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

[portlie]

 

On 2/23/2023 at 11:46 AM, 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.

apologies for not being clear, but yes I was wondering if as a sign of the new covenant, or 'sacrament' circumcision was to be replaced with baptism

[AdHoc]

2 hours ago, portlie said:

 

apologies for not being clear, but yes I was wondering if as a sign of the new covenant, or 'sacrament' circumcision was to be replaced with baptism

If this posting looks too long, just read the summary at the end.

Your question was perfectly understandable. The problem is contemporary Christian belief. In my first posting I thought to be provocative. It fell flat - not because it is NOT a very important theme, but because it is not taught. Why should it be taught? 95% of Christians think that they've been saved and all that is left is to get through the Pearly Gates of heaven. Their Bible is about one Chapter long. Let me explain.

A cursory reading of the Bible by a barbarian (who have never heard of the Bible), will leave him with the overwhelming sense that the earth is the center stage of the Bible and not heaven. Heaven is God's throne and the habitat of God's glorious angels. But when God made man, it was for the earth (Gen.1:26-28). And from then on, through Noah, Abraham, Israel, Daniel, the Psalms, John Baptist, Jesus and lastly His disciples right up to John in Revelation where New Jerusalem comes down to earth and reigns the earth forever (Rev.22:5), the prevailing thought is for the earth.

And if so, then the Covenant with Abraham for the Land of Canaan, and later the "whole earth" (Rom.4:13), becomes so important. And man's part of this Covenant is circumcision. Galatians 3:29 unequivocally says that those who are Christ's are seed of Abraham, and if so, HEIRS to the Promise. So circumcision is man's part of a COVENANT - NOT part of salvation. Our salvation is;
- Having our sins put away and avoiding the Lake of Fire
- Being born again and becoming sons of God
- Being born again and partaking of the divine nature
- Being born again and having eternal life
- Being predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ
- Transforming our souls to be in the image of Christ

But our INHERITANCE is not one of the above. Our Inheritance is
- The earth and what is in it
- God Himself

Our salvation is effected by FAITH. Our inheritance is effected by WORKS. One is a free gift and the other is given to men and women who have shown that they will manage God's creature well. King Saul was BORN an Israelite. He INHERITED the throne of Israel but lost it because he was DISOBEDIENT. Israel were BORN to Jacob and heirs of Canaan. But they fell in the wilderness because of WORKS.

And so the Christian. He is made a son of God, God's temple, partaker of the divine life saved from the Lake of Fire by FAITH. But the servant with ONE TALENT is kicked out of the Kingdom because he was "slothful". The "called one" of Matthew 22 enters the Wedding Feast for free, but his "garment" (which is works - Rev.19:7-8). The company of Matthew 7:21-23 are Christians. They drive out demons (which only a Christian can do - Mk.16:17). they know the Lord and were empowered by the Holy Spirit to do many wondrous works. But they are refuse the Kingdom for their WORKS. And finally, in John 3:3-6 you may only SEE the Kingdom if you are born again (v.3). To ENTER the Kingdom you must be born again AND out of water! (v.5).

And this brings us to your question. For a man to inherit Canaan he must be BORN to the line of Abraham via Isaac, he must be male, and he must be circumcised. Romans 4:11 says that it is a "SIGN". What "sign" was it? It was a sign that (i) he was in Covenant with God for the Land, and (ii) he agreed that the flesh was not worthy to inherit that which God had promised. What now, must the Christian do seeing as he inherits NOT the kingdom of Israel, but "the Kingdom of Heaven" (heavenly rule on earth)?

1st Corinthians 15:50 tells us. The WHOLE BODY is corrupt and is not fit for the kingdom that Christ will set up on earth. To undo this corruption we must die and be resurrected, OR, if we are still alive when Christ sets up His Kingdom on earth, we must be CHANGED. But death is the enemy of the Church. In Matthew 16:18 our Lord needs "KEYS to Hades" otherwise death will prevail against His Church. So God solves this problem with TWO THINGS; (i) Christ's death, and (ii) a SIGN that we symbolically join Christ in His death.

Romans 6:1-8 tells us that when we are BAPTIZED we are killed with Christ and are raised with Him. This is repeated in Galatians 2:20. And throughout the gospels the overriding principle for entering the kingdom that Christ will set up on earth is to "TAKE UP OUR CROSS DAILY". But what did Jesus call His death? He called it a BAPTISM (Matthew 20:20-23). And what was at stake??? THE KINGDOM!!! Jesus said that those disciples who want to enter the Kingdom that He would set up on earth, must PARTICIPATE IN A BAPTISM. Jesus going to His death was the cutting off of the whole body - not just the foreskin.

And so, when we come to Colossians 2, we are told that we are "complete IN him". That is, because of His death, we are reckoned by God as having been cut off with Him. But we must SHOW IT! HOW? BY BAPTISM - by fully burying our bodies in the death waters. Any Christian who refuses Baptism is saved and a son of God, but for what he was saved for - to be a co-king with Jesus - he is DISQUALIFIED (cut off from his people). Circumcision is for gaining Canaan. Baptism replaces circumcision for the Kingdom (out) of Heaven.

Your question addresses one of the TOP FIVE things a Christian must DO. Let's summarize;
- Both Jew and Christian are participants in a Covenant with God (Gal.3:29)
- The Covenant is for Canaan if you are circumcised, OR the earth if you are born again
- The SIGN of entering this Covenant is circumcision if you are a Jew and IMMERSION if you are a Christian
- The SIGN is to say that your flesh is NOT FIT to inherit the kingdom and must be symbolically buried in death waters
- Any Christian who refuses Baptism will SEE the Kingdom but MAY NOT PARTICIPATE IN IT  ("enter it")
- Moses was BORN of Abraham via Isaac and Levi. He was a member of the household of God. He was the leading member of Israel. God spoke to him face to face. But because of what he DID (his WORKS), he could SEE the Kingdom of Israel BUT NOT ENTER IT.
THE CHRISTIAN WHO REFUSES BAPTISM WILL NOT ENTER CHRIST'S KINGDOM

[farouk]

On 2/14/2023 at 9:01 PM, MomBearTo4 said:

I was raised in a mainstream denomination (and left when they grew too liberal for my tastes).  The baby baptisms were practically identical to baby dedications in the churches I have gone to since I left that denomination except for the use of water and the phrase "I baptize you..."  In the infant baptisms of my childhood, the parents are asked to promise that they will raise the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord until they accept the gift of salvation, and there is also a congregational response making a commitment to "order our lives after the example of Christ" to be living testimonies and examples to the infant to lead them to faith. 

I don't have a problem with dedicating babies to the Lord as long as it's not a ritual like nursery graduation or something.  Each of my children were dedicated to the Lord from the time I knew I was carrying them.

I struggled for a while with the issue of believer's baptism, and for myself I believe it was what God wanted me to do and I see the Scriptural support for it.  With that said, I have friends who are convicted that baby baptism is a "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" type of thing and not anything that imparts saving merit -- 1Pe 3:21  which figure now also saves us, baptism; not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; -- but with the same intentions as the baby baptisms of my childhood. 

But I don't fault people who don't see that and want to do a baby-dedication type of "baptismal" service but I do believe that children who were brought to Jesus as an infant still need to come to Him on their own to be saved, but even after they were baptized as an infant (as I was), they still need to come to a personal surrender to Jesus in faith and need to be baptized afterward as a testimony of what Christ did for them (as I also did). 

@MomBearTo4 Yes, I also do see believer's baptism as Scriptural; Acts 2.41 shows it clearly; it was those who gladly received the Apostle's word who were baptized. They did not become baptized in order supposedly to become believers; they were baptized because they were believers then already.

(So many ppl do however think it's the infant sprinkling that saves, for which there is no Scripture.)

[FJK]

16 minutes ago, farouk said:

(So many ppl do however think it's the infant sprinkling that saves, for which there is no Scripture.)

Is there any scripture speaking against it?

[farouk]

24 minutes ago, FJK said:

Is there any scripture speaking against it?

'Glady received' (Acts 2.41) is a conscious, responsible act.

[FJK]

Just now, farouk said:

'Glady received' (Acts 2.41) is a conscious, responsible act.

Would this mean you can't be baptized until you are a fully developed adult capable of understanding all that is involved?

[RdJ]

On 2/9/2023 at 7:30 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 

I don't see why you have to wait until they are 12 or 13. They can invite Jesus in their heart around 4. Why do they then have to wait 8 or 9 years? But whatever. I have no say in it. They just don't do that. Depends on the church. The church I was in small kids could get the bread and wine (not real wine), even at 1 year old, because the kids in Israel got the Pascha, but baptism not. It sounds so arbitrary.

[FJK]

Maybe it depends whether Baptism is an act of Man or an act of the Holy Spirit being officiated by Man.

[farouk]

3 minutes ago, Renskedejonge said:

I don't see why you have to wait until they are 12 or 13. They can invite Jesus in their heart around 4. Why do they then have to wait 8 or 9 years? But whatever. I have no say in it. They just don't do that. Depends on the church. The church I was in small kids could get the bread and wine (not real wine), even at 1 year old, because the kids in Israel got the Pascha, but baptism not. It sounds so arbitrary.

@Renskedejonge I think an aspect which can be borne in mind is that ppl can receive false assurance if they are baptized and take the Lord's Supper emblems when they have not truly yet believed.

[RdJ]

Just now, farouk said:

@Renskedejonge I think an aspect which can be borne in mind is that ppl can receive false assurance if they are baptized and take the Lord's Supper emblems when they have not truly yet believed.

Yes I understand why they don't baptize babies and toddlers, but once they invite Jesus in their heart I don't see why they can't get baptized. It was one thing in Acts. Repent and get baptized immediately. Not years later. My kids had invited Jesus in their heart. One day we went to my mom's church. They had communion, so the kids went forward for it. No no they may not! They're too young!