Circumcision vs. Baptism

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.

 

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

 

Hey Brian,

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

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 ]

 

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.

 

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 ]

 

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.

 

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.”

 

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.

 

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.

 

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