# Was the connection really that obvious?



## blhowes (Jul 1, 2004)

In Acts 15, I find it very unusual that there isn't any mention of there being some connection between circumcision and baptism, if indeed there is one. Baptism isn't even mentioned in the chapter. I understand that the main question being addressed is whether or not circumcision is necessary for salvation, so its not necessary to bring in the idea of the connection between the two. And the answer given is a resounding no. 

If you believe in CT, do you think that the church of Antioch, after being given the message from Jerusalem, automatically understood that infants of believers should be baptized in the NT just as they had been circumcised in the OT? No questions were asked about what to do with gentile believers' children when they learned that the OT sign of the covenant wasn't needed for the gentiles. It can only be assumed that the connection was either so obvious that it wasn't necessary to mention it, or that there isn't a connection.

Since the people at Antioch couldn't even resolve the question about whether circumcision was necessary for salvation, why would we assume that they would then automatically understand that the NT practice of baptism replaced the OT practice of circumcision (as far as placing the sign and seal upon the children)? 

Many in the CT camp believe that its a sin not to baptize your infants, just like it was a sin not to circumcise your infant when he was 8 days old in the OT. If baptism in this regard replaces circumcision and it is indeed a sin not to baptize your infant, then it seems of the utmost importance that the connection be made clear to the church of Antioch and not be left for them to assume. 

Does anybody think that the church at Antioch automatically understood the connection, so it wasn't necessary to mention it? If so, why do you think that? At this time, they didn't have the Colossians verse to make the connection, so how would they know? Does it matter? Sure, I think so. The church at Antioch was a missionary church, as evidenced by Paul and Barnabas being sent out from there. I think its safe to assume that the church was involved with personal evangelism as well. If there was a connection and they didn't understand it until some time later, then there were probably many gentiles who were evangelized who didn't then baptize their infants. 

Was the connection so obvious that it didn't need to be mentioned? Why or why not?

Bob

[Edited on 7-1-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 1, 2004)

[quote:ea2bba2322][i:ea2bba2322]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:ea2bba2322]
In Acts 15, I find it very unusual that there isn't any mention of there being some connection between circumcision and baptism, if indeed there is one. Baptism isn't even mentioned in the chapter. I understand that the main question being addressed is whether or not circumcision is necessary for salvation, so its not necessary to bring in the idea of the connection between the two. And the answer given is a resounding no. 

If you believe in CT, do you think that the church of Antioch, after being given the message from Jerusalem, automatically understood that infants of believers should be baptized in the NT just as they had been circumcised in the OT? No questions were asked about what to do with gentile believers' children when they learned that the OT sign of the covenant wasn't needed for the gentiles. It can only be assumed that the connection was either so obvious that it wasn't necessary to mention it, or that there isn't a connection.

Since the people at Antioch couldn't even resolve the question about whether circumcision was necessary for salvation, why would we assume that they would then automatically understand that the NT practice of baptism replaced the OT practice of circumcision (as far as placing the sign and seal upon the children)? 

Many in the CT camp believe that its a sin not to baptize your infants, just like it was a sin not circumcise your infant when he was 8 years old in the OT. If baptism in this regard replaces circumcision and it is indeed a sin not to baptize your infant, then it seems of the utmost importance that the connection be made clear to the church of Antioch and not be left for them to assume. 

Does anybody think that the church at Antioch automatically understood the connection, so it wasn't necessary to mention it? If so, why do you think that? At this time, they didn't have the Colossians verse to make the connection, so how would they know? Does it matter? Sure, I think so. The church at Antioch was a missionary church, as evidenced by Paul and Barnabas being sent out from there. I think its safe to assume that the church was involved with personal evangelism as well. If there was a connection and they didn't understand it until some time later, then there were probably many gentiles who were evangelized who didn't then baptize their infants. 

Is the connection so obvious that it didn't need to be mentioned? Why or why not?

Bob [/quote:ea2bba2322]

Bob,
This is exactly the type of reasoning I previously used prior to coming to my paedo convictions, so I understand your question.

I am at work, so I can only address some of the statements you make. To begin with:

&quot;Many in the CT camp believe that its a sin not to baptize your infants, just like it was a sin not circumcise your infant when he was 8 years old in the OT.&quot;

Chapter 28 of the WCF

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,(n) yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it;(o) or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.(p)

(n) Luke 7:30 with Exod. 4:24, 25, 26.
(o) Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47.
(p) Acts 8:13, 23.

Bob, 
I am sure you meant [i:ea2bba2322]8 days[/i:ea2bba2322], not 8 years?

More to come...........


----------



## blhowes (Jul 1, 2004)

[b:8220423a53]Scott wrote:[/b:8220423a53]
I am sure you meant 8 days, not 8 years? 

Oops and thanks. Correction made.

[b:8220423a53]Scott wrote:[/b:8220423a53]
This is exactly the type of reasoning I previously used prior to coming to my paedo convictions, so I understand your question. 

Sounds like your reasoning abilities were pretty sharp back then...and have improved with age?

[b:8220423a53]Scott wrote:[/b:8220423a53]
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,(n) yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it;(o) or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.(p) 

A great sin, though not necessary for salvation, yet nevertheless a great sin. If it is considered to be a great sin, it makes sense that the connection would have been clearly made and not just assumed that people would have made the connection. When circumcision was instituted, it was immediately made clear the importance of circumcising the infant. Since there was a change made in Acts 15, its hard to believe this wouldn't have been addressed if it was a great sin.

Bob


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 1, 2004)

Perhaps the issue was already addressed earlier in Acts 2 when Peter established the sign of the promise as baptism. The issue then over circumcision in Acts 15 was not about the covenant sign for admission to the church but whether the Church would be culturally Jewish or whether the Church would supercede all cultures. This would seem to square better with Paul's remarks about circumcision in Phillipians. Just a thought...


----------



## blhowes (Jul 1, 2004)

[b:a22989a53d]Patrick wrote:[/b:a22989a53d]
Perhaps the issue was already addressed earlier in Acts 2 when Peter established the sign of the promise as baptism. 

Good thinking, but its hard for me to hang my hat on it. I could very well say the same thing about Acts 15 - that it wasn't recorded, but the whole issue was discussed. Questions were asked and the responses given about the relationship between circumcision and baptism, but they just weren't recorded.

I could take that a step further (absurdly) and say that the baptist teachings about baptism were covered there as well, but the exchanges just weren't recorded. It was made clear that circumcision and baptism are spiritually similar, but beyond that there's no connection. Infants don't need to be baptized. 

Granted, the case about the baptist teachings is more likely (  ), but you get my point. Seems like we're skating on thin ice when we assume that something not specifically mentioned may have been taught. Doesn't mean it wasn't, but I think I'll wait for the ice to thicken before strapping up my skates.

[b:a22989a53d]Patrick wrote:[/b:a22989a53d]
The issue then over circumcision in Acts 15 was not about the covenant sign for admission to the church but whether the Church would be culturally Jewish or whether the Church would supercede all cultures. 

Wouldn't that perhaps be a secondary issue? Isn't the main issue whether or not circumcision was necessary for salvation?

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 

To which, the answer is an emphatic NO.

Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Bob


----------



## panicbird (Jul 1, 2004)

I have nothing substantive to add to the discussion except to commend all who have posted for their gracious, Christian attitudes. I want to encourage you all to continue in such a spirit.

Lon


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 1, 2004)

After reviewing the chapter, this is my suggestion. What was occuring was the Judaizers were trying to bind the conscience of the gentiles with circumcision; even though these believers had already received the covenant sign in baptism.

15:1 And going down from Judea, some taught the brothers, saying, If you are not circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. 

The idea that brought so many Jews death [works] was even now trying to creep back into the faith that always was solely based upon Christ, and Him alone. 

So, thats what I see....it wasn't that they didn't know or understand circumcision or Judaism; the Gentiles knew these things....it was that the Judaizers just cOuld not let go.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 1, 2004)

An important point may be considered about Jewish proselyte baptism. When a family of, say, the Amalekites wanted to convert, they would go through a rigorous washing ritual with both the adults and children, which included the women. 

Baptism in and of itself is not a strange practice. Hebrew 5 calls &quot;washing&quot; or &quot;baptisms&quot; of elementary principles. The Hebrews, no doubt, had a full understanding of baptisms - otherwise John's baptism, after 400 years of silence, would have seemed strange to people, not universally accepted. And there is nothing in the text that would disregard that families would have come under the guise of the father's repentance (just like those Jewish washings) with John's Baptism. 

The standard that the OT gives is inclusion of infants. In Acts 21 some were riled up that the exclusion of infants was being considered - they thought Paul was teaching that and he was not. I do not think, therefore, that silence is against the connection practice since they would have understood the connection in the OT.


----------



## blhowes (Jul 1, 2004)

Matthew,
Thanks for your response, specifically for the Acts 21 reference. I wasn't aware of the passage regarding circumcising children in this chapter - I'll focus on that chapter for a bit.
Thanks,
Bob


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 1, 2004)

Bob - 

Notice three very important things in that chapter - 1) some SAVED brethren thought Paul was telling them to stop circumcising their children (i.e. including them in the New Covenant) and this was after the church had been founded and Christ ha ascended. 2) James confronts Paul with this &quot;dilemma&quot; of not including children into the covenant as they had done for thousands of years, and by apostolic sanction commits Paul to a &quot;ritual act&quot; that will demonstrate that this accusation against him is not so. 3) Paul complies with the decision.

You can then draw conclusions about infant inclusion in the New Covenant, under apostolic sanction for the church.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 2, 2004)

[quote:36c2fc9498][i:36c2fc9498]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:36c2fc9498]
You can then draw conclusions about infant inclusion in the New Covenant, under apostolic sanction for the church. [/quote:36c2fc9498]

So then, are you saying the Jews had two signs of covenant inclusion? Cirumcision and baptism?


----------



## blhowes (Jul 2, 2004)

When I read chapter 15, I thought that, if the practice of baptism in some way replaced circumcision, that would have been the ideal place to state it. I take that back. After reading chapter 21 through a few times, I now think that would have been an even more ideal place to come out and say it. He doesn't come right out and say it, though as I'm trying to leave no stone unturned, I'm wondering if it may be brought out later in Acts 22:16, after he gives his testimony and says he arose and was baptized. - just throwing out a thought as a possibility.

Bob


----------



## blhowes (Jul 3, 2004)

[b:c2c9e00082]Matthew wrote:[/b:c2c9e00082]
Notice three very important things in that chapter - 1) some SAVED brethren thought Paul was telling them to stop circumcising their children (i.e. including them in the New Covenant) and this was after the church had been founded and Christ ha ascended. 2) James confronts Paul with this &quot;dilemma&quot; of not including children into the covenant as they had done for thousands of years, and by apostolic sanction commits Paul to a &quot;ritual act&quot; that will demonstrate that this accusation against him is not so. 3) Paul complies with the decision...You can then draw conclusions about infant inclusion in the New Covenant, under apostolic sanction for the church.

The more I read this passage, the more I think infant inclusion in the New Covenant is not taught in this passage. Here's my reasoning so far.

Two groups of Christians are spoken of in this chapter regarding circumcision and they both need to be taken into account: the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Both were given a message from the Apostles regarding circumcision. For the Jewish Christians, you don't have to stop circumcising your children. For the Gentile Christians, you don't have to be circumcised nor start circumcising your children. Neither receives instructions regarding the NT practice of baptizing infants being linked to the old testament practice of circumcising infants. 

Its a big jump to say that, since Jewish Christians were told that it was OK to continue circumcising their children, this warrants saying that infants of believers now are therefore required to be baptised. Its a stretch, but beyond that it draws a conclusion, it seems, based only on the part of the story dealing with the Jewish Christians. The conclusion reached would be drastically different if we developed our teaching about infant inclusion in the NT based solely on the Gentile Christians, who weren't required to be circumcised nor to have their children circumcised.

The fact that it doesn't clearly make the connection doesn't conclusively prove anything, but it does seem that, if there was a connection between the OT circumcision and the NT baptism with regards to children, this would have been the place to make that connection. 

Bob


----------

