# Baptism Questions Posed.



## xirtam (Jun 14, 2013)

Concerning the debate of baptism, I believe that I have my two feet firmly placed on those two yellow lines on the road. When I have time, I try to read up on the debate to get myself out of this obviously dangerous, or at least, impartial position. 

Most recently, I watched R.C. Sproul's video on Baptism. 

I then sent it to a fellow brother in Christ who has been trying to work this subject out, as well. 

He replied with the following:

"1. If baptism does replace circumcision, then why didn't Paul state that in Galatians?
2. Is a baby that has "the promise of God" any better than a baby that does not?
3. Luther was given a Roman baptism as a child. Was my Roman baptism good enough?
4. Should be put our confidence in baptism or a decision we made? Or should our confidence come from Christs work?
The New Covenant in Hebrews 8 - YouTube
5. Circumcision was only for males."

What would you respond to those points/questions? 

Thank you.

In Christ,


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 14, 2013)

*Quote from Brian*


> 2. Is a baby that has "the promise of God" any better than a baby that does not?





> Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,
> 
> “That you may be justified in your words,
> and prevail when you are judged.” (Rom 3:1-4)




*Brian*


> 5. Circumcision was only for males.



But females were also included in the Covenant. Baptists deny the covenant status of baby boys and girls, remove the covenant sign from baby boys; while giving the covenant sign to adult females - as they should.


*Brian*


> 1. If baptism does replace circumcision, then why didn't Paul state that in Galatians?



They are both inaugural signs, so it's pretty obvious the one replaces the other, as circumcision is dispensed with, and baptism comes in its place. The question is, is with the change of the sign are children excluded from the covenant and/or excluded from the inaugural sign.


*Brian*


> 3. Luther was given a Roman baptism as a child. Was my Roman baptism good enough?



Yes.


*Brian*


> 4. Should be put our confidence in baptism or a decision we made? Or should our confidence come from Christs work?



Christ's work alone. Baptism is just a means of grace, like preaching.


----------



## Mathetes (Jun 14, 2013)

Coming from someone who's come to the baptist position somewhat recently (like within the last year or so), I would say:



xirtam said:


> "1. If baptism does replace circumcision, then why didn't Paul state that in Galatians?



I think Presbyterians hang more on the circumcision=>baptism relation than just Galatians. From what I know, it's entrenched in the framework of covenant theology. Personally, I don't think the evidence supports it, but I might need to just read more on it.



> 2. Is a baby that has "the promise of God" any better than a baby that does not?



I don't even know what this means. Are you asking if an elect infant is better than a reprobate infant?



> 3. Luther was given a Roman baptism as a child. Was my Roman baptism good enough?



Baptists usually choose to re-baptize people who have had infant baptism, but I don't know if I would be dogmatic about. It's mostly for the sake of consistency, I don't think the Bible says a lot about what to do in those situations.



> 4. Should be put our confidence in baptism or a decision we made? Or should our confidence come from Christs work?



Well, one of those people is infallible and perfectly righteous, so...



> 5. Circumcision was only for males."



Not sure what to make of that. On the surface, it seems to favour credobaptism, but I think it needs further looking into.

Also worth considering is how Presbyterians favour paedobaptism, but not paedocommunion. Baptists have traditionally considered this to be inconsistent.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 14, 2013)

1. If baptism does replace circumcision, then why didn't Paul state that in Galatians?

What relevance does Paul saying "baptism replaces circumcision" have to Paul's purpose in Galatians? Where Paul speaks of circumcision in the Epistle, he is primarily using the term to mean "under the law as a way to salvation" and not in a sacramental sense. Paul labors to point out that those who are in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, belong to the Seed of Abraham. The significance of baptism as the means of marking out the Covenant people is not really discussed but would have to be implied from other portions of Scripture.

2. Is a baby that has "the promise of God" any better than a baby that does not?

Yes. Much in every way. Does this mean that all baptized infants are saved? Of course not. Does the fact that my children receive the instruction of Godly parents and the prayer and encouragement of a body of believers offfer any advantage to them? Of course it does.

3. Luther was given a Roman baptism as a child. Was my Roman baptism good enough?

Good enough for what? To save you. No. Faith in Christ is what unites us to Him. The issue is whether God uses any visible signs to mark out people from the world for discipleship. The issue is debated today but the Reformed have maintained that the Promise of God through baptism is valid even when it is performed unlawfully.

4. Should be put our confidence in baptism or a decision we made? Or should our confidence come from Christs work?
The New Covenant in Hebrews 8 - YouTube

To separated Christ's works from what He has ordained historically is to pit Christ against Himself. If one believes the Scriptures testify that a promise of salvation is made to all who believe when they are baptized and that God's Promises are Yes and Amen then we can have confidence in the One Who makes the Promise. Looking to our own decision is to place the confidence upon the disposition of the individual.

5. Circumcision was only for males.

Yes, that's true.


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 14, 2013)

Brian,
I highly recommend you read the following book which should clear these issues up succinctly and clearly.
it is available in multiple digital formats for free.

Lectures on Christian Baptism by Thomas M'Crie.
Lectures on Christian baptism : M'Crie, Thomas, 1772-1835 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 14, 2013)

> Also worth considering is how Presbyterians favour paedobaptism, but not paedocommunion. Baptists have traditionally considered this to be inconsistent.



Not everyone who was circumcised took the passover, but adolescent to adult males once a year were commanded to, unless they had good excuse.

When you consider the hedge that Scripture places around the Lord's Supper, compared to baptism, and the nature of the Lord's Supper, compared with baptism, it is clear that it's only for professing people of a number of years old.


----------



## xirtam (Jun 14, 2013)

Thank you, Gentlemen. Mind you, these are not my questions. They are the brother's who I had sent the R.C. Sproul Video. I just copied and pasted what he sent me.


----------



## Mathetes (Jun 14, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> Not everyone who was circumcised took the passover, but adolescent to adult males once a year were commanded to, unless they had good excuse.



I haven't heard that before. Is there a particular text that this is drawn from?


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 14, 2013)

The two Old Testament sacraments -- circumcision and the Passover -- were both for males only. In the New Testament, there are corresponding sacraments which serve the same basic purpose -- baptism and the Lord's Supper -- and both sacraments are now extended to females. The ages have not changed. Passover was for adult males, but a Hebrew male reached adulthood at a very young age. Bearing in mind that very little of modern Judaism has any direct correspondence to the Old Testament, nevertheless it is interesting to note that they have long considered their boys to be men at age 13. It may also be noteworthy that the first time Jesus is recorded to have gone to Jerusalem was when he was 12 years old.

Regarding the OT feasts (including Passover), the LORD said, "Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before me" (Exo. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) The LORD also gave Moses a special delay in the Passover celebration for men who had become unclean because they touched a dead body ([KJV]Num. 9:6-13[/KJV] -- and make sure to read verse 13), but no such exception was requested for the approximately 50% of Hebrew women who would have been unclean on any given Passover (about a week per month due to the menstrual cycle + 7 days after that week ends + the numerous other possible causes of uncleanness).


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 15, 2013)

Mathetes said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > Not everyone who was circumcised took the passover, but adolescent to adult males once a year were commanded to, unless they had good excuse.
> ...



Austin has given the texts above. Only adult males were _required_ to attend the _commemoration_ of the Passover.

It is important to draw attention to the difference between the _Passover event itself,_ recorded in Exodus, and _the yearly commemoration of the Passover
_. There are important differences and distinctions.

What Jews call the (Judaistic) "Passover" today, is, of course, again different. 

Notably the lamb can't be taken to the altar to be slaughtered by the priests and have its blood sprinkled on the sides of the altar, before being taken to a house in Jerusalem for consumption.


----------



## sevenzedek (Jun 16, 2013)

I thought I would respond to the OP since I recently went through this issue as a Baptist and came out as a Baptyterian.

POOF! Now you're a Presbyterian, Mr. Dulin.

Question five...

While the application and process of the sign of circumcision is not symmetrical to baptism, the meaning is. Baptism and circumcision mean the same thing. One of the errors that held me back from baptizing our newborn son was that I used to think that baptism represents a person's faith. Now I realize that it doesn't.

Baptism represents God's promise.

Baptism does not represent my faith.

Others would argue otherwise.

This shift in my understanding has helped me to rely more fully on God's promise rather than my often weak faith. My faith is not strengthened by my baptism if it points to my own decision, but it is greatly strengthened when it points to God's faithfulness to fulfill His promise to me. Besides, my faith is not my decision anyway. It was God's decision when He gave me the gift of faith. So, if baptism points to a decision, it only points to God's decision; not mine.

So much emphasis is placed upon the recipient of the baptist baptism. Perhaps that is what your friend has done by drawing our attention to the lack female circumcision. He doesn't see the symmetry because he is not looking at the meaning. The symmetry is in the meaning of the sign; not the administration of it.

Besides all this, the promise is to me and to my children according to Acts 2. God doesn't wait for my son to have faith before making a promise to him through baptism. The promise is still his whether or not he is baptized. Baptist children are still heirs of the promise too.

This is what baptism says to my son: Before you were able to do anything for yourself or for God, God made a promise to you of salvation through faith in Christ. Just as surely as water cleanses and has touched you in your baptism, so God will cleanse you through Christ. As surely as you have been marked by this sign, God's promise is to you. Do you believe God's promise?

It is a means of revealing salvation. Those without the sign are not hearing the sermon given in baptism. So, a child without this mark is hindered. Is our faith helped when we do not have God's promises or when we do?


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 16, 2013)

There's a good book by Cornelis Venema on paedocommunion, too.

*Jon*


> Baptist children are still heirs of the promise too.



They are covenant children too, as you say. They just haven't been solemnly and visibly admitted to the Covenant of Grace and the Visible Church by baptism:



> Chapter XXVIII
> Of Baptism
> I.Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,


----------



## sevenzedek (Jun 16, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> There's a good book by Cornelis Venema on paedocommunion, too.
> 
> *Jon*
> 
> ...



That formal admittance is very important.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 16, 2013)

> Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.(Gen 17:14)



To some extent they are excluded from the covenant administration.


----------



## sevenzedek (Jun 16, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> > Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.(Gen 17:14)
> 
> 
> 
> To some extent they are excluded from the covenant administration.



Who can be saved apart from hearing God's word of promise. Therefore, they are hindered without the baptismal sermon.

What is also interesting about Genesis 17:14 is that it is the same context as Genesis 17:12, "he who is eight days old." An infant can be caused to be a covenant breaker through the decision of the parents.


----------

