Fessing Up...

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the key issues is whether or not discipleship equals regeneration. Judas was a disciple, he was not regenerate. Ananias and Saphira were disciples (probably baptized); they were not saved. Demas was a disciple (Probably baptized), he was not saved.

Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Baptism equals discipleship, not conversion.

PS: Anyone whom wants a scanned version of J. Jeremias's Treatise on household baptisms, I will send the file.


[Edited on 1-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
PS: Anyone whom wants a scanned version of J. Jeremias's Treatise on household baptisms, I will send the file.
Click to expand...
Can you send me a copy? I'll U2U my email address.
Thanks,
Bob
 
There's more to it than just extension. I know that I have to know and believe responsibly for my family. Even for others. I once heard that a Reformed family was attending Bible studies at a local neo-Pentacostal church. They saw me going there from time to time, and thought I approved. They didn't know that it was out of dispute that I was going there, not out of approving of it. I was trying to settle something for someone else, and trying to rescue them from that circle. But instead, someone else thought that if John is going there it can't be bad, so they went. If this is so, even inadvertantly, for people not of my family but use me as a guide-post of sorts, then it is even more so for my wife and children. They look to me for what I would do, what I approve of.

I do the heavy thinking about it, I make the hard decisions. New teachings are always tough to handle. Someone has to give the authoritative stamp of approval. And subjected individuals always look to those whose authority they respect. I do too; I look to the Church. It is important as a husband and father to be respectful and respected, and then to lead.

So if Paul came to my villiage and preached a new gospel, it would be up to me to weigh it carefully. And if I believed, then my household would also gladly receive it, even though they may not have gone through the hard thinking I did to get there.

On the other hand, if my wife, whose instinct I have come to trust trust, tells me there's something wrong with it, I need to listen and weigh that too. Some things you know by study, and some things you know by conscience, even if you can't put your finger on the exact problem. But a family counts on the leadership of the father, especially when it comes to adopting a new theology. I have to listen more than anything, but then lead them with honesty and integrity.

So there is the federal aspect of it in the actual practice that needs to kept in mind. Families would usually receive baptism if the father believed. Also, in certain cases, the mother's initiative would be looked to. Servants would look to their masters, if they trusted them. And usually they would, even if they were harsh masters. The thing is, we're talking about real-life situations where this happened, not some cut-and-dried stereotype.

Scott:

May I please have a copy?
 
There is no evidence in any of the household passages that anyone who did not hear and believe was baptized. They all heard, they all believed, they were all baptized.

Acts 10 - 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word 45And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Acts 16 - 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.


Acts 18 - 8Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

There is a pattern here - they all heard, believd, and were baptized - it is up tp those who uphold baptizing infants to find them in the households, for in the text, they are not there!

Phillip

[Edited on 1-6-05 by pastorway]
 
Whether or not children were included in the households (as I believe they were) is a moot point. What is important is whether children are included in the New Covenant.

1)Children of believers are expressly included in the prophecies of the NC (Jer. 32:38-40; Isa 59:21; 37:24-26). Note all the references to descendants's descandents, etc.

2)Given the context of these glorious promises, notice how Peter speaks to the Jews in the first sermon of the NC, that the promise is unto you and your children. What was the means of covenant entry?

3)As the history of the Church shows in Acts, their central debate was over whether or not the Gentiles had to include their children in the new covenant by means of circumcision--their debate was not whether the Jewish Christians had to start excluding their children.
 
Not to beat something to death but purely from a Baptistic view how does one determine regeneration in order to "œget" the timing correct. Because from the baptistic view this seems to be the crux of the issue. When I´ve talked with fellow baptist they always say two things "œmode and timing"œ. However, if pressed some will concede mode - that is they would not press a person to be "œre-baptized" if they had been sprinkled in a former church and if their own conscience was convinced that by this mode it was a true baptism. But, as to timing this cannot be conceded and is not - this is crucial to baptism being viewed as baptism or not in the "œbelievers only" scenario and the timing is inherent to the term "œbelievers baptism". If timing is not crucial then it seems that "œbelievers only" baptism arguments fall necessarily.

Now I´m looking at this purely at "˜how do you do this and teach this´, and as a scientist I tend to analyze. Therefore, it is a very practical issue and question. If timing is essential the next very obvious question is how does one define the timing? The answer would be, "œa proper baptismal candidate would be one that is presently born again, regenerate, etc"¦" The next logical question would be, "œHow do we determine this?" Well infants are easy since they cannot make a conscience decision. What about adults? How do you determine true rebirth in an adult and what is the Scriptural support for THIS very action - determining regeneration. One must be able to answer this because one has said that timing is the crucial issue regarding baptism. Furthermore, as some would say, "œnot being baptized correctly, per timing, is being disobedient and thus sinful"œ. Thus, this becomes no small issue as instructed, because what Christian wants to be sinful regarding this and do not all desire to be obedient to their Lord regarding baptism! So, one cannot just "œpunt" the question at this point, else it looks disingenuous even though that may not be the intention. Thus, since men can themselves be internally deceived regarding their status and other men cannot "˜see´ other men´s heart how is this crucial timing achieved?

Further reaching in shepherding one´s sheep: Most Baptist I know would not affirm a re-baptism, that it is to be administered only once. A true re-baptism would be unscriptural and this they would affirm. On the other hand the same would say that it is not "œre-baptism" if the first "œbaptism" (I´m not sure what such an act administered would be labeled, false baptism, public bath, mistake?) was given and the person was not truly regenerate (again the timing). So, in theory a believers baptism only teaching would never administer a "œre-baptism", but in practice how can this be done? E.g., If a person was truly regenerate but was struggling and doubted the timing of their own conversion and then went to the pastor and both become convinced to re-baptize/baptize for the first time, would in reality this not be unscriptural since he/she really was regenerate - in the sight of God? If one answers, "œWe do not baptized based upon an infallible knowledge of regeneration and do as little based upon presumption as possible", has one not conceded the point - that regeneration is undetectable to men and being thus undetectable so is the "œcrucial element of timing" conceded, and thus the argument for "œbelievers only baptism". But this all still goes back to "œhow do you do what you say you do in order to get the timing right - detect regeneration?"

And there seems to be another danger. Becoming fixated upon timing of conversion for assurance. We should not ever become fixed on timing since that is neither here nor there and could lead to a false assurance. Some people have very distinct and powerful conversion "œexperiences" and some come to faith gradually and cannot pin point. Is it not dangerous to require all conversions to fall into the former category? Yet, believers baptism only necessitates this "œwhen exactly was I converted thinking". Else its just guess work and if its guess work then timing cannot be all that crucial.

If I were becoming a believers only baptism affirming pastor it would seem I would want to be able to answer this crucial point about this distinctive of the denomination. If I say something is a distinctive about myself or company or what ever, then I should be able distinguish the distinctive for anyone asking about it.

Then there is Simon Magnus in Acts. That would have seemed to have been a golden time to mention "œyou need to repent and be baptized truly for the first time since you were not regenerate the first time." And John 3 seems to militate against "œregeneration detection" since the operation of the Holy Spirit is secretive. Actually the Law itself by extension seems to militate against such detection by men since the Law requires fulfillment from the heart and men can outwardly do the works of the Law yet not fulfill the Laws requirement from the heart, mind and soul - deceiving both themselves and others. Jeremiah 17:9 seems to militate against such, "œThe heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: (who can know it)?" One might say that we should know them by their fruits and this is our detection, but is that not only applied to those who are within the visible church as members? Why would we need to see the "œfruits" of those openly inside (but non-members) or outside of the church who openly reject the faith for they openly do so, it wouldn´t be a mystery to us.

These are the questions that I just can´t seem to sit down regarding the issue. Perhaps I'm greatly ignorant, always a definite possibility. But I would be lying to myself if I pretended to have these settled.

In Christ,

Larry
 
Originally posted by pastorway
There is no evidence in any of the household passages that anyone who did not hear and believe was baptized. They all heard, they all believed, they were all baptized.

Acts 10 - 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word 45And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Acts 16 - 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.


Acts 18 - 8Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

There is a pattern here - they all heard, believd, and were baptized - it is up tp those who uphold baptizing infants to find them in the households, for in the text, they are not there!

Phillip

[Edited on 1-6-05 by pastorway]
Click to expand...

Who is to say that infants or the imbecile cannot receive the word? Discipleship does not equate with regeneration. Disciples are to be baptised.

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
These are some points that are always forefront in my mind when I think of household baptisms. I'm still sitting on the fence concerning infant baptism but these are passages I now see in different light then I once did.

Originally posted by Draught Horse
2)Given the context of these glorious promises, notice how Peter speaks to the Jews in the first sermon of the NC, that the promise is unto you and your children. What was the means of covenant entry?
Click to expand...

I often found that I came to this verse and missed it entirely. When I read it thinking of what the Jews would have understood Peter to be saying I can see how this is about covenant inclusion. If this passage is not about covenant inclusion why would he use such language?

Some say that "your children" means descendants not their literal children. Anyone have thoughts on the validity of this argument?

3)As the history of the Church shows in Acts, their central debate was over whether or not the Gentiles had to include their children in the new covenant by means of circumcision--their debate was not whether the Jewish Christians had to start excluding their children.
Click to expand...

This is very important. If their children were not to be included in the covenant as they always were surely something would have been said to indicate this. As it stands there is no reason for the Jewish believers to think anything has changed. In fact for them to have believed that their children were not in covenant anymore would seem quite strange when you look at Acts.
 
Dave,
What you say above is critical in the understanding of covenant theology. Credo presuppositions unintentionally block the line of site; The premise we hold fast is that God is immutable and that this God has always been a God of the family unit. The promise to Abraham is eternal; "To you and your children". In Malachi, God calls for the "Godly seed". In the gospels Christ says that the kingdom 'belongs' to children as these. Peter commands 'The promise is to you and your children". The rationale that God would (in the NT) cast away this principle in my opinion is ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The promise to Abraham is eternal; "To you and your children". In Malachi, God calls for the "Godly seed". In the gospels Christ says that the kingdom 'belongs' to children as these. Peter commands 'The promise is to you and your children".
Click to expand...

Before knowing what covenant theology is I could never make sense of these verses.

I struggled for quite some time with eternality of the Abrahamic covenant since it involved unregenerate. As a Baptist I thought the new covenant only had regenerate people in it. Just exactly what to do with the Abrahamic covenant is the issue that I'm undecided on. Whether it applies to literal children or spiritual children is something I'm not sure of. If it applies to literal children (as I suspect it does) then I'll switch sides and baptize my children, if not, I'll stay in the same camp.

The rationale that God would (in the NT) cast away this principle in my opinion is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I believe you have good evidence for such a stance.
 
Originally posted by daveb
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The promise to Abraham is eternal; "To you and your children". In Malachi, God calls for the "Godly seed". In the gospels Christ says that the kingdom 'belongs' to children as these. Peter commands 'The promise is to you and your children".
Click to expand...

Before knowing what covenant theology is I could never make sense of these verses.

I struggled for quite some time with eternality of the Abrahamic covenant since it involved unregenerate. As a Baptist I thought the new covenant only had regenerate people in it. Just exactly what to do with the Abrahamic covenant is the issue that I'm undecided on. Whether it applies to literal children or spiritual children is something I'm not sure of. If it applies to literal children (as I suspect it does) then I'll switch sides and baptize my children, if not, I'll stay in the same camp.

The rationale that God would (in the NT) cast away this principle in my opinion is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I believe you have good evidence for such a stance.
Click to expand...

You ask does it apply to 'literal children". Did circumcision?
 
What, if any, would be the justification of thinking of them as spiritual children instead of literal children?
 
Gen 17:5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
Gen 17:6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
Gen 17:8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."
Gen 17:9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

~Is the above physical or spiritual? Both!

Mal 2:15 ...And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring.

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are hol

Was this promise just literal or was it a spiritual promise? It is both.
 
I may have been misunderstanding what Dave was talking about when he used the term 'spiritual children'. I've heard others (not necessarily on this board) refer to the promise in Acts 2:39 (unto you, and your children) as being to the Christian and those who they 'lead to Christ'. Somewhere in the NT Paul refers to his relationship to Timothy or Titus that way.
 
What promise is Peter refering to? If it is the Abrahamic, then the same rationale applies. Being cut off from Israel, a result of not being obedient to the command of God to place the sign, was spiritual as well as physical.
 
Originally posted by pastorway
the Jerusalem council (Acts 15)

Just my two Baptist cents......

[Edited on 1-6-05 by pastorway]
Click to expand...

Sorry, Phillip, did you say... Baptist Cents?

:o

What Jerusalem Council? That would look suspiciously like presbyterian church government!

:lol:

JH

PS I am not asking what the phrase 'jerusalem council' refers to. I know. I just believe, along with many baptists (I thought ALL baptists) that Acts 15 doesn't describe any council, but rather the meeting of two local churchs. This view is (suprisingly but honestly) supported by Dr Robert Reymond, himself a Presbyterian.
 
just remember that when you are talking to people of differing theological persuasions it helps to speak their language!!

:scholar:
 
Originally posted by blhowes
What, if any, would be the justification of thinking of them as spiritual children instead of literal children?
Click to expand...

Bob, Romans 9:6-9 is used to suggest that those children are spiritual in nature rather than physical. I'm not sure I buy the argument though.

6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."
8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

[Edited on 6-1-2005 by daveb]
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Gen 17:5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
Gen 17:6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
Gen 17:8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."
Gen 17:9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

~Is the above physical or spiritual? Both!

Mal 2:15 ...And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring.

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are hol

Was this promise just literal or was it a spiritual promise? It is both.
Click to expand...

This is good Scott. I believe that I was in error by falsely separating the physical act from its spiritual significance. I'm still learning about the whole concept of the external sign and what that sign signifies inwardly.

BTW, I appreciate your dialogue on this....I'm learning! :up:

[Edited on 6-1-2005 by daveb]
 
Just speaking about the general use of the term "œhousehold" in today's context: If you spoke to me today and said something like, "How's the "household" doing". I would without thinking about it in any theological context respond by intuitively saying, "My wife is well, the baby is due in May and my daughter has a bad cold." I might even mention the dog. The point being that is my household and my report on it.

As a matter of fact I do get emails and letters from friends catching up with me that ask, "how's the Hughes', how's the Hughes clan, how's the Hughes home, how's the Hughes home stead, the Hughes house, Hughes family and the alike." I'm never referred to even by my single never-married friends in the singular and that since I've been married, and I was single for a long time.

Thus, in use of the language it would be a very constrained stretch to answer, "How's the Hughes household/home/etc...?" with, "I'm doing fine." And if I did they might think something was wrong at home. Or even more constrained beyond language recognition, "I'm doing fine and if my wife was here to hear the question she would say the same, and my daughter not being at an age of intellectual cognizance is unable to give you her status."

Second, if it were hypothetically possible and I had heard Peter's sermon and ever before ever having joined any denomination to skew my thinking in any direction - before I understood one iota of doctrine - a pure ignorant irreligious no background Gentile - if I heard Peter say "and the promise is to you and your children and to all those who are far off..." My immediate reaction would have been to have myself and family baptized. At least until Peter or somebody stopped me and said, "You can't have your baby baptized because...we meant spiritual children and so forth". If that would be the understanding for an ignorant formerly irreligious Gentile for which I can best honestly answer, then how much more would a Jew having a tremendously strong covenant/covenant sign upbringing/teaching?

Third, I´m certain this has surely been asked, but what would a modern orthodox Jew understand Peter to be saying there in Acts 2:38 & 39 if he were to read that today? This being as close as we could come to a 1st Century Jew being there hearing it first hand.

Finally, what would be the difference in these two narrative constructions:

1. "œAnd with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized."

& a hypothetical narrative of the following:

2. "œAnd that day several tornado warnings were issued saying that the tornado was near. Then they that heard/received the warning sought shelter."

If families and households were involved in each case and if children and babies were present with their parents (which would indeed be the highest and most natural probability), could we conclude in any real sense from #2 that the children/babies were not taken to and given shelter from the warning. If not for #2, then why so for #1?

I´m not trying to be obtuse, just trying to learn. Perhaps simplistically but trying to learn.


Larry
 
Originally posted by daveb
Bob, Romans 9:6-9 is used to suggest that those children are spiritual in nature rather than physical. I'm not sure I buy the argument though.
Click to expand...
To me, Acts 2:39 just sounds like the promise that God will save his elect. The 'you' represents the Jews that God saves, 'your children' represents their children that God saves, and 'all that are afar off' is the rest of the elect.

Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you (as many as the Lord our God shall call),
and to your children (as many as the Lord our God shall call),
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

That's what makes the most sense to me now, anyway. I'm guessing that some may disagree.
 
Originally posted by blhowes
To me, Acts 2:39 just sounds like the promise that God will save his elect. The 'you' represents the Jews that God saves, 'your children' represents their children that God saves, and 'all that are afar off' is the rest of the elect.

Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you (as many as the Lord our God shall call),
and to your children (as many as the Lord our God shall call),
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

That's what makes the most sense to me now, anyway. I'm guessing that some may disagree.
Click to expand...

Bob, I've found that Acts 2:39 and Romans 9:6 are often used in conjunction. I've heard some say that the children are the same as those "that are afar off". These children are thought to be not the children of the flesh but the children of promise (this is where some will bring Romans 9:6 in).

However, I agree with your interpretation that the "your children" is pointing to physical seed.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by daveb]
 
Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat
Just my two Baptist cents......

I'll go aWay now and try not to spoil anyone's last straw arguments.

Phillip

[Edited on 1-6-05 by pastorway]
Click to expand...

Ok. Have a nice day :D.
Click to expand...

Now I'm disappointed in you! Go sit in the corner or behave...this is getting interesting...
 
The promise is to as many as the Lord will call.....exactly right Bob! Whether it is you He calls, your children, or those far away from us in another land - the promise is to the ELECT....and we cannot ever take for granted that our children are automatically elect because they have been born to believers. Election is unconditional.

As for the households, sure it would have included infants if the families had infants, but those in these households who were baptised also all heard the Word and believed it. All who heard and believed were baptized. To insert an infant into those baptized puts little people in the text that are not there.

You will not find a single reference to infant baptism in the whole Bible. It simply is not there. The regulative principle then requires that we refrain from baptizing infants.

The household passages cannot be used to support infant baptism. Neither can Acts 2:48-49. Neither can an appeal to circumcision in the OT since we are never told in Scripture that baptism replaces circumcision.

See? Infant baptism must be derived from a systematic theology and inserted into the text. We throw Sola Scriptura out the window when we say that the Bible teaches us to baptize our children.

Phillip
 
Originally posted by pastorway
As for the households, sure it would have included infants if the families had infants, but those in these households who were baptised also all heard the Word and believed it. All who heard and believed were baptized. To insert an infant into those baptized puts little people in the text that are not there...The household passages cannot be used to support infant baptism.
Click to expand...

Phillip, see this thread, especially Bruce's post to which I linked.

Originally posted by pastorway
Neither can an appeal to circumcision in the OT since we are never told in Scripture that baptism replaces circumcision.
Click to expand...

Two questions: 1) What is your interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12? 2) What would you say is biblically signified by: a) circumcision, and b) baptism?

Originally posted by pastorway
See? Infant baptism must be derived from a systematic theology and inserted into the text. We throw Sola Scriptura out the window when we say that the Bible teaches us to baptize our children.
Click to expand...

It is really impossible to make sense of any separate passages of Scripture in relation to one another without engaging in some level of systematic theology. Thus the fact that paedobaptism requires a systematic theological treatment of the many issues that have been discussed in this thread in no way shows that it violates Sola Scriptura.
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
1) What is your interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12?
Click to expand...
I think these verses expand upon the truth of verse 10, that the Colossian believers are complete in Christ. Though they weren't circumcised physically, in Christ they were circumcised spiritually by God. They are also complete in Christ through their spiritual baptism in which they die with Christ and are also quickened with Christ.

I don't yet see anything beyond that regarding a connection between physical circumcision and physical baptism. The reason is because I don't see any connection between the spiritual circumcision and the physical circumcision in this passage (these gentiles weren't circumcised). Since I don't see the physical circumcision in the passage, it follows that I don't see a connection between physical circumcision and physical baptism.
 
Bob,
If I am following you; You agree that God commands a sign to be placed upon His covenant people, correct? Circumcission was the sign in the old, baptism in the new. I don't know if you will find a clear cut mandate other than the call to place the sign.......
 
Colossians 2:11-12

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

What is signified in baptism is that we are buried and rise with Christ. Baptism is replacing circumcision as the seal of the covenant. We do not need the circumcision of our flesh but of the heart. I believe this much is clear, but whom is the recipient?

I remember reading Piper on this passage and he said that what is equated in this passage is the "circumcision made without hands" and baptism. Since only those who are regenerate receive the "circumcision made without hands" so also only the regenerate should receive baptism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top