It's what God told Abraham about circumcision, and re-iterated to Moses at passover. And again through Jeremiah and Isaiah.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.Do you actually believe that God told Abraham and he should institute the custom of circumcision for male children only, which would be superseded in due time by baptism? Do you think Abraham had a clue about baptism which was not introduced until Moses came along and was finally defined by the church?
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.
That's not quite what I said, but rather that the function circumcision served is served through baptism(a sign of the covenant). Abraham and Moses were told that the purpose of circumcision is a sign of the covenant. For the new covenant, the sign of the covenant is baptism. In both cases it is not the physical act that serves the spiritual end, but that the physical act stands to represent what God is doing.You have stated that baptism replaced circumcision and instead of circumcision, the church has baptism. Is this not correct?
I asked for support for your view and you stated that Abraham and his successors were told by God to do it. On the face, this is correct, but it makes no connection whatsoever between circumcision and baptism.
Do you have any biblical basis for your view or is it merely somebody connecting some dots to make a case for baptizing infant boys only?
That's not quite what I said, but rather that the function circumcision served is served through baptism(a sign of the covenant). Abraham and Moses were told that the purpose of circumcision is a sign of the covenant. For the new covenant, the sign of the covenant is baptism. In both cases it is not the physical act that serves the spiritual end, but that the physical act stands to represent what God is doing.
The most straightforward place is Colossians 2:11-13. Though it's written throughout such as Romans 6 and Heb 7.
Sure thing.Let's start with Colossians 2:11-13. Here is the text -
11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision performed without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And when you were dead in your wrongdoings and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our wrongdoings,
Please note the following:
1. There is no mention of any covenant, either old or new, and, therefore it cannot be understood that Paul is making reference to either covenant.
2. There is no equivalency stated here. If there was Paul would have probably written something like this: "and in Him you were also circumcised . . . . . . therefore, corresponding to that circumcision you have been circumcised spiritually with Him in baptism" but he did not, obviously.
3. Paul states these as being sequential events. First you were circumcised spiritually (performed without hands) then you were buried with him in baptism (an operation performed with hands).
While I don't care to argue the case, your third point is flat wrong. It's not a sequence, "having been" indicates that being baptized is a means to something and the most obvious relationship is with "you were also circumcised" meaning that the baptism is the answer the the question "When/how was this accomplished?"You betcha'
While I don't care to argue the case, your third point is flat wrong. It's not a sequence, "having been" indicates that being baptized is a means to something and the most obvious relationship is with "you were also circumcised" meaning that the baptism is the answer the the question "When/how was this accomplished?"
To become a member of the Christian Church, must you be baptized with water?
What constitutes a proper baptism?
If it is NOT required, what is, and what does baptism do or what is the meaning of it?
A man hopes in the Lord and repents but he's not baptized. Is he doomed?
Yes, this is a novel idea promulgated in the past 150 years or so.Water baptism is useless without believing.
Only people who are saved are baptized n water.
We don’t get baptized to become saved.
Which clearly has Jesus saying that Baptism is needed to have life.Salvation comes by believing the Gospel,
Yes, this is a novel idea promulgated in the past 150 years or so.
Which clearly has Jesus saying that Baptism is needed to have life.
Paul tells the Ephesians there is one. I'll follow Paul.Which Baptism?
There are three
Paul tells the Ephesians there is one. I'll follow Paul.
no, Paul is explicit to the Ephesians, One faith, ONE Baptism.Paul teaches us there are three baptisms
this is a reference to the Sacrament of Confirmation.Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?