    I Corinthians 10:11
    Now all these things happened to them in figure: and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

    Collosians 2:16-17
    Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of a festival day or of the new moon or of the sabbaths, Which are a shadow of things to come: but the body is of Christ.

    Hebrews 9:8-9
    The Holy Ghost signifying this: That the way into the Holies was not yet made manifest, whilst the former tabernacle was yet standing. Which is a parable of the time present: according to which gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot, as to the conscience, make him perfect that serveth, only in meats and in drinks,

    Hebrews 10:1
    For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, by the selfsame sacrifices which they offer continually every year, can never make the comers thereunto perfect.

    Godbless

    Dennis

    [ January 28, 2003, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]
     
  13. Briguy

    Briguy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/briguy.gif>

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Jar, Thanks for the verse and your comment. I see it much the same as you. The heart is what needed to be circumcised then and now. OK, if some want to say the heart must be baptized that works as well. Our hearts our what need to be immersed into Christ to be saved, not our old bodies, submerged, dipped or sprinkled with water. I say that as an opinion, based on scripture like what Jarlaxle posted, not to offend anyone. To those who hold Baptism as a means of salvation, I do not want you to feel like I am mocking what you hold dear. That is done the other way sometimes and I do not want to do to others what I don't like being done to me. Anyway, I just see it that way based on what I said above about John 17. We are clearly given to Christ, as a gift from His Father. To think that God waits to see who is baptized before he gives His son "the gift" (us) seems illogical to me, though I am still thinking through that. Frank, I know you believe I think too much and trust the scriptures too little but that is not the case, I think alot based on what the scriptures say.

    In Christ,
    Brian
     
  14. Briguy

    Briguy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/briguy.gif>

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Dennis, Thanks for your post [​IMG]

    I hear what you are saying and basically do not disagree. The thing is though I think some, I guess I am thinking of the RCC, Lutherans, and some Church of Christ type churches, draw this direct line from the OC to the NC and circumcision and Baptism and use it to prove that what they believe is right. I am just trying to think through the differences between the two. I do believe, as you pointed out that the NC is complete as there is no need for newer covenant some day, like there was during the OC times.

    Hi Grant, Thanks for the comments. I will let you and Lorelie go down the path you were speaking about without jumping in.

    L. Have you been around latley? or have you been gone? Either way, [​IMG] Hi and good to see you [​IMG]

    So, How did women know they were part of the OC when they could not be circumcised? That question has not been answered yet.

    In Christ,
    Brian
     
  15. Frank

    Frank
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brian
    The ONE and ONLY Standard for OBJECTIVE TRUTH Is the word of GOD. JOhn 17:17. Therefore, to use any other standard is to fall short of the truth. Jer. 10:23, Isaiah 55:6-8, Acts 23:1.
     
  16. Briguy

    Briguy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/briguy.gif>

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frank writes:
    """The ONE and ONLY Standard for OBJECTIVE TRUTH Is the word of GOD. """

    I agree with you Frank. We have both looked at the truth of God's Word and drawn different conclusions. As well as Carson, MEE and others with various conclusions of the same "Word of God". I thank God daily for molding me even though I don't deserve His attention and care. I am willing to grow and learn God's Word but I will not be "tossed to and fro". There is a balance with that that and I fear many have cut out the former because of fear of the latter.

    In Christ,
    Brian

    [ January 28, 2003, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Briguy ]
     
  17. Jarlaxle

    Jarlaxle
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frank, define denomination.

    Frank, if you are like most CoC’ers then you do indeed look at baptism in much the same light as many Jews looked at circumcision. If you don’t look at baptism in that light, then you are not a normal CoC’er.

    This is assuming of course that you attend services at a Church of Christ.

    Which part of baptism saves us by the blood of Jesus, Frank? Is it the pledge we make or the washing of dirt from our bodies? Or is it both? What does Peter say?

    Did it say both? Nope.

    Did it say the water washing? Nope.

    Did it say the answer of a good conscience toward God? Yes indeed.

    You see, Frank, it is not partly doing and partly believing in what you are doing. It is not one but the other. It is 100% pledge, 0% water. If you claim that the washing of dirt from the flesh plays any part in the washing away of sins from the soul, then you make Peter out to be a liar for he said via inspiration, “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.”
     
  18. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think Jesus was commanding to ceremoniously immerse everyone. If you look at the Greek, I think he was saying to cleanse everyone via the Gospel.
     
  19. Frank

    Frank
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jarlaxle:

    I am a gospel preacher. I proclaim the truth of God's word. You have made unsubstantiated and inflammatory remarks that are not sustained by evidence. Furthermore, I posted the scriptures as to what is revealed in the new testament about baptism. You simnply ignored them. If I am wrong, please use the same standard in correcting my error.. the Bible.

    Moreover, A denomination is an unscriptural designation for division. The term implies the use of another standard for authority as it is not a bible term nor is the concept approved of God. I Cor. 1.

    You have made a broad generalization about Christians without any evidence to provide credibility for your statement. The congregation which I serve does not hold to your claim. Moreover, we are Christians, not cocer's. Acts 11:26.

    I Pet. 3:21 teaches that baptism doth also now save us. If you read the scriptures before and after, you will see water is very much in view here. See Noah and the flood. It is baptism we have our sins washed away by the blood of Christ. Rev. 1;5, Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16.
    Many times God used different elements to save man. Numbers 21:8,9 God used the brazen serpent to save Israel. If, an only if, they looked upon it.By your flawed logic they believed in snake religion.
    In I Cor. 10:1,2, the baptism of Moses saved the children of Israel. They passed through water with water vapor clouds over them. They were overwhelmed( Baptizo) in the clouds and in the sea. In Exodus 12:21,22 the Jews were saved from death by putting blood on the lintel. The salvation or the saving was by the power of God through the instrument of the brazen serpent, the baptism of Moses, and the blood on the lintel.
    The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us not putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer to a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is God's power to save. Col. 2:12.

    The phrase not the putting away of the filth of the flesh is a parenthetical expression used to clarify. The phrase denotes this is a spiritual cleansing not a physical bath.

    God has always used instruments in his methods to save man. Just because you do not like this one does not change the fact it is God's operation to save. The Bible says so. Col. 2: 12. It will read that way on the day of judgment, too!!!

    Peter did not say washed of blood either. Do you exclude it?

    Paul said in Eph. 5:26, that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the WASHING OF WATER BY THE WORD. Verse 25 Identiifes the saved or the church as those having been washed. See also Acts 2:38-40, 47.

    Frankly, I think you have been raised better than what you have displayed in this post. Your lack of knowledge was exceeded only by your contempatable attitude toward others.

    If you doubt I attend and preach for the Lord's church. You can check it out for yourself. The address is Bartley Rd church of Christ in LaGrange Ga. By the way, I host a television program on T.V 33 out of LaGrange. The time of air is Sunday at 4:30 p.m.
     
  20. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Jer.13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

    And can the Church of Christ change the fact that they are a denomination?

    Frank, you should be honest enough to admit that you belong to a "denomination," and admit that it is the COC.
    DHK
     

Share This Page

Loading...