Apostolic-era infant baptisms

Er...actually we do: Col 2:11-12

 

While there is a circumcision of sorts for females among primitive societies on this planet, how do we understand Jewish circumcision in terms of their females and their salvation? To say that circumcision and baptism are analagous is a serious stretch of the imagination even in our world of high-tech speculation.

Jewish circumcision is the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. If it has redemptive qualities, how were the God's people saved before Abraham? To be consistent, let us take it back to Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel.

Baptism is also a sign--of death, burial and resurrection. Sprinkling of "holy" water on the forehead does not quite make a clear picture, immersion shows a vivid picture. Baptism washes nothing--perhaps a little dirt. " Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin."

A ceremonial clipping of the foreskin even with a kosher knife probably washes nothing either.

Remember Cain's offering? Nothing but blood will do.

Will there be any uncircumcised or unbaptized in heaven? If yes, how will they arrive?

Interesting: Moslems circumcise their boys ages 4-10. Guess that goes back to Abraham and his first born: Ishmael, not the one promised by God. Apparently, Ishmael and Isaac are having difficulty with Immanuel--they are still fighting over birthrights.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Guess St Paul got it wrong then.

 

I see what you are saying, Matt, and I should have worded the end of my earlier post more carefully - perhaps something like:

Finally, if New Testament baptism was to be applied in the same manner as Old Testament circumcision, then (to borrow your words ) wouldn't the Scriptures actually state this outright? But we don't see this.

​

Even so, the verses you mention, like much of Colossians, are in the context of warning against the Judaizers, those who tried to teach that gentile Christians (males only, one assumes) had to be circumcised physically. He tells these gentile believers at Colosse that they have been circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, that is, not abodily circumcision, and that this circumcision was the circumcision of Christ. We need only look back to the beginning of the letter, Colossians 1.2-4, to find that it was addressed to Christians, those he calls "saints and faithful brethren", who have faith in Christ:

2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 ¶ We give thanks to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, 4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of your love for all the saints;

​

It is to such people that the words of Colossians 2.11-12 apply:

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

​

 

Yes, but the clear linking of circumcision as an antetype of baptism (incorporation into the covenant community - OT, Israel; NT, Church) is there.

 

To return to Tauf's question in the thread title and OP, it's just occurred to me that The Martyrdom of Polycarp contains more than a hint of infant baptism in the Apostolic Era, possibly even from the hands of John: according to the church at Smyrna which wrote the account, Polycarp (69-155AD) goes on record as saying that he has "served the Lord 86 years" ie: since very near his birth. Now, how can he say that he has "served the Lord" all his life unless he was baptised as a baby?

 

Only if it was on a 5th Sunday or Dec. 25 can this be considered, also the temperature of the baptismal holy water must be measured with a certified thermometer--or some other legalistic mambo jambo.

A lot of this rhetoric is like the evolutionist expounding on the connections between humans and monkeys without ever having found any real missing links. It is all a lot of unnecessary unference.

Welcome to the wonderful world of convolution.

A young child can understand. Adults have more difficulty with age.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

What the heck are you on about?!

 

They were saved by faith:

Romans 4:9 - Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that FAITH was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

Galatians 3:6 - Even as Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

 

So why then circumcise?