Circumcision vs. Baptism

Hi Briguy,
I believe that there are two major views here: those who hold to a form of covenant theology, and those who are dispensationalists. Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, though their theology differ one from another in many different ways, all believe in a covenant theology. The Jews were God's called out people of the Old Testament, who God made a covenant with. The sign of that covenant was circumcision. The women were taken care of under the covenant by view of the headship of the home. The father was responsible for the children, and the daughters were automatically under the authority of the man. The blessing, the right of ownership, inheritance, etc. were all passed down through the male. We all believe pretty much the same up to this point.

The covenant theologian believes that baptism replaces circumcision. To what degree it replaces it is where much of the differences come in. If baptism replaces circumcision, then it is natural to assume that God has made a covenant with the "church" of the New Testament, and that baptism, like circumcision is the door to Christianity. Thus in many circles of Christendom, it is "baptism" that saves. Baptism is the sign of the New Testament Covenant as circumcision was of the Old Testament Covenant.

The trouble with that view is that it is not Scriptural. God did make a covenant with the Jewish nation, and its sign was circumcision. God will fulfill that covenant with the Jews during the Millennial Kingdom. The only kind of covenant that God has made with His children in this New Testament dispensation of grace is the promise of forgiveness of sins and eternal life to those who receive Christ as Saviour. Baptism is not a sacrament; it is an ordinance, a command of Christ given to the believer as a step of obedience after salvation. It is totally symbolic in nature. If one does not get baptized it has no effect on his salvation, only his reward in Heaven. We do not live in the age or dispensation of the law, rather we live in the age or dispensation of grace. God is dealing in grace with mankind at this time. He wishes to draw all men to Himself. Only those that receive Him as Saviour will be saved, and be granted eternal life. That salvation is by faith alone, not by baptism. It has nothing to do with a covenant. It is applicable to both males and females; to all who are able to understand the simple message that Jesus died for your sins, and paid the penalty that you deserve. For by grace are ye saved and that not of yourselves. Baptism is something one does of themselves.
DHK

 

Frank wrote:

Please quote those inflammatory remarks you claim I have made, sir. If you show such remarks that I have made, I will be humbled and will indeed repent. However, the only unkind poster I have yet seen in this thread is yourself as can be plainly seen by all. I notice you did not even approach the verse I quoted an explained. You have taken it upon yourself to attack me directly instead of my argument. Such tactics normally suggest that the attacker simply has no argument to counter because s/he is wrong. Might you bring it upon yourself to cool down and debate like a Christian instead of like a street thug using your words as opposed to sticks and stones as a normal thug would?

Ah, so you mean if a body of believers makes up their own rules such as telling fellow brothers they are wrong for using instrumental music, and then divides themselves from all others that do not agree with their man made rule, then they have become a denomination? Yep, that would definitely put the Church of Christ in the denomination category.

Again, please quote that broad generalization without evidence. I think I can consider myself an expert on what the CoC believes and does not believe, seeming that I am a member of a CoC myself and have been my entire life.

Ah, finally, you address 1 Peter… well, kinda anyway. Yes indeed, baptism does save us, and if you will read again what I posted then you will see that I agree that baptism saves us; when referenced as the circumcision made without hands, circumcision of the heart, or as 1 Peter puts it “the answer of a good conscience toward God.”

By my flawed logic, or yours? And you tell me that I use statements that are too generalized? It is one thing to claim that logic is flawed, but it is another thing entirely to show the fallacy that has been committed. For example, the fallacy you committed above where you attacked me instead of my argument. Such a fallacy is technically called “Argumentum ad Hominem” which is a Latin term meaning “Argument against the man.” You mention that God has used different elements to save man, but I humbly do not agree. God has always used the same “element” to save man, but often times used different things to symbolize the power that actually does the saving.

Ah, very becoming. Yet more Argumentum ad Hominem. I find it quite ironic that you would display such an aggressive attitude toward me and in the same sentence commit that which you claim I have done. Doubly ironic is the simple that fact you have labeled me as stupid and ignorant (i.e. lack of knowledge) and in the very same sentence misspell the word contemptible. Have you ever seen the movie Major Payne? I just love it when he throws the real grenade and the kids just think its a dummy grenade. Then it explodes and Major Payne says, “Who’s the dummy now!?” Not that I am calling you a “dummy” mind you, for I have learned through past experience that such tactics as you have displayed are not essential. Ignorance always has a way of exposing its ugly head on its own.

Now, do you think we can cast aside this business of attacking the person instead of his or her argument?

If so, let me start afresh with my argument.

When I was married, it was directly stated that I was marrying my wife with the wedding band I was placing on her finger. I even stated, “With this ring, I thee wed.” The preacher went on to describe in minute detail what this ring symbolized, just as the Bible describes the symbolization baptism has in Romans 6. Is the ring then essential for me to be married to my wife? No, not at all.

There is no doubt that the Bible directly says that baptism saves, just as directly that preachers often time say that rings join couples in eternal love. However, 1 Peter 3:21 clearly points out that the water has nothing, 0%, not one bit to do with that saving. Peter says that it is not the cleaning of the body with water that saves, but it is the answer of a good conscience toward God that saves. That “answer” saves by the power of the blood of Jesus. Do you disagree with Peter? If so, why?

 

DHK:
I was very honest and blunt about denominations. I profess to follow the New Testament of Jesus Christ,no more and no less. This makes one a Christian per Acts 11:26, no more no less.
If you want to follow the creeds of men, God will allow you too. However, I do not chose to do so. I am entitled to follow the standard of my choosing just as you are yours.

 

However, you don't mind calling other people denominational but if they call you the same thing you get upset? If they follow what they determine to be the Word of God, it is not along with your intepretation then it must be "creeds made by men"?

 

Jarlaxle:
The objectional comments would be the following:
1. You called Christians Cofcer's. This is an unscriptural and false designation for those who profess Chritianity. In other words, there is no scriptural support for it's descriptive use.
2. You lumped members of the church with an unscriptural positon as it pertains to baptism and circumcision. You provided NO evidence for your claim.
3. You implied I was dishonest concerning my attendance or being a part of the Lord's church.
You said those things, and then want to talk so piously to me. It does not bother you to judge one's heart, and honesty? The knife cuts both ways!!

While you may be a life time member of the church, that fact in and of itself proves nothing.. Although that claim is impossible based on the Bible , see Romans 3;23, Gal. 3:26-29, there have been many who have apostasized who,perhaps, claim the same thing. You are an expert by whose standard? Your own?

The scriptures do,in fact, teach God has used many methods and elements to save. Numbers 21:8,9, I Cor. 10:1,2, Exodus 12:21-24. God chose baptism as his method to save in the New Testament. I Pet. 3:21.

My reference to your logic being flawed is implied by your false understanding of I Pet. 3: 21. You accuse Christians of equating water baptism as having inherant power to save which would also apply to the brazen snake. Surely,you see the fallacy of this logic. No rational person believes this. The Bible, and I produced the scriptural reference for it, says baptism is God's power to save. It is his operation. Col. 2:12. If you are offended by the way in which I dealt with this argument, I am sorry. It was not meant to offend but to demonstrate the implication of your claim. The truth pricks! Acts 2:37.

 

Jarlaxle:
I have not called anyone a denomination. I have used the names to describe the theology by which they identify themselves..I.E. Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodist, etc. I have used these designations as they have applied them to
themselves. I have not made broad generalizations about any group other than the fact of what their theology implies. I did the same with your argument.In other words,if you identify yourself as a Buddist, I will refer to you as such. I refer to myself as a Christian. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the same courtesy from others. Mat. 7:12.
It is an undeniable fact there is religious division in this world. I do not know of anyone who would not proclaim this to be true, unless they are irrational. So, I do not know why you made that statement. The Bible refers to it as sects. We call it sectarianism, today.

 

Frank wrote:

We here at my congregation refer to ourselves with that term all the time. We were just discussing the other night how we should put it on our softball jerseys. If it offended you, the I humbly apologize. However, your reasoning for its misuse confuses me. Please quote the verse that tells me I need “scriptural support” for any description I give of myself. If I were to call myself and my bothers and sisters some of “God’s little warriors” would that be wrong as well?

Quotes.. quotes. I do not understand what you are referring to. If you mean that I compared circumcision with baptism and such a comparison is wrong, then you need to take that up with Paul since he did if first. I am only going by his inspired example.

I remember doing no such thing! Quotes, quotes! I you are going to accuse me of such things, please show the evidence of such.

I am an “expert” in the sense that I know exactly what most CoC based Christians believe because they taught me themselves!

That’s nice of you to repeat yourself and all, but as I stated in my last post, I believe that baptism saves too; that is, the circumcision done without hands, i.e. non-physical and therefore not physical water.

You keep stating this as if it is “matter of fact” which is a fallacy in and of itself often referred to as “begging the question.” Please, explain the fallacy I have committed in my interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21. And for the third time I will ask you, hoping for an answer: What does Peter tell us saves, the water or the answer?

Water?

Or answer?

 

Frank,
Just out of curiosity: What makes you so sure that yoy are right and every one else is wrong. I am a fundamental Baptist. However I am a Christian, just like everyone else on this board professes to be. We have our differences. That doesn't make me any less a Christian. In fact, Frank, if I am right in all that I believe and you are wrong you "Might" have all eternity to lose. You may not be a Christian at all. I don't go so far as to say that you are not. I say there is a great possibility that that exists.

However, you are so arrogant, that you come off as sounding that you are the only Christian on this board (unless there are some other Cocers like Sola), and then go as far as to brand me as a false teacher, implying that I am not saved at all. Why the arrogancy, the elitist attitude?
DHK

 

DHK,

Certainly I can not speak for Frank, but I will tell you why I used to be just like him. It is the way we, in the Church of Christ, are brought up. From childhood we are taught that the Baptist is the enemy, but don’t even worry with debating with a Methodist because he doesn’t even go by the Bible to begin with. The Baptists on the other hand are sly dogs that bend the Bible all out of whack (kinda like the devil in sheep’s clothing), creating their own creeds they worship as the Bible itself. We are given little blue and white cards that list many of the verses used in our battles against you heathens. For example, one list of verses will be under baptism and each verse, if taken out of context, will indeed show that baptism is essential for salvation; just like the statement, “With this ring, I thee wed” if taken out of context, tells us that the ring is essential for marriage. Another list will be for taking the Lord’s Supper, EVERY first day of the week. Without actually saying so, we are taught to worship the Bible as opposed to humbling ourselves in reverence to the Christ. Bible worshipers, that’s what we are; legalists to the core.

Just recently, my eyes have been opened, thanks be to a most merciful Lord and Savior to what I was doing. I was making the word fit my theology / doctrine as opposed to making my doctrine fit the Word.

 

Thank-you for your response, Jarlaxle.
It was helpful, giving insight, to understand more of the COC and their thinking. God bless you in your walk for Him.
DHK

 

Brian:
I could be mistaken but if my memory serves me correct. One scripture was used in the presentation in question. Furthermore, It is not in harmony with the totality of the evidence.
Moreover, the unkindness began with the opening post. I posted the three objectional comments. They are objectional because they are not based on any scriptural evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, in order for the claim to be true, the one in question would have to know at least 1.5 million Christians to validate his claim.
It is one thing to voice a personal opinion about a subject. However, it is inappropriate to make comments that offend faithful people to God without substantiating them with the totality of evidence.
Pesonally, I am not edgy or in need of a social worker, although it is most noble of you to offer your help. However, my wife is a counselor and probably can help in those times I am " edgy."

When I am on televison, I am not insulted by the questioning of my character. I also do not allow unsubstantiated and generalized statements to be made about others. So, I do not have to engage a person who operates in this manner. However, I would use the same scriptures to defend the truth as I did the first time. I make no apology for exposing error.
I have been called many things in my life time. However, it is rare,indeed, to have someone question my integrity and not even know me. I guess it takes all kinds.

 

Frank wrote:

You mean like saying that baptism is essential for salvation is not in harmony with much of the teaching of scripture? You can continue to state such things as “matter of fact” if you like, but I have given you a clear verse and clearly stated an interpretation of that verse. The best objection you have yet to come up with is, “Well, uh, that’s not right.” Oh really? Ok, but do you care to explain to me how the verse is to be interpreted as opposed to simply saying it is not right?

I have asked you several times now, Frank, to tell me what saves according to Peter. Does Peter say that the washing saves, or does Peter say that the answer of a good conscience saves? Let me put it into a multiple choice format for you since you seem to be having trouble answering it:

A: water washing away the filth of the flesh
B: answer of a good conscience toward God
C: both the water washing and the answer

Which one of the above saves us, according to Peter, and inspired writer? Which one, Frank? Which one saves by the power of the blood of Jesus Christ?

Would you be referring to your own opening post, or one of ours?

Simply not true. Ever heard of statistics? A statistician takes random samples, small random samples, to attain information about the whole population in question. I have been to congregations in Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee, and all but one congregation I have been to is the same. That one congregation that seemed to be heading in the right direction was actually diss-fellowshiped by all the other surrounding congregations! And do you know why? They did this because the congregation in question would not specifically say that instrumental music was a salvational issue. Mind you the congregation in question has never used instruments, is not using instruments nor, and specifically stated that they would never use instruments. However, simply because they would not say the issue had anything to do with salvation, the preachers of each of the other congregations diss-fellowshiped them. The preachers did this, which is funny in and of itself seeming that one would think, knowing the Church of Christ, that the elders would have been involved in doing such a thing.. but go figure.

Nevertheless, this shows another aspect of the Church of Christ. In general, they do not teach people about Christianity so much as they teach people who not to associate with. They come up with all sorts of reasons why they should not be associated with what they have labeled the “denominational” world (or as you seem to what to phrase it, the sectarian world), as well as which congregations of their own that they will not associate themselves with. Isn’t it ironic that you define a denomination as something that separates itself, when in all actuality the Church of Christ is the leader of separation?

I have given numerous examples of what I claim. I myself am an example since I have come from the Church of Christ background. You sir are full of ironies it seems, for it is again ironic that you would say anything about offending faithful people of God. Even in that statement you mean to separate yourself from the Baptists for example. For after all, do you consider them as faithful people of God? If so, then I humbly retract my judgement as to how you mean that statement.

As you stated to me earlier, Frank, the knife cuts both ways. What you dish out has come back to bite you and it stings, doesn’t it. Your errors in reasoning have been exposed and when the open air blows across those wounds the pain is indeed intense if one is not humble enough to admit one is wrong.

I have not questioned your integrity, Frank. Here you continue to debate with fallacies that are easily exposed. This one is called “argumentum ad misercordiam” or Appeal to Pity . You would have people believe that you are being unjustly “attacked” in order to hide your incorrect reasoning. I have simply used basic logic to point out your fallacies. Again, in your own words, I make no apology for exposing error.


Nevertheless, I do apologize if my bluntness comes across too strongly, which is probably an error in my character that needs work. However, I stand behind the truthfulness of all that I have posted and challenge you to show where I have errored as opposed to simply stating that I have errored.

 

Brian:
I disagree about the interpretation of I Pet. 3:21. The only way to properly interpret any passage is by the context. I Pet. 3:21 can only be interperted properly by studying the context found in Gen.6. and the references in I Pet. 3. If one interprets a passage excluding immediate and remote context, he violates one of the principles of proper interpretation.
My appraoch is based on the way language works. In order to interpret any literature one must properly understand declarative statements, examples and implications from the totality of the evidence on a subject. The failure to do this will result in making errors of interpretation.
Now, Brian, if you can exaplain to me ANY OTHER WAY LANGUAGE CAN WORK, I will consider it. The capitals are for emphasis. I am not shouting. I would not want to be " unkind ."

 

Jarlaxle:
Yes, I have heard of statistics, Have you heard of posting the data or am i just to accept your word. Furthermore, you claimed most cocer's equated circumcision with baptism, that statement requires a percentage of 50 percent. You made no statement about a random sample of any states. You made a broad generalization.
Furthermore, The Bible teaches water baptism is essential to the salvation of the sinner. Mk. 16:16. The Bible teaches we are children of God through faith, Gal. 3:26. The Bible teaches when we are children of God by faith. WHEN? The Bible says it is when we are baptized into Christ. The Bible teaches the method God uses to put us in Christ by faith. Col. 2:12, Acts 8:39. The Bible teaches us the agent by which we are cleansed when we are baptized into Christ in water. BLOOD. Mat. 26:28,Rev. 1:5, I Pet. 1:18,19, Acts 22:16, Eph. 5:26.
Finally,in answer to your question of I Pet. 3:21,the passage teaches that water is in view. However, the power to save is in the resurrection of Christ by faith in God's operation to save. The phrase not the putting away the filth of the flesh is a parenthetical expression used to clarfiy this is not a bath for the putting away of the flesh but a spiritual cleansing by faith in Christ and his resurrection. This is consistent and harmonious with the proclamation Peter made on Pentecost in Acts 2:38. He said repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter in Acts 10:47,48 commanded Cornelius to be baptized. Based on the evidence, I must rationally conclude that Peter taught that water baptism was for the remission of sins by the resurrection of Christ and faith in his atoning blood. I Pet. 1:18,19. I affirmed this in the first post in response to your questions about the passage.
If my conclusion is in accurate, then Peter made several errors. They are as follows:
1. He contradicted the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
2. He did not understand the purpose of the message he proclaimed in Acts 2.
3. He was confussed as to the method God uses to cleanse one spiritually.
4. He was confussed as to the spiritually cleansing agent that he spoke of in I Pet. 1:18,19. He misunderstood the atonement of Leviticus 16 and Exodus 12 and th eperfect image in Christ. Hebrews 10:1,2.
5. He did not understand the meaning of the word baptism and it's relation to us or Noah. I Pet. 3:20,21, Gen. 6.
Finally, I do make mistakes in keyboarding. If you need clarification of an error caused by my mistake, I am more than happy to clarify for you. As for your initial personal remarks, My perception is one of what you said by your direct proclamation of facts. I REFUSE TO ATTEMPT TO JUDGE YOUR INTENT! It is possible I have forgotten what most cocer's requires. I thought most required at least a majority. AGAIN, THE SAMPLE GROUP WAS NOT SPECIFIED. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT I MISUNDERSTOOD THE STATEMENT IF I ACTUALLY ATTENDED OR WENT TO A CHURCH OF CHRIST. I GUESS I SHOULD ASSUME THIS MEANT I WAS ACTUALLY BEING TRUTHFUL ABOUT MY FAITH.
I DID NOT REALIZE EXPERTS HAD NO CREDENTIALS THAT QUALIFIED THEM AS SUCH. I LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY.
I have learned that gramatical vehicles are to be ignored. i have learned to ignore immediate and remote context in order to understand a passage. I lerned to ignore the meaning of words such as like figure. I have learned that the like figure is not essential in undertandiing the passage. I thought men put verse and chapter divisions in the Bible. I am not sure what I know now!!!! By the way, Paul used sarcasm in writing to the church at Corinth!!

I have certainly received a most unique education in this discussion!

 

No, I most certainly did not. I said that cocer’s look at baptism as an essential physical element required for salvation, much as the Jews looked at circumcision as a required physical element essential for being a Jew. Big difference, although I am not surprised that you would try create a straw man out of my argument since that you have committed most all other fallacies already.

You go on to explain how we become children of Abraham through baptism, and I have already agreed to that. Please stop clouding the issue with your semantics, begging the question that there is no separation of the answer of a good conscience toward God and the washing away of dirt from our bodies. Again, I have already conceded to the fact that baptism is essential, but what aspect of baptism is essential? The inward pledge of repentance, or the outward sign of death, burial, and resurrection? Or both? Again, I fail to see where you have answered my one, very simple, multiple choice question.

All the points you bring up as to how Peter must have been confused if the water is not essential, merely begs the question that the water is not a symbolic token like a wedding ring. By your “logic” then I would have to conclude that the preacher that married my wife and I must have been confused about what actually marries two people together because he certainly stated that the wedding band did it!

btw, I love you and still think of you as a brother even though you have implied that i have "apostosized"

 

Jalaxle:
I have answered your question scripturally. Maybe you did not understand my answer or you do not like the way I answered. I never affirmed water had any miraculous power to save. The scripture you posted tells us where the power is located.( the resurrection of Jesus). Furthermore, water baptism does also now save us. Not the puting away of the filth of the flesh. ( parenthetical expression). It is not a Jewish ritual of cleansing physically but a spiritual one by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. By being baptized into Christ water baptism one makes an appeal to God for a clear or clean conscience. Conclusion: one must be water baptized to have a good consicence before God. I hope that suffices as an answer. I believe it covers what you asked.
Now, let me ask you a few questions.
1. Does water baptism save us?
2. When one is water baptized does he make an appeal to God for a clear or clean conscience?
3. Does I Pet. 3:21 teach us one must be immersed in water to be saved as Noah was overwhelmed or immersed in the days of the flood? (the like figure).
Jarlaxle, If you have been a member of the church for as long as you claim, you know as well as I do that members of the church do not refer to theselves as cocer's. I have been a christian since I was 13 years old and have never heard one professing Christianity say they are a cofcer. In fact, I would correct anyone who would insult me or the Lord by that term !!!Furthermore, You implied that members of the church looked at baptism as a physical statute void of proper spiritual meaning. In my study of Jewish circumcison it has become apparent they trusted in the law more than the lawgiver. I do not believe that most of the members of the church see baptism in this way. I do not care if your most or many is a random sample, universal or local. Take your pick. In fact, I doubt you have ever done valid research on the subject. I would like to see the results of the data collected.

I did not try to build a strawman. If you believe water baptism is essential for the salvation of the sinner, I agree. If you do not, the evidence indicates you are in error, brother. I am contending for that affirmation just as Peter spoke,wrote and commanded it by the inspiration of God. I posted the scriptures for this point. Acts 2:38;10;47,48, I Pet. 1:18,19,I Pet. 3:21. I will address the issue of mechanical instruments in my next post.