Well circumcision was the precursor to baptism - do you think circumcision was figurative? I’ll bet the Jews might take issue with you on that!
WM
Rom. 4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Paul's argument is that Abraham already was justified WITHOUT circumcison and BEFORE circumcision. Therefore, as a "sign" or "seal" it could not impart anything but a SYMBOL of what already had been imparted (regeneration at the point of justification).
Hence, you have the same problem with circumcison.
The position you are defending by even using "circumcision" in regard to what the Jews may think of it is exactly what the council at Jerusalem condemned:
Acts 15:1 ¶ And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said,
Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
You and others simply ignore the common use of redemptive language attached to ceremonial ordinances as types rather than as literal means to remit sins or save.
I have given this example several times and yet not one of you has attempted to respond. I will do it again.
12 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
QUESTIONS:
1. Was this man LITERALLY cleansed from leporsy BEFORE or AFTER he went to the priest to offer a sacrifice "FOR THY CLEANSING"??
2. Was he not told to go shew himself to the preist and make an offer "FOR THY CLEANSING" as Moses commanded?
3. Does the language "FOR thy cleansing" mean he was to do this IN ORDER TO BE literally cleansed or in order to be DECLARATIVELY be cleansed ceremonially (figuratively)? Don't answer this if your answer contradicts question #1 above.
4. Was not the use of water involved in the cleansing by the Priests as commanded by Moses (Lev. 14)?
5. Did the water used for cleansing by the Preists LITERALLY cleanse him from leporsy or DECLARATIVELY cleanse in figure?
6. Does not Hebrews 10:1-4 explicitly state such sacrifices were only a "SHADOW" not what literally cast the shadow?
7. Does not Hebrews 10:4 explicitly deny that such sacrifices "for sins" could ever LITERALLY remove sins? If they were but a "shadow" and never could LITERALLY remove sins then in what sins were they to be offered "for sins" and "for thy cleansing"?
CONCLUSION: All Old Testament redemptive ceremonial ordinances used the language of redemption "for thy sins" "for thy cleansing" "for sin" but NEVER literally removed sins and NEVER literally cleansed anyone of sin but only did so FIGURATIVELY.
Hence, "the like FIGURE whereby baptism doth also now save us."
Hence, just like all ceremonial Old Testament ordinances we ought to expect the same language of redemption with baptism and the Supper but understand it in the same manner - FIGURATIVELY and NEVER literally.
The true reason for all ceremonial ordinances including Baptism and the Lord's Supper is given by Jesus when he told the leper who already had been LITERALLY cleansed:
Luke 5:14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded,
for (gr. eis) a testimony unto them.
