Should we baptize babies? Is Baptism the circumcision of the new covenant?

[kwikphilly]

On 2/19/2023 at 10:44 AM, JohnD said:

Water baptism is at best an outward expression of an inward transformation. 

It is not required for salvation. John the water baptizer made this clear (Matthew 3:11).

The Holy Spirit baptism John speaks of there is required for salvation. Otherwise the baptism

by fire (judgment) is the doom / destiny of all who do not believe in Jesus (John 3:18).

Water baptism stems from the washing of the priests before performing temple rituals.

John the Baptist was the pre-royal herald to the coming King and to his New Covenant: 

preaching the repentance not only from sin but also from the Old Covenant (prophesied by

Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Galatians 3:24-25 essentially states that Torah was to educate humanity but Grace is the graduation

purpose for the education. Rather than being stuck in school forever, the symbolic baptism was to 

prepare the Jewish people for graduation from Torah to Brit Hadasha (New Covenant Grace).

Far too many adult Christians are unaware of this. And babies certainly have no idea about all of this.

It is a bit superstitious to baptize a baby (for luck or in hopes they will believe someday) but salvation in Christ

is sheer choice. You can't impose it on anyone.

That being said, my Beloved Bride and I were moved to tears once while attending a Methodist Church years ago where a

baby was ceremonially baptized, wrapped in a blanket made by the women of the church and carried by the minister who sang the 

baby's name "Jaden Jaden God claims you, God helps you, protects you, and loves you too."

We should all pray like this, and come together as a congregation devoted to protecting and watching over our youth. But Jaden has to choose

to believe  in Jesus Christ to be saved same as anyone. So to ceremonially commit as a body of believers to this in this manner is fine and good and

moving to me to this very day.

 

I agree,an outward expression,professing our Faith.....

Jayne contributed much,baby dedications are great ..   and I don't see anything wrong with many traditions either,as symbolic and customary for all to celebrate newborns,welcome them into the world ,come together to pray for and help nurture them " the right Way to go" I do Believe it takes a Village to raise a child( the Body of Christ is the best village there is!)

But as for the OPs question. " No"- a church ritual does not produce a Seal of Redemption ,it does nothing but wet the baby and perpetuate a lie imo

[farouk]

2 minutes ago, kwikphilly said:

I agree,an outward expression,professing our Faith.....

Jayne contributed much,baby dedications are great ..   and I don't see anything wrong with many traditions either,as symbolic and customary for all to celebrate newborns,welcome them into the world ,come together to pray for and help nurture them " the right Way to go" I do Believe it takes a Village to raise a child( the Body of Christ is the best village there is!)

But as for the OPs question. " No"- a church ritual does not produce a Seal of Redemption ,it does nothing but wet the baby and perpetuate a lie imo

@kwikphilly This is why a lot of believers prefer to wait - as per Acts 2.41 - for definite signs of conversion before baptizing.

[AdHoc]

Addressing all who have participated; @portlie @other one @Who me @Jayne @Dennis1209 @MomBearTo4 @Tristen @farouk @tim_from_pa @teddyv @JohnD @kwikphilly

I'm entering the debate late, so I won't revisit what has been said. But I do notice that no one wants to address @portlie question whether Baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant. I think this was crucial - and the silence is deafening. The whole line of God's recovery started with Abraham and a Covenant was made by God with Abraham AND HIS SEED which has not been annulled (Gal.3:15-17).

It is clear that Abraham produced three types of SEED, (i) Jesus (Gal.3:16), (ii) Jacob's offspring and (iii) the Church (Gal.3:29). And God gave, as our part of the Covenant, the sole condition of circumcision. The condition contains a dire threat. Anyone refusing circumcision would be "cut off" from God's people.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.... 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. (Ge 17:10–14)

@portlie 's question no doubt stems from Colossians 2. It reads;

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, ... ."

I propose debate on
1.  Does the New Covenant apply to Christians or to Israel alone (Jer.31:31-33)?
2.  Does the New Covenant have as it terms, Circumcision?
3.  If the Church is "Seed of Abraham" (Gal.3:29) what means "cut off"?
4.  If the Covenant made with Abraham for Canaan has been extended to "the whole world" (Rom.4:13), is circumcision/Baptism, as debated in Acts 15, really unnecessary? After all, the command that Christians be Baptized is emphatic.

[other one]

27 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

question whether Baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant.

In respect to the rest of the question as to whether or not we should baptize babies.

I think I answered that part with the first post in that they should not for baptism should not be done until that person is capable of understanding and accepting Jesus.

While both are somewhat of an outward show of being a covenant participant, they are different in what it takes to do so.   Circumcision is simply be born to Jewish parents, and that really means very little when looking at the new covenant where it is individual's spiritual life that dictates when baptism is appropriate.

Unless you believe that baptism saves a person or a person can't be saved without being baptized (which is a very long heated subject most of the time) one would not baptize babies.

My thoughts on the subject.

 

Another difference is that most people are baptized in front of church members and I would not think it a good idea to circumcise people in public.

[kwikphilly]

39 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

Addressing all who have participated; @portlie @other one @Who me @Jayne @Dennis1209 @MomBearTo4 @Tristen @farouk @tim_from_pa @teddyv @JohnD @kwikphilly

I'm entering the debate late, so I won't revisit what has been said. But I do notice that no one wants to address @portlie question whether Baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant. I think this was crucial - and the silence is deafening. The whole line of God's recovery started with Abraham and a Covenant was made by God with Abraham AND HIS SEED which has not been annulled (Gal.3:15-17).

It is clear that Abraham produced three types of SEED, (i) Jesus (Gal.3:16), (ii) Jacob's offspring and (iii) the Church (Gal.3:29). And God gave, as our part of the Covenant, the sole condition of circumcision. The condition contains a dire threat. Anyone refusing circumcision would be "cut off" from God's people.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.... 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. (Ge 17:10–14)

@portlie 's question no doubt stems from Colossians 2. It reads;

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, ... ."

I propose debate on
1.  Does the New Covenant apply to Christians or to Israel alone (Jer.31:31-33)?
2.  Does the New Covenant have as it terms, Circumcision?
3.  If the Church is "Seed of Abraham" (Gal.3:29) what means "cut off"?
4.  If the Covenant made with Abraham for Canaan has been extended to "the whole world" (Rom.4:13), is circumcision/Baptism, as debated in Acts 15, really unnecessary? After all, the command that Christians be Baptized is emphatic.

Debate? Not my thing Brother,I wasn't in any debate - I thought everyone was posting their views for the OP....but hey,go for it

[tim_from_pa]

I did not understand the op to be asking if baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant.  The OP said "like circumcision should be done to dedicate a child to God"  They did not say whether they were referencing the OT or not.

Circumcision and baptism are two different things.  And in OT times was not merely a dedication of the child to the Lord.  It was done at a specific time, manner and for the purpose of a sign of a covenant with the Lord by the command of the Lord.

Baptism, previously a Mikvah, was about cleansing and by extension took the meaning of burial and raising with Christ.  Both circumcision and baptism are related, but not the same. I did not even think to address the issue about circumcision because it did not even occur to me that someone was asking to replace one with the other.

Edited February 23, 2023 by tim_from_pa

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, AdHoc said:

I'm entering the debate late, so I won't revisit what has been said. But I do notice that no one wants to address @portlie question whether Baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant. I think this was crucial - and the silence is deafening.

I noticed the question - but did not address it because, 1) it seemed secondary to the main question being asked in the OP, and 2) because it doesn't make any sense to me.

Circumcision is circumcision. Baptism is baptism. Baptism is not circumcision in any sense. Even in the Colossians 2 passage, they are addressed as separate logical entities. If a comparison is being made, it is an analogy between physical circumcision, and "the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ".

 

6 hours ago, AdHoc said:

I propose debate on
1.  Does the New Covenant apply to Christians or to Israel alone (Jer.31:31-33)?
2.  Does the New Covenant have as it terms, Circumcision?
3.  If the Church is "Seed of Abraham" (Gal.3:29) what means "cut off"?
4.  If the Covenant made with Abraham for Canaan has been extended to "the whole world" (Rom.4:13), is circumcision/Baptism, as debated in Acts 15, really unnecessary? After all, the command that Christians be Baptized is emphatic.

Perhaps these debates warrant their own thread(s).

 

[AdHoc]

18 hours ago, other one said:

In respect to the rest of the question as to whether or not we should baptize babies.

I think I answered that part with the first post in that they should not for baptism should not be done until that person is capable of understanding and accepting Jesus.

While both are somewhat of an outward show of being a covenant participant, they are different in what it takes to do so.   Circumcision is simply be born to Jewish parents, and that really means very little when looking at the new covenant where it is individual's spiritual life that dictates when baptism is appropriate.

Unless you believe that baptism saves a person or a person can't be saved without being baptized (which is a very long heated subject most of the time) one would not baptize babies.

My thoughts on the subject.

 

Another difference is that most people are baptized in front of church members and I would not think it a good idea to circumcise people in public.

 

17 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Debate? Not my thing Brother,I wasn't in any debate - I thought everyone was posting their views for the OP....but hey,go for it

 

17 hours ago, tim_from_pa said:

I did not understand the op to be asking if baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant.  The OP said "like circumcision should be done to dedicate a child to God"  They did not say whether they were referencing the OT or not.

Circumcision and baptism are two different things.  And in OT times was not merely a dedication of the child to the Lord.  It was done at a specific time, manner and for the purpose of a sign of a covenant with the Lord by the command of the Lord.

Baptism, previously a Mikvah, was about cleansing and by extension took the meaning of burial and raising with Christ.  Both circumcision and baptism are related, but not the same. I did not even think to address the issue about circumcision because it did not even occur to me that someone was asking to replace one with the other.

 

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

I noticed the question - but did not address it because, 1) it seemed secondary to the main question being asked in the OP, and 2) because it doesn't make any sense to me.

Circumcision is circumcision. Baptism is baptism. Baptism is not circumcision in any sense. Even in the Colossians 2 passage, they are addressed as separate logical entities. If a comparison is being made, it is an analogy between physical circumcision, and "the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ".

 

Perhaps these debates warrant their own thread(s).

 

Thank you all for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it.

Go well.

[killiekrankie]

On 2/9/2023 at 6:30 PM, portlie said:

I am wondering if baptism for children is what God wants, many say it is the new covenant and, like circumcision should be done to dedicate a child to God

thank you to whoever can help 

'Believers baptism' can be a very powerful thing, someone choosing to take the step of faith, especially if the brother/sister shares their testimony.  Matthew 3:1-5 shows people going to John to be baptized, confessing their sins they were baptized.  God Bless   

[portlie]

On 2/23/2023 at 10:49 AM, AdHoc said:

Addressing all who have participated; @portlie @other one @Who me @Jayne @Dennis1209 @MomBearTo4 @Tristen @farouk @tim_from_pa @teddyv @JohnD @kwikphilly

I'm entering the debate late, so I won't revisit what has been said. But I do notice that no one wants to address @portlie question whether Baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant. I think this was crucial - and the silence is deafening. The whole line of God's recovery started with Abraham and a Covenant was made by God with Abraham AND HIS SEED which has not been annulled (Gal.3:15-17).

It is clear that Abraham produced three types of SEED, (i) Jesus (Gal.3:16), (ii) Jacob's offspring and (iii) the Church (Gal.3:29). And God gave, as our part of the Covenant, the sole condition of circumcision. The condition contains a dire threat. Anyone refusing circumcision would be "cut off" from God's people.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.... 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. (Ge 17:10–14)

@portlie 's question no doubt stems from Colossians 2. It reads;

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, ... ."

I propose debate on
1.  Does the New Covenant apply to Christians or to Israel alone (Jer.31:31-33)?
2.  Does the New Covenant have as it terms, Circumcision?
3.  If the Church is "Seed of Abraham" (Gal.3:29) what means "cut off"?
4.  If the Covenant made with Abraham for Canaan has been extended to "the whole world" (Rom.4:13), is circumcision/Baptism, as debated in Acts 15, really unnecessary? After all, the command that Christians be Baptized is emphatic.

Yes exactly, I wasn't able to phrase the question right. thank you