Interesting Baptism Issue

brown07 · 10-02-2002, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chico
brown07,

i just want to ask one other question. first of all, i'm not saying that i disagree with infant baptism, just questioning why it is necessary. and second of all, after looking at the list of scripture you gave me, which i thank you for, i noticed one thing.

there is no way baptism can signify these things without salvation occurring first. scripture tells us that through salvation the old is made new, that we are regenerated by the Spirit, that by faith we are saved and justified, that the blood of Christ cleanses us, that without Christ we can't get to God, that without Christ we are not heirs to the throne, and that with Christ we are not to be conformed to this world and receive that power from the Spirit. all the things you listed are things that occur at or after salvation.

chris

The point that I'm making in drawing a parallel between circumcision and baptism is that it is not necessary for the spiritual reality to have already taken place in order for the sign (symbolic of the spiritual reality) to be valid and valuable. Circumcision is clearly a sign of all these spiritual realities, and yet was EXPLICITY COMMANDED to be given before the actual spiritual reality was a reality. There is no reason for us to now say that the sign must wait for the spiritual reality, unless God tells us to wait, which he hasn't.

In order to argue that baptism must wait for salvation, you must demonstrate that circumcision was strictly a physical, earthly act with no spiritual significance.

I will promise this: If anyone can demonstrate that circumcision had no spiritual significance, then I will reject infant baptism and get baptised again as an adult.

Chico · 10-02-2002, 12:39 PM

the only thing with that is this, there was no chance for a spiritual reality except through circumcision and sacrifices in the OT. that was there spiritual reality. now, that isn't the case. our spiritual reality comes when we accept Christ. we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ. He is the one that cleanses us, He is the one the justifies us, and He is the one that takes us into His body of believers. it has nothing to do with baptism or circumcision or anything like that. if it depended on any of those things, then it would be something that we do, and therefore be legalistic.

chris

Luke · 10-02-2002, 01:54 PM

Circumscision was still prior to offering sacrifices (although in actuality this was not their spiritual reality) and yet it was still valid and valuable in infancy.

We are asking for you to show why the sacrament should be changed with no Biblical evidence to that effect.

Chico · 10-02-2002, 02:32 PM

where is the biblical evidence that proves your point. i know brown07 gave me many pieces of scripture showing the correlation b/t circumcision and baptism, but nowhere does that imply that baptism is the sealing of a person into the body of Christ. and all of the correlations mentioned were directly related to salvation. am i wrong in that thought? if i am please show me where.

chris

Luke · 10-02-2002, 02:52 PM

If all of the coorelations mentioned were directly related to salvation (of which I'm not entirely convinced), then wouldn't it stand to reason that if circumscision was done before salvation, baptism can be too?

brown07 · 10-02-2002, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chico
where is the biblical evidence that proves your point. i know brown07 gave me many pieces of scripture showing the correlation b/t circumcision and baptism, but nowhere does that imply that baptism is the sealing of a person into the body of Christ. and all of the correlations mentioned were directly related to salvation. am i wrong in that thought? if i am please show me where.

chris

We can state that baptism is the New Covenant seal because it is DIRECTLY PARALLEL and related to circumcision, which was the Old Covenant seal. It wouldn't make sense for the two to be completely parallel in so many ways, but then to be different in some ways that aren't explicitly stated in scripture.

Chico · 10-02-2002, 03:03 PM

no, because there wasn't salvation in the OT. just because there are similarities b/t circumcision and baptism, doesn't mean that they must mean the exact same thing. i believe brown07 gave all of those verses and said that baptism represents or signifies these things. all of the things listed happen at salvation, so therefore baptism is just signifying what happens when we get saved. i mean, can we be regenerated without Christ, can we be made clean without Christ, or made new, or justified, or come to the Father. no, everything baptism represents hinges on salvation.

chris

brown07 · 10-02-2002, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chico
no, because there wasn't salvation in the OT.

What?!

I guess Moses, David, Elijah and all the rest are out of luck. Sorry, guys - should've waited a couple thousand years before being born.

What do you mean by this? People in the OT were saved by the same means (Christ's atoning death) and the same manner (by faith) as we are today. That is why the parallel b/t circumcision and baptism is so compelling and why we hold that it is both scriptural and reasonable to baptise infants. Both circumcision and baptism are symbols of God's promise.

Chico · 10-02-2002, 03:06 PM

and again, i don't have a big problem with infant baptism. yes, i do believe that baptism is a necessary step after salvation to begin our fulfilling of righteousness as Jesus stated in the verse i quoted. the big problem i'm having here is the whole sealing into the body thing. in the OT, yes, family heritage and circumcision and sacrifice was very important when dealing with being a part of the covenant family. but how do you get that from the NT. it is very clear that the only way to become part of the body of Christ is to go througth Jesus Christ. not to be baptized as an infant. it just seems that you are saying that it's not by faith that we are saved, but by some baptism that happens when a child can't even understand what is going on.

chris

Chico · 10-02-2002, 03:08 PM

no they weren't. there was no way to heaven. that is why God sent His son to die for the sins of the world, including those guys mentioned. Christ's death covered even the sins of the dead that were faithful to Him.

chris

Bryan · 10-02-2002, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brown07
Most of the issue in the NT is whether or not to circumcize gentile converts. Because the seal of the Old Covenant was restricted to the Israelites, it need not be applied to the gentiles. Instead, we have baptism.

But the seal of the New Covenant is not restricted. Everybody is a part of the new covenant. The new covenant being "believe and be saved". The covenant says that if you believe you will be saved. It is a promise, and that promise has been extended to all peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations. So there should be no resrtiction on who recieves the covenantal seal. And this is all according to your logic.

However, if we become a part of the covenental family at the moment of true faith then that seal should be given when that "true faith" is evidenced. Not before that point.

Chico · 10-02-2002, 03:54 PM

brown07,

going back to the whole salvation in the OT thing. you said in another thread, "Where Was Christ When...", this:

Quote:

One need not argue that Christ descended into hell to pay for sin in order to believe that he did, in fact, descend into hell.
I tend to agree with Bob - Christ went to the place of the dead - probably to preach salvation to the OT saints.

you said yourself that Christ went to the place of the dead to preach salvation to the OT saints. why would He have to do that if there was salvation in the OT? and a verse was brought up during this discussion, 1 Peter 3:18-20. check it out and tell me what you think about all this.

chris

brown07 · 10-02-2002, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chico

you said yourself that Christ went to the place of the dead to preach salvation to the OT saints. why would He have to do that if there was salvation in the OT? and a verse was brought up during this discussion, 1 Peter 3:18-20. check it out and tell me what you think about all this.

If you would have read further in the thread, you would've seen that I clarified what I meant. I believe that there's a good chance that Christ went to DECLARE salvation. It was a bad choice of words. I think that Jesus went to let them know that their hope had been realized and that salvation had been accomplished.

I don't know what bearing I Peter 3:18-20 has on this discussion... care to clarify?

Chico · 10-02-2002, 05:01 PM

18 For (36) Christ also died for sins (37) once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might (38) bring us to God, having been put to death (39) in the flesh, but made alive (40) in the spirit;
19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20 who once were disobedient, when the (41) patience of God (42) kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of (43) the ark, in which a few, that is, (44) eight (45) persons, were brought safely through the water. ~ 1 Peter 3:18-20

verses 18-19 are what i was talking about. He was made dead in the flesh and alive in the Spirit and went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison. i took this to mean He went maybe to the place of the dead, as mentioned before, and proclaimed to those people their newfound salvation.

chris

seungk5 · 10-02-2002, 07:39 PM

there was salvation in ot.
the thing is most people could not be saved. there was strict laws of covenant

offering sacrifice to wash away sins and such, it was so much rules that they can barely handle. however, people or charcters in OT was saved. not all but some. job, noah, david, and many others god didnt choose them for nothing.

u know the poor and old man story? how it says rich man saw abrahma and the poor in heaven? abraham went to heaven with many others. god simply took some people to heaven in OT
i mean literally to heaven, like enoch was just took away, i think elijah too. god didnt choose them and do all taht for nothing so they can go to hell.
back than however, it was almost impossible to be saved, but i believe some were such as david and many because god favored them cause they were righteous.

ok now this is baptism stuff, i agree with chico.
infant baptism really has no point because you are not saved through it, its' just god's command there fore we should follow it i agree with that. however, why infants? give me a verse where god says" you must baptise the infants"
god says baptize in jesus's name by water and holy spirit and such. i am saved so i will be baptized some day however, i believe being saved comes first.
child doesnt' know what's going on in baptsim, i dont beleive that child should be forced to baptism or anything i dont see any point of it. unless its' god's command saying you should baptize a child who doesnt know what's hapening.
jesus is the only way to heaven.
but yes i will be baptized.
baptism can wait, child can grow up and when he truely accepts jesus and is ready to be baptized and if he decideds to than he should after being saved.
jesus said he's the only ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN.
being in chrsitian family wont save u