blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
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]
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]