Parallels of the old and new Testaments.

theseed · Feb 2, 2004

Lotar said:
Who said it's just a symbol?
Is it impossible for an infant to believe? John the baptist knew and believed before he was born. (Luke 1:44)

Luke 1
44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

It said that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and her baby kicked, but that does not mean all babies believe, and it does not say John the Baptist believed here, ony that he might have been joyful because of Elizabeths indwelling Holy Spirit.

Circumcision was a public testimony, God Himself said as much. It was by circumsicion that His people would be known.

So everbody watched them get circumised? It was open to the public?

theseed · Feb 2, 2004

I thought some people might be interested in reading this.

Set Free in Christ said:
The following is taken from Word Studies in the GreeK New Testament by Kenneth S. Wuest

Set Free in Christ said:
1 Peter 3.18-22
The words the like figure are in the Greek ho antitupon. The question as to whether the word figure refers back to the word ark or the word water, is easily settled by the Greek grammar involved in this expression, for the relative pronoun ho is neuter, the word ark is feminine, and the word water neuter. The relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender. Therefore the word figure which is neuter and construed grammatically with the pronoun ho goes back to the word water. The word figure is the translation of antitupon which means the counterpart of reality. The Greek word baptism is in apposition with the word figure. Our translation so far reads, Which (water) also (as a) counterpart now saves you, (namely) baptism. Water baptism is clearly in the apostles mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not agued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word counterpart. So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing his faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type. The moment he conceived in his heart that he would bring his offering to the tabernacle, his faith leaped the centuries to the time when God would offer the Sacrifice that would pay for his sin. Our Lord said, Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad (John 8:56) the act of bringing the sacrifice was his outward expression and testimony of his inward faith. Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believers inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is his visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith.

Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing fro the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words the answer of a good conscience toward God, and he explains how this is accomplished, namely by the resurrection of Jesus Christ in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.

Lotar · Feb 3, 2004

theseed said:
Luke 1
44As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

It said that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and her baby kicked, but that does not mean all babies believe, and it does not say John the Baptist believed here, ony that he might have been joyful because of Elizabeths indwelling Holy Spirit.

He might have, but in context it seems more likely that it was because of Jesus.

No, not all babies believe, just as not all adults believe. We baptize because we were commanded, not because we think the person believes.

So everbody watched them get circumised? It was open to the public?

I don't know whether it was or it wasn't. Do you believe the sole reason for baptism is a public display of your faith? If so, wasn't it particularly useless when Philip baptized the Ethiopian, since there was no one else present? Why not go around getting baptized all the time, to show everyone what you believe?

theseed · Feb 3, 2004

Do you believe the sole reason for baptism is a public display of your faith?[QUOTE]

Did you forget that the OP is about paralells? I'm showing where there is not a paralell

Lotar · Feb 4, 2004

theseed said:
Did you forget that the OP is about paralells? I'm showing where there is not a paralell

I didn't state it very well. They are both outward professions of faith. I don't know whether or not circumcision was a public event, you'll have to ask a Jew, though I do think it was something that family would attend, sort of like a baptism. It is not taught that it was supposed to bee a public event, but neither is baptism. It is an outward profession, but how does that translate into a public display? If only the person baptizing and the person being baptized are present, does that invalidate the baptism?

theseed · Feb 4, 2004

Lotar, intially, Baptism was a way of demonstrating repentance. John the Baptist was preaching that people would repent, and they would get baptized to show the change they were making in the river, it was a symbol.

Circumsion was only for males, unlike baptism which is for everbody, another way they do not paralell. So why not only baptize male infants? Furthermore, circumsion was only a symbol too, becasue their is rebuke in the bible for not being circumsized in thier heart. Cirmusion of the flesh did nothing (Deut. 30.6; Le. 26.41; Ez 44.7; Jer. 9.25). And I argue that baptism with water does nothing, and it is only an outward sign, which should represent what is happening spiritually, but may not. And I site 1 Peter 3.18 through 22. It would be intellectually dishonest to think that the flood saved Noah and his family, since they were in an ark(and the water did not touch them), and there is a disction to be made when it says, "saved through water" verses "saved by water." This becomes apparent when one reads Eph. 2.8-10 also. It says we are saved by faith through graces, so there is a difference between the meaning of "by" and "through"

Lotar · Feb 5, 2004

theseed said:
Lotar, intially, Baptism was a way of demonstrating repentance. John the Baptist was preaching that people would repent, and they would get baptized to show the change they were making in the river, it was a symbol.

But there is a difference between John's baptism and Christ's baptism.

Circumsion was only for males, unlike baptism which is for everbody, another way they do not paralell. So why not only baptize male infants?

Well, it's a little hard to circumsize a girl

Are they identical? Of course not, but they are parallel.

Furthermore, circumsion was only a symbol too, becasue their is rebuke in the bible for not being circumsized in thier heart. Cirmusion of the flesh did nothing (Deut. 30.6; Le. 26.41; Ez 44.7; Jer. 9.25).

That is, circumsicion without faith is nothing, but those who were not circumcized were to be cut off from their people.

Genesis 17:10-14
"This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.
"And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.
"And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.
"A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
"But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

And I argue that baptism with water does nothing, and it is only an outward sign, which should represent what is happening spiritually, but may not. And I site 1 Peter 3.18 through 22. It would be intellectually dishonest to think that the flood saved Noah and his family, since they were in an ark(and the water did not touch them), and there is a disction to be made when it says, "saved through water" verses "saved by water."

1 Peter 3:20-21
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
[size=-1]Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,[/size]

[size=-1]I think you're misunderstanding the reasoning here. If the meaning you're drawing out of it were true, then you would be saying God is saving us from baptism.[/size]

[size=-1]Look at the broader context here. The flood came to destroy the wicked, while God saved the rightous. It came to wash away the sin, and restore the good. Get the symbolism now?

These are verses usually used to support infant baptism. Baptism washes us clean, not our bodies, but our souls.

[/size]

This becomes apparent when one reads Eph. 2.8-10 also. It says we are saved by faith through graces, so there is a difference between the meaning of "by" and "through"

We are saved by grace through faith, not the other way around

Baptism is a gift from God, a step of faith. It is useless without faith.

theseed · Feb 5, 2004

Look at the broader context here. The flood came to destroy the wicked, while God saved the rightous. It came to wash away the sin, and restore the good. Get the symbolism now? These are verses usually used to support infant baptism. Baptism washes us clean, not our bodies, but our souls.

That's not the way I'm reading it, and it does not say they were saved by water, but through water. Here it is saying that Baptism of the Spirit paralless the flood, not that water baptism parallel the flood.

Peter 3:20-21
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
[size=-1]Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,[/size]

ephasis mine, water baptism only removes dirt, and does not save. Nor does it impart grace. We are saved by faith, through grace. Our faith in Christ brings us into grace (cf. Romans 5.2). Faith brings us into grace, but grace keeps us there. Likewise, the 8 were by the ark, through the water.

theseed · Feb 5, 2004

Well, it's a little hard to circumsize a girl

Actually, I think there is a method of circumcision for girls. Did you know that other nations also cirmcised?

We are saved by grace through faith, not the other way around Baptism is a gift from God, a step of faith. It is useless without faith.

As long as you believe that baptism with water has no power do do anything, and that what saves us is the word become flesh, Jesus Christ.

sola fide · Feb 5, 2004

Would someone please tell me what the point of discussion/argument is in this thread. Please. Thank you very much.

Grace.

Lotar · Feb 5, 2004

sola fide said:
Would someone please tell me what the point of discussion/argument is in this thread. Please. Thank you very much.

Grace.

I was using the baptism analogous to curcumsicion argument to show that infants should be baptized.

sola fide · Feb 5, 2004

Lotar said:
I was using the baptism analogous to curcumsicion argument to show that infants should be baptized.

I got that part, it just didn't seem like that was the direction the discussion was headed in the last few posts.

The Seed- Are you a credo-baptist? If so, would you please give your specific argument against infant baptism just to humor me

? If not, then nevermind.

Grace.

Lotar · Feb 5, 2004

theseed said:
That's not the way I'm reading it, and it does not say they were saved by water, but through water. Here it is saying that Baptism of the Spirit paralless the flood, not that water baptism parallel the flood.

Peter 3:20-21
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
[size=-1]Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,[/size]

ephasis mine, water baptism only removes dirt, and does not save. Nor does it impart grace. We are saved by faith, through grace. Our faith in Christ brings us into grace (cf. Romans 5.2). Faith brings us into grace, but grace keeps us there. Likewise, the 8 were by the ark, through the water.

It clearly talks about baptism, and obviously it is not the water that saves us, it is God working through the water. There is only one baptism, you cannot sepperate Christ's baptism and John's batism, they are now one and the same.

[size=-1]Ephesians 4:5
one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
[/size]

theseed · Feb 5, 2004

Sola Fide said:
I got that part, it just didn't seem like that was the direction the discussion was headed in the last few posts.

The Seed- Are you a credo-baptist? If so, would you please give your specific argument against infant baptism just to humor me ? If not, then nevermind.

I don't know what credo-baptist means, but it is Lotar's assertion that baptism is worthless without faith, and I believe it is a symbol of faith in Christ and all that entails. It is also Lotar's assertion that infants can have faith, but I say, what if they don't? Why should we baptize them? Why not wait until they can make a profession of faith? (Romans 10.9-13).

theseed · Feb 5, 2004

Lotar said:
it is God working through the water.

This is where I disagree, he does not work through water at all, but through Jesus Christ, and his propititation.

sola fide · Feb 5, 2004

theseed said:
I don't know what credo-baptist means, but it is Lotar's assertion that baptism is worthless without faith, and I believe it is a symbol of faith in Christ and all that entails. It is also Lotar's assertion that infants can have faith, but I say, what if they don't? Why should we baptize them? Why not wait until they can make a profession of faith? (Romans 10.9-13).

1. A credo-baptist is just someone who thinks you have to make a confession/profession before you are baptized.
2. Romans 10 has nothing to do with baptism, and we shouldn't wait if it isn't God's revealed will that we wait.
3. I don't think infants having faith really has anything to do with baptizing them. It is the faith of the parent(s) that matters in infant baptism. They are the one's being faithful to God's command, not the infant.

Grace.

sola fide · Feb 5, 2004

theseed said:
This is where I disagree, he does not work through water at all, but through Jesus Christ, and his propititation.

I agree with you there. :clap:

theseed · Feb 5, 2004

sola fide said:
1. A credo-baptist is just someone who thinks you have to make a confession/profession before you are baptized.

I think baptism would be pointless if one is not buried with Christ and raised again to walk in the newness of life.'

Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

2. Romans 10 has nothing to do with baptism, and we shouldn't wait if it isn't God's revealed will that we wait.

When in scripture does it say that God will reveal when one should be baptized? Romans 10 decribes how one is saved, and your right, it has nothing to do with baptism. So there is no working of the water.

I don't think infants having faith really has anything to do with baptizing them. It is the faith of the parent(s) that matters in infant baptism. They are the one's being faithful to God's command, not the infant.

Lotar does, and Lutherans do. And if baptism is for the faithful (parents) then it is not for the infant. Baptism is a sign of what happens when we are washed in the blood of the Lamb. Our old selves die with Christ, and our new selves live again, with Christ, so the old goes away and the new comes. This is what baptism shows, as stated in Romans 6.4.

Titus 3
5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Ephasis mine, notice is says that the rebirth is what washes, and not water.

sola fide · Feb 5, 2004

theseed said:
I think baptism would be pointless if one is not buried with Christ and raised again to walk in the newness of life.'

Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

When in scripture does it say that God will reveal when one should be baptized? Romans 10 decribes how one is saved, and your right, it has nothing to do with baptism. So there is no working of the water.

Lotar does, and Lutherans do. And if baptism is for the faithful (parents) then it is not for the infant. Baptism is a sign of what happens when we are washed in the blood of the Lamb. Our old selves die with Christ, and our new selves live again, with Christ, so the old goes away and the new comes. This is what baptism shows, as stated in Romans 6.4.

Titus 3
5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

Ephasis mine, notice is says that the rebirth is what washes, and not water.

1. I do not believe that water, the act of baptism, or both combined does anything for the faith of the infant, it doesn't impart or confirm faith.

2. The obvious thing that I'm going to say about Romans 6 is that you left out being crucified.
Romans 6:6 goes on to say that we were not only buried with him, but also crucified with him. Yet we don't see symbolism of being crucified in the act of baptism by immersion and of believers only.
And of course we have to remember that the word baptism always represents unity, so Paul is say that we were "unified" with him in his death, that is we became partakers of His death, the newbirth, and His resurrection. Verse 5 clarifies that. Verses 3 and 4 don't simply speak of water baptism. That's why Paul says we were baptized "into" Christ. Water baptism does not baptize us "into" Christ, only faith can do this. Therefore we cannot take it to be a command of how we should be baptized, but rather as a picture of salvation.

3. Again, Titus 3 confirms the point that I just made. It tells us how we are saved, but not how we should be baptized, or who should be baptized. We are saved by the cleansing work of the Spirit as it applies the benefits of Christ to our lives by faith. This is not baptism, this is salvation. I do not, I repeat, believe that the water cleanses us from sin, I hold the Reformed/Calvinistic Covenentalist view of baptism. Baptism symbolizes these things but has no bearing upon them.

The baptism of an infant testifies to the faith of the parent(s), and is to work in strengthening the faith of all those who are watching the baptism take place. In that they are reminded of their baptisms and are hurled back to think of their own baptism, and if they have been faithful to Christ, who instituted the sign of baptism, therefore causing them to examine themselves.

Grace.

Breetai · Feb 5, 2004

I agree with everything that Lotar said

Parallels of the old and new Testaments.

Contributor

Contributor

Swift Eagle Justice

Contributor

Swift Eagle Justice

Contributor

Swift Eagle Justice

Contributor

Contributor

neo-Puritan

Swift Eagle Justice

neo-Puritan

Swift Eagle Justice

Contributor

Contributor

neo-Puritan

neo-Puritan

Contributor

neo-Puritan

For I am not ashamed of the Gospel...

Similar threads