|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 10, 2015 16:39:21 GMT
The subject of infant baptism is a major contention between Baptists, and paedobaptists (those who baptize infants). Often, Baptists are under the impression that paedobaptism cannot be defended from Scripture. For this reason, I’d like to present one Scriptural argument for anyone who desires to find Biblical support for paedobaptism.
One of the most convincing arguments from Scripture for paedobaptism is that fact that though Abraham was justified by faith (see Romans 4:3), prior to circumcision, he was instructed by God to give the sign of the covenant (circumcision) to his infant son, Isaac (see Genesis 17:11-14) who was incapable of exercising faith as an infant. This demonstrates that the reception of the sign of God’s covenant does not require faith on part of the individual who receives the sign, provided they are too young to exercise faith and their parents are part of God’s covenant. Now that baptism is the New Covenant version of circumcision (see Colossians 2:11-12), a Christian should not withhold the sign of the covenant from their children, simply because they are incapable of exercising faith, especially considering how seriously God reacted when Moses withheld the sign of the covenant from his son (see Exodus 4:24-26).
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 10, 2015 19:28:16 GMT
Circumcision is not baptism. It signifies something different than baptism. Baptism is not a replacement for circumcision. Nowhere in the NT are Christians to be circumcised. Circumcision is Colossians 2 means that at salvation believers undergo a spiritual “circumcision” that is done by the Spirit and not by human hands.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 1:11:03 GMT
Jay,
Yes, the NT circumcision is a spiritual circumcision, but it is clearly received in baptism. Here is what it says in Colossians 2:11-12:
"In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."
This explicitly indicates baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision and thus replaces circumcision.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 2:17:29 GMT
Circumcision was not replaced by baptism. Read Acts 15. The circumcision that is mentioned in Col 2 is a spiritual circumcision that takes place in salvation in which baptism points to. Spiritual circumcision by the Spirit continues to happen. Baptism is not the fulfillment of circumcision because they both have different function in the economy of salvation. Historically circumcision would only be applied to males and not females in the OT.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 15:01:17 GMT
Simply saying that baptism is not the fulfillment of circumcision isn't very convincing. I provided a Scripture and you must interact with it specifically in order to convince me otherwise. Also, the early Church saw baptism as the fulfillment of circumcision and I'd be happy to demonstrate this if necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 15:42:14 GMT
Are you claiming that "In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands" no longer happens in Christ?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 17:24:28 GMT
Jay,
You asked "Are you claiming that "In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands" no longer happens in Christ?"
No, I am not saying this. This happens everytime someone is baptized.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 20:13:04 GMT
Great. So baptism does not replace circumcision. The NT church dealt with the issue of circumcision as requirement to be a follower of Christ and clearly said no. In Acts 15 they say nothing about baptism replacing circumcision.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 12, 2015 21:25:47 GMT
Jay,
Spiritual circumcsion is given to the baptized person in baptism. Baptism is the fulfillment of physical circumcision. Thus spiritual circumcision is the fulfillment of physical circumcision, baptism is the fulfillment of physical circumcision and in this sense baptism replaces physical circumcision. I kind of thought this goes without saying. My view is clearly consistent with the Scripture I provided.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 12, 2015 22:57:03 GMT
There is no place in Scripture where it says "Baptism is the fulfillment of physical circumcision." You should study Acts 15 where circumcision is debated. One thing you will find is that baptism is never mentioned as the "Baptism is the fulfillment of physical circumcision."
Even Col 2:12-13 does not say this: "In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ," A spiritual circumcision takes place in Christ. It means "putting off the body of the sins of the flesh (Rom. 2:28, 29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11 Zodhiates, Spiros: The Complete Word Study Dictionary : New Testament. electronic ed. Chattanooga, TN : AMG Publishers, This is done by the Spirit.
"12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." Baptism is something different. In baptism, we identify with Christ in His death and resurrection.
Spiritual "circumcision" and baptism have separate and necessary roles in our salvation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 16:11:02 GMT
Jay,
You say "There is no place in Scripture where it says "Baptism is the fulfillment of physical circumcision.""
That is a pretty weak response to the points I have raise.d There is nowhere in the Bible that it says "God is a Trinity" but we know that Scripture teaches this.
You say "You should study Acts 15 where circumcision is debated."
I've read the Book of Acts in its entirety around 17 times, how about you? Besides, Acts 15 is dealing with physical circumcision and if it is necessary for salvation, which is hardly relevant to my position.
You say "Spiritual "circumcision" and baptism have separate and necessary roles in our salvation."
Simply saying this does not make it so.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 13, 2015 22:41:31 GMT
You are the one claiming that baptism replaces circumcision. You have yet to show one verse that says this. The burden is on you show this with specific passages that clearly show that baptism replaces circumcision.
In my life I have probably read the NT at least 150 times.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 22:43:32 GMT
Jay,
I think the passage I gave sufficiently proves my point, and the early Fathers confirm my assertion, so it is not just my opinion. Your response is like me asking you "where does it say in the bible that God is one nature, three persons?"
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 13, 2015 23:37:15 GMT
Where does Col 2:12-13 say baptism replaces circumcision? Where does Acts 15 say this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 14:52:50 GMT
Jay,
You said:
I never said Acts 15 claims that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision.
Colossians 2:11-13 says:
He says:
So we are not talking about a physical circumcision here.
He says:
So, it is clear he is speaking about a Christian version of circumcision, that is not physical.
He says:
He here says that this Christian circumcision that is not physical is given in baptism.
I really don't see why you are having such trouble seeing this.
The Church Fathers also understood that baptism replaced OT circumcision and here are just three examples.
St. John Chrysostom, commenting on Colossians 2:11-13 says:
St. Justin says:
St. Cyprian says:
|
|