Infant "Baptism"

[John Milton]

Hi, John. Thank you for the kind and thoughtful reply from scripture. I will do my best to address each point individually. Let me know if I leave something important out.

I will. I understand that due to the medium I may convey something I didn't intend or vice-versa. If I misunderstand you, let me know where, and I'll try to better understand your point and/or re-articulate mine.

I agree with the last sentence. Such is the nature of all type-antitype relationships. However, there is a limitation on the types that I will discuss below as you go into further detail.

There are limitations on type/antitype relationships. However, there are a few problems here.
1) You are assuming that this is an example of such a relationship. The text doesn't say that explicitly.
2) The passage equates baptism to "a circumcision made without hands." In what way is it "made without hands?" Is it fair to say that the author is claiming here that another person is not involved in the process of baptism (That their "hands" aren't involved, if you wish to be literal.)? I think you would agree the answer is no. Paul at this particular moment appears to be focusing on God's activity in the sacrament and not on the mechanics of it.
3) Even if this were a type/antitype relationship. It is still scripture, and Jesus used scripture to make necessary inferences and call out our hypocrisy.

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,

Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

In these passages, the law of Moses has a few explicit statements. The first is that males of the covenant, and even those bought with money who aren't ethnic Jews, should be circumcised on the 8th day. The second that no work should be done on the Sabbath. These are two explicit teachings that sometimes came into conflict. The Jews "broke" the latter in favor of the former. In one instance

If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well?

Jesus called out their double-standard about this "breach" of the Sabbath, warning the people

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

It would've been easy for them to take Jesus's words on this occasion and force them into a very narrow mold. They could've said, for instance, that Jesus was only sanctioning the healing of a man on the Sabbath because the scripture only allows the Sabbath to be "breached" by the circumcision of a male child. However, we know that such an understanding of the passage, though in complete harmony, perhaps, with Jesus's words, was not what he meant. He invited the people to look beyond his words. By doing so, we can properly understand his healing of a Jewish woman.

12 When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your disability.” 13 And he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God. 14 But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the people, “There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” 15 Then the Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it? 16 And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?”

Even though the teachers of the law had a good argument against this activity, Jesus went beyond the written law to the intent of the law. It it true that there is danger in pressing the principle too closely, but we must also acknowledge that we may well be guilty of such Pharisee-ism ourselves.

I doubt that I would've understood these truths properly if I had only this explanation to go on; I almost certainly would've sided with the Pharisees:

24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”

I cannot base doctrines on perhaps. I need explicit statements or implications with necessary inferences.

This would be a good place to respond to the above.

 

[John Milton]

So let's talk about the nature of types and their relationship to the antitype here. A type is a figure, symbol, or metaphor in an object or event that points to an antitype, the "real" thing. For example, Moses was a type of Jesus Christ in that Moses was a deliverer, prophet, shepherd, and lawgiver the same as Christ. David was also a type of Jesus Christ in that David was a shepherd king. Both of these men had things about them that taught us about what Christ would be like to help us understand Christ when He came into the world. However, these images or pre-reflections of Christ had limitations and were not in all ways like the antitype they symbolized and taught about. Neither man was sinless. Neither man could save someone from sins. Neither man was also God in the flesh and so on. So we can only talk about the type-antitype relationship to the extent that the type is pointing to the antitype. Everything else is only part of the type event itself.

A great example of this is the Flood and its type-antitype relationship with NT water immersion. Peter talks about this in 1 Pet. 3. The Flood typified NT water immersion in that it was a burial in water, it destroyed sin, and it saved Noah and his family from sin. When the world came up out of the waters of the Flood it was a new heavens and a new earth (2 Peter 3). However, there are major differences. The Flood did not actually wipe out the sins of the wicked. It wiped out sin in the world by removing the wicked physically from the world. The Flood did not actually bury the one it saved. And the Flood did not actually save Noah and his family from any personal sins. Therefore we cannot take the type too far in attempting to apply it to the antitype. This is what the anti-baptism people do when they try to make it about the ark (which is what Noah did and not what God did!).

Therein lies the great distinction between the OT Types and the NT Antitypes they point to. The types are all physical obvious things that we can understand to help us understand the not as obvious spiritual truths of the antitypes of the NT. The crossing of the Red Sea. The washings of the priests. The waters of separation. The cleansing of Naaman. These are all rituals and events that help us understand something about NT water immersion, but we cannot take them too far and attempt to apply them wholesale.

Circumcision of the flesh and heart in the OT didn't actually save and did not put you into the kingdom of Heaven. That it was done to literal infants was part of its physicality since one was born to physical Israelite parents. This physical infancy does not translate to the spiritual antitype.

So note that for them to circumcise their hearts they had to make the conscious choice to do that. Children can't do that as they don't have the moral and intellectual maturity to understand what that means. An infant can't even say circumcision of the heart. The word "offspring" in Deut. 30 does not mean infants and small children. It's a generic word for direct descendants. That they would have to circumcise their own hearts implies that they must be mature enough to understand what that is and how to do it else God is unjust.

Furthermore, when we talk about God's part in circumcising their hearts, or even hardening someone's heart like Pharoah, we must ask how God does that. The mechanical side of that is absolutely important in understanding what is being taught. Is it direct, supernatural, immediate operation as some (Calvinists) suggest? Or is it indirect, natural, mediate operation through teachings and revelation so that man's free will choice is involved? If the former, then I can see where a case can be made for infants, but I reject that absolutely. I hold to the latter, which requires someone to understand the choices before them before they can make them which implies morally accountable minds -- not infants and small children.

I think I've addressed the thrust of these comments above, but I will remark further if I have missed something. I hope I can clarify myself a bit here in any case.

If circumcision was imparted through Abraham to those who believe so that they may be righteous, even though uncircumcised,

He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,

why should we object to understanding baptism in the same manner?

14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

This simply acknowledges the testimony of scripture that God isn't limited in his ability to save others. That God required those who were under his covenant to be circumcised (Abraham, also the incident between God, Moses, and Zipporah is instructive) in no way prevented him from saving those who were not physically circumcised. In the same way, that God requires baptism for those who believe on him in no way limits his ability to save those who are not baptized. There isn't any obvious reason why the baptism of infants is any different than circumcision administered to infants when the purpose and aim of both are fully understood.

I had to separate these due to length, and I haven't proofread them. There may be a few unintentional errors/typos.

 

[BJ Bear]

But your assumption is that it is universal. It's not.

The category is that which is born of flesh. By definition there is no human of any age born in the normal way, those which are born of a human father and mother, that is outside that category.

You are trying to assert what is contrary to the word of God in John 3. It is an error to try and overturn the clear context of any section of Scripture by importing an idea that is outside the immediate context. That illogical method of interpretation can does lead to numerous errors which are false regarding the same text. The only thing that limits the number of false interpretations reached using that method of interpretation is the imagination of those who use it.

It only applies to those outside the kingdom to begin with as those are the only ones who need to enter it.

By the definition given by the Lord God all those born of flesh, all men regardless of age, are outside the kingdom of God and must be born again. In other words, all men regardless of age must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. That is what that section of John 3 says and means.

I was talking about the phrase "enter into the Kingdom of Heaven". I apologize if I was unclear about that.

By definition infants are necessarily born of flesh and must be born again to enter the kingdom of God according to John 3. The range of the indefinite pronoun tis in John 3:3 often translated as man includes some person or any person or every person. The following statement of Jesus clarifies his intended meaning of every person, "that which is born of flesh is flesh."

I'm sorry, but this does not state or imply universality. The words simply aren't there.

See the section just above regarding the Lord's use of the indefinite pronoun tis and His further clarification of His intended meaning.

It is the assumption of those who believe in inherited sin and the like that everyone starts life outside of the kingdom, outside of a relationship with God. I reject that.

You may reject that but it is the repeated witness of Scripture. Rather than post some of the numerous and various ways in which Scripture does that I will point to a simple summary of Paul in Romans 5.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." Romans 5:12-14 -NKJV

If one never died spiritually (was separated from God by sin - Isa. 59:1-2) then they have no need to be reborn spiritually. You're applying a defibrillator to a healthy, beating heart.

Two things, Isaiah 59:1-2 says nothing of infants being sinless and the sinless incarnate Lord God was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

This is not plain from John 3. The words aren't there that state or imply this.

Of course it is plain from the words of John 3 since no human born of a father and mother is not born of flesh.

It speaks of what those who want to enter the kingdom of Heaven need to do, be reborn spiritually.

No, that is backwards since it speaks of what must happen to a person to be born again and enter the kingdom of God. The one being born again, being baptized, is passive.

It neither says or implies anything about those who are already in the kingdom.

It says everything about how those born of the flesh, that necessarily includes infants, must be born again to enter heaven.

Saying so doesn't make it so. You have to show how I took it out of context.

I did that by quoting a significant portion of the chapter and looking back at chapter six to demonstrate to whom he was writing and about what. The one dismissing the text is you since you don't make any specific reference to the text cited.

How would Paul talking about himself as a child be in reference to someone who was already born again?

Nowhere in the text does Paul state or imply that he was speaking of himself as a child. Btw, even if one mistakenly interprets Paul to be writing of himself as a child then the context proves that children are not sinless because through the commandment sin was revived. "but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."

He was not immersed until Acts 9 as an adult.

Paul's baptism in Acts 9 is not relevant to Romans 7:9.

I simply do not agree with your analysis here. There is no other way to understand how Paul could have been apart from the law [of Moses] in verse 8, how Paul could have been alive once outside the law [of Moses] in verse 9, and then how the commandment came other than he was a child. Once he was old enough to understand the law and sin and then actually sinned, Paul died spiritually. Those are the verses you have to explain.

Paul was alive in the sense that he was secure in his sin. Look back at the section of Romans 5 previously cited. Just because sin is not imputed, a function of the law, that doesn't mean that sin is not present. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Romans 5:12-13 -NKJV

 

[John Milton]

And for them to do it, they had to be capable of doing it.

They could circumcise their hearts. They could not circumcise themselves. The males were too young and the females had no such requirement. Your remarks seem only to address half of the whole.

So, ironically, being a member of the church of Christ I'm probably the most prepared to answer this objection.

This seems pretentious, but I believe it is intended to be self-deprecating humor or something along that line. In any event I understand your intent.

Is it sinful to add to what God has taught in scripture? Yes. That's why we don't use mechanical instruments in worship under the New Testament. We call this the Law of Specificity. If God has specified something within a category, by virtue of specifying that thing, He has logically automatically eliminated anything else within the category. If God has specified that those who are sinners who believe, repent, and confess their faith in Christ are to be immersed in water for the specified purpose of having their sins remitted, then "baptizing" an infant who has no sin, cannot believe, repent, or confess anything would be to go beyond what God has specified, which would be adding to God's Word, which would be sinful.

Furthermore, we can give a logical reason as to why God would consider this particular act of baptizing babies when they have no sin and don't need to be baptized as sinful. It implies the false doctrine that babies do have sin and are in need of salvation instead of innocent.

Given your remarks earlier in the thread, would you consider this entirely on-topic (instrumental music) if it came from someone else?

As I argued above, there are times when explicit comments from scripture conflict with one another. Jesus provides us a reasonable example for dealing with these issues while still requiring fidelity to the word of the law.

Paul calls circumcision the sign of the righteousness attributed to Abraham. As such the infants who received the mark were considered righteous as well, but not exclusively on the grounds of the mark itself. It could be said that the mark of circumcision was a sign of this righteousness as long as the child remained sinless with the mark of circumcision or subject to God, in spite of his sin, while still possessing it. It could also be said that this sign was imparted by virtue of birth to Jewish females.

So here is where I would understand this differently. Circumcision was a sign of what was already true of the infant, they were born an Israelite and the sign of physical circumcision showed that. NT immersion is not a sign of what has already happened. You and I both agree that it's what does the actual transformation from sinner to saint. NT immersion is superior because it's not a sign at all. It's the antitype.

I would argue that baptism is superior to circumcision because it has his roots in Christ's righteousness and not Abraham's. I believe that would be Paul's argument. I believe that it is also superior in that it can be applied to both men and women and this as a public display of one's loyalty, not a private one (No pun is intended!).

The big thing I think that you are missing is that circumcision wasn't a sign either. It was the means by which God chose to impart righteousness until Christ. It's true no one is saved apart from Christ, but circumcision was the seal that God provided to those who would later be sealed in Christ.

So again, I'd argue that we cannot take the details of a type and equate them with the details of the antitype. We take the details of the type, learn what the Bible tells us we must learn (usually this is done in the NT), and leave the rest as the shadow or image of the reality. The reality is that belief, repentance, and confession are all unto salvation and an infant has nothing to repent of and cannot make a confession nor believe anything concerning the mature concepts of sin and salvation. There were no such prereqs for infants for physical circumcision under the OT.

Again, you have assumed type/antitype, and you have focused only on one aspect of circumcision. But you can't be faulted for that here: I hadn't responded yet. However, I cited two different scriptures, and there are others, that demonstrate that there are at least two different aspects of circumcision. One of those aspects cannot apply to an infant. You did not acknowledge this part of my argument. You seem only to have addressed the part that was convenient for your view.

You might say I would give an objection on different grounds to use your turn of phrase.

Physical circumcision (type) and NT water immersion (antitype) are not equal thus the practice of circumcision cannot be used as grounds for the practice of NT immersion. It would be equivalent to saying we should all build boats and go out to sea away from the wicked world (or Mars, if I'm being personal) or that we should gather our families and cross some form of Red Sea to free ourselves from bondage to sin. The particulars aren't there in the types to tell us what to do. The particulars are there to help us understand the superior spiritual truths of the NT.

That was my point above, the particulars aren't there for you to say that infant baptism is sinful/wrong. The particulars aren't there to say that infant baptism is right/must be done. However, the superiority of my argument, I believe, rests on the inference that God will accept for baptism what he allowed for circumcision. I'm not bold enough to presume that this is the correct argument, but I am bold enough to assume that it is a safer one than the position you are taking. You have to neglect this logical inference, also, in order to say that it is wrong/sinful to baptize an infant. If you say that, you have gone beyond what scripture explicitly teaches and what it apparently suggests.

Thank you again for your kind and thoughtful arguments from scripture, for keeping this about our doctrines and not our persons. I look forward to more discourse with you in the future. Have a wonderful night.

In Truth and Love.

I feel the same way. Please, know that no snark or ugliness was intended from me or perceived from you.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

That’s okay. Because, there’s really nothing to discuss. It’s just a undeniable fact every single Church Father and council taught baptismal regeneration (in addition to the clear word of God). It’s an inconvenient fact for those who reject baptismal regeneration.

We use the Bible/. Jesus Saves. Not the early church fathers.

List the baby baptisms in scripture.

 

[Lt. Columbo]

Yes, the mockers who were stricken were to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, etc. The thing to note when a person a puts events events in chronological order the proclamation of repentance and the forgiveness of sins in His name, Luke 24:44-48, becomes repent and be baptized in His name for the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38-39.

That was done by those whose minds were opened by the risen Lord to understand Scripture.

In 1 Peter 3:21 the acting nominative that saves is "baptism." The passive object saved in baptism is "you." The parenthetical thought, that which is between the dashes in your translation, speaks of the acting nominative, baptism, rather than the passive person being baptized, you. In other words, baptism is not this, the washing away the filth of the flesh, but baptism is that, an appeal to God for a clean conscience--through the resurrection of Christ.

Baptism is the appeal to God for a clean conscience through the resurrection of Christ. The passive person being baptized is passive.

The bottom line in baptism then is that there is no substantive difference between those being baptized as the one being baptized is passive. It makes no difference whether the one being baptized is an intellectually capable adult or the youngest infant as the promises in baptism are the same to both.

Thank you BJ Bear for your informative reply.

I, too, believe that the benefits promised in baptism are for all who are baptized. I must ask myself, however, whether a baptism has actually happened when devoid of a participant's belief or faith.

It looks to me like the example of Christian baptism in the New Testament makes belief in Jesus Christ a prerequisite. For example, Philip only agreed to baptize the eunuch after he confessed belief in Christ.

I do not believe one need understand everything there is to know about baptism for it to be effective. I believe, however, that one's personal free-will choice to be baptized is an integral dynamic in coming to Christ in baptism. Devoid of a participant's belief or faith I must question whether a Biblical baptism has actually ocurred.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

The category is that which is born of flesh. By definition there is no human of any age born in the normal way, those which are born of a human father and mother, that is outside that category.

Ah, I did not understand what you were getting at. I understand now. You are saying that all born of flesh = all that must be born of spirit. I do not believe that is what Jesus is driving at here. I think He is merely making the distinction between what He is saying about being born again and what Nicodemus is talking about in terms of physical birth. Those who are physical are born of flesh as Nicodemus was talking about, but that's not what Jesus was getting at. He is talking about those who are reborn spiritually and it is of a spiritual nature. So yes, in that all those who are reborn spiritually are in the category of a spiritual nature rather than physical, it's all those who are reborn spiritually.

But infants do not require rebirth having never sinned and so are not in the category of spiritual rebirth.

You are trying to assert what is contrary to the word of God in John 3. It is an error to try and overturn the clear context of any section of Scripture by importing an idea that is outside the immediate context. That illogical method of interpretation can does lead to numerous errors which are false regarding the same text. The only thing that limits the number of false interpretations reached using that method of interpretation is the imagination of those who use it.

Hopefully I have understood you correctly now and have answered more directly to the point you are making.

By the definition given by the Lord God all those born of flesh, all men regardless of age, are outside the kingdom of God and must be born again. In other words, all men regardless of age must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. That is what that section of John 3 says and means.

No, that's not what Jesus is saying at all. He is merely addressing Nicodemus' misunderstanding between physical birth and spiritual rebirth. That is what that section of John 3 says and means.

You may reject that but it is the repeated witness of Scripture. Rather than post some of the numerous and various ways in which Scripture does that I will point to a simple summary of Paul in Romans 5.

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." Romans 5:12-14 -NKJV

Note how sin spread to all (and I would argue this is a generalization not individual). It wasn't inherited. It was a choice action. All classes of men, both Jews and Gentiles, died spiritually "because all sinned". I would further highlight that this is a generalization rather than individual in that Paul has been talking about the difference in the two classes of men: Jew and Gentile the entire letter and continues to do so. That's the overarching point of the letter. He is not saying all individuals have sinned but that all kinds of men have sinned regardless if they are Jews or not. Jesus is the case in point that shows that it is not about individuals.

Two things, Isaiah 59:1-2 says nothing of infants being sinless and the sinless incarnate Lord God was baptized to fulfill all righteousness.

But it does show that sin separates us from God, which means we had to be joined to God at some point in order to be separated. I cannot ever be separated from something I was never joined with.

Of course it is plain from the words of John 3 since no human born of a father and mother is not born of flesh.


No, that is backwards since it speaks of what must happen to a person to be born again and enter the kingdom of God. The one being born again, being baptized, is passive.

It says everything about how those born of the flesh, that necessarily includes infants, must be born again to enter heaven.

I did that by quoting a significant portion of the chapter and looking back at chapter six to demonstrate to whom he was writing and about what. The one dismissing the text is you since you don't make any specific reference to the text cited.

I have already addressed this and have nothing new to add.

Nowhere in the text does Paul state or imply that he was speaking of himself as a child. Btw, even if one mistakenly interprets Paul to be writing of himself as a child then the context proves that children are not sinless because through the commandment sin was revived. "but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died."

The word "revived" refers to how the law when applied to others could only condemn them, but when Paul was a child had no affect on him (it was dead to him, he was separate from it), but when he was old enough to understand, it came alive again in him as it was in all the other Jews for the past 1500+ years.

Paul's baptism in Acts 9 is not relevant to Romans 7:9.

Paul was alive in the sense that he was secure in his sin. Look back at the section of Romans 5 previously cited. Just because sin is not imputed, a function of the law, that doesn't mean that sin is not present. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Romans 5:12-13 -NKJV

I do not see this in Romans 7:8-9 at all.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

@John Milton I'll have to reply when I get back in town. I'm going to be gone for a few days.

 

[John Milton]

@John Milton I'll have to reply when I get back in town. I'm going to be gone for a few days.

No rush. Have fun and safe travels.

 

[BJ Bear]

Thank you BJ Bear for your informative reply.

I, too, believe that the benefits promised in baptism are for all who are baptized. I must ask myself, however, whether a baptism has actually happened when devoid of a participant's belief or faith.

I'm sure you are familiar with Ephesians 2:8-10. In that section of Scripture the Apostle Paul makes it plain that faith in Christ is a gift of God rather than something we manufacture or work. In other words, faith in Christ comes from outside us.

The question then is what are the means or methods that the Lord has given His body, the church, to work that faith in others. A succinct answer is found Matthew 28:19-20. The church is to disciple all peoples by baptizing and teaching. In that sentence and in the complete passage "disciple" is a verb and baptizing and teaching are participles which inform us of the verb. The participles don't indicate a necessary order of baptize and teach just as the rest of Scripture doesn't indicate a necessary order of baptize and teach or teach and baptize. But they do tell us what it means to disciple people in the context of Matthew 28:19-20.

Another way to find the answer, the same answer, is to note where one finds the the promises of God for us in Christ Jesus. Christians a a whole recognize those promises as being given in the gospel, the word alone. Unfortunately, there are a few who don't recognize or deny those promises given in the baptism from God, the water with the word.

It looks to me like the example of Christian baptism in the New Testament makes belief in Jesus Christ a prerequisite. For example, Philip only agreed to baptize the eunuch after he confessed belief in Christ.

The question asked by the eunuch who was excluded by statute from entering the congregation of the Lord by his physical condition was, "What hinders me from being baptized?" Philip's answer indicated that there is nothing, no statute or law, which would stop him from being baptized. But since baptism is a promise Philip wouldn't force him to be baptized so he answered with the conditional, "If you believe you may be baptized," meaning that only his unbelief would hinder him.

I do not believe one need understand everything there is to know about baptism for it to be effective.

That is absolutely true because baptism is the work of God not of man.

I believe, however, that one's personal free-will choice to be baptized is an integral dynamic in coming to Christ in baptism. Devoid of a participant's belief or faith I must question whether a Biblical baptism has actually ocurred.

The gospel, whether it is conveyed through the word alone or the water with the word, gives what it demands, namely faith. Or to put it another way, "The gospel is true and people believe it. The gospel is never true because people believe it," Our Great Heritage, (c)NPH. (emphasis probably mine)

 

[BJ Bear]

Ah, I did not understand what you were getting at. I understand now. You are saying that all born of flesh = all that must be born of spirit. I do not believe that is what Jesus is driving at here. I think He is merely making the distinction between what He is saying about being born again and what Nicodemus is talking about in terms of physical birth. Those who are physical are born of flesh as Nicodemus was talking about, but that's not what Jesus was getting at. He is talking about those who are reborn spiritually and it is of a spiritual nature. So yes, in that all those who are reborn spiritually are in the category of a spiritual nature rather than physical, it's all those who are reborn spiritually.

Prior to any response by Nicodemus Jesus made the categorical statement, "Except a man [tis, an indefinite pronoun which indicates a person, a human regardless of age or mental acuity] be born again he cannot see the kingdom God." John 3:3 -KJV

But infants do not require rebirth having never sinned and so are not in the category of spiritual rebirth.

That is only your assertion which is contrary to the statements made by Jesus in John 3 and to which the rest of the Scriptures testify and affirm, for example, "Jesus is the Savior of all men [anthropos, humans], " 1 Tim 4:10, "For God so [houto, in this manner] loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son...," John 3:16. Those too are categorical statements of who is a sinner as Jesus came to save sinners.

Hopefully I have understood you correctly now and have answered more directly to the point you are making.

No, that's not what Jesus is saying at all. He is merely addressing Nicodemus' misunderstanding between physical birth and spiritual rebirth. That is what that section of John 3 says and means.

John 3:3 is before John 3:4. John 3:5ff is a restatement of John 3:3

Note how sin spread to all (and I would argue this is a generalization not individual). It wasn't inherited. It was a choice action.

There is nothing regarding choice in the passage since it only indicates the fact that through the one man's sin sin entered the world, and death by sin, so death spread to all because of the fact that all sinned.

All classes of men, both Jews and Gentiles, died spiritually "because all sinned".

There is nothing to indicate that it is only a "spiritual" death.

I would further highlight that this is a generalization rather than individual in that Paul has been talking about the difference in the two classes of men: Jew and Gentile the entire letter and continues to do so. That's the overarching point of the letter. He is not saying all individuals have sinned but that all kinds of men have sinned regardless if they are Jews or not.

It is a generalization which applies to all men, both Jew and Gentile.

Jesus is the case in point that shows that it is not about individuals.

Jesus is the exception because He was not born of a human father and mother.

But it does show that sin separates us from God, which means we had to be joined to God at some point in order to be separated. I cannot ever be separated from something I was never joined with.

Two things, the sin that separated us from God was Adam's sin which is how sin and death entered the world. The context of the passage in Isaiah is that of the the people of God who were sepated from God yet given laws or statutes by which they could be brought near to God. Their continued sin, that of which Isaiah speaks, separates them from the God who brings them near.

The word "revived" refers to how the law when applied to others could only condemn them, but when Paul was a child had no affect on him (it was dead to him, he was separate from it), but when he was old enough to understand, it came alive again in him as it was in all the other Jews for the past 1500+ years.

That is strictly eisegesis as anyone who follows the pronouns knows. The words "me" and "I" do not refer to others.

I do not see this in Romans 7:8-9 at all.

A person sticking to the context will see it.

The conversation will advance when you demonstrate from Scripture why you think contrary to Scripture that infants are sinless and have no need of Christ and His saving work.

 

[VDMA]

When they are mature enough to understand what sin and its consequences are and then choose to sin for the very first time. This is different for each child as children mature at different ages. This is not a forgone conclusion, either, since not everyone will choose to ever sin.

I have three children that are, as I observe them and talk with them, that are not mature enough to even be capable of sin yet. So your generalization is falsified in me specifically. Since I am also convinced that young children and infants are not capable of sin, then this generalization is falsified generally in that you have asserted people know what is a thing that cannot be known since it is a false premise.

At best you are performing a kind of projection onto your kids of your own sins. They may do things that you do not like, but that is not the same thing as sin since sin requires the ability to understand God's law, what sin is, and what its consequences are. Sin has been about knowledge from the very beginning (Gen. 3). For certain an infant knows little beyond hunger, wet, tired, uncomfortable, and mommy.

It's not a chronological age but a maturity level. See above.

These passages do not teach that Adam's sin is imputed to his descendants.

These passages do not teach that man's nature (design) was corrupted or even changed in any way.

Original sin is not a Biblical concept.

We deny the necessity of water immersion on infants and children. Of course its not effective. They don't need to be saved since they are still in a right relationship with God.

We do not. We believe that once you are saved, you can still willfully reject God and turn to walk in darkness again and thus be lost once more. This is not the same as stumbling while still walking in the light. In those cases, momentary sin and weakness are continually cleansed by the blood of Christ. However, if you reject God and turn from Him purposefully, you are lost again (James 5:19-20; 1 John 1:6-7). If no one converts you back to the light, there isn't any other way to Heaven and so you are eternally separated from God and will spend eternity separated from Him if you physically die while in that state.

Yes. It is a burial (Romans 6:3-5; Col. 2:12). You don't bury someone by sprinkling a bit of dirt on their corpse or pouring a handful of dirt on their corpse. You fully cover them in dirt. We are to be fully covered in water so that we are fully covered in the blood.

Therein lies the problem, the Church of Christ rejects original sin, and believes in the so-call “age of accountability”. Both are errors. Even before the use of reason, sin is already in the soul. If a child sins (regardless of how “small” that sin maybe), they are under God’s wrath. This does not mean all infant or children that dies before Holy baptism are necessarily in hell.

I am not going to respond in depth today in-depth on original sin, because it’s been clearly laid out in my previous post in the subject on pg. 1.

The Church of Christ sect are much like the Baptist sects. In the case of the “Church of Christ”, they want to adhere to baptismal regeneration, but reject original sin, therefore they don’t see the need for a child to be brought to the Baptismal font, until the so-called “age of account ability”. To withhold God’s gift of Holy baptism from the littlest of these children is a grievous error. Delaying baptism to children of believers is reckless. Baptist also adhere to the so called “age of accountability” as well. Do not put the Lord your God to the test.

There is no so-called “age of accountability”, nor minimal age requirement or intellectual threshold for baptism. It just really odd, really odd, that the Church of Church (it’s American made church, kind of like Seventh Day Advantist, Mormons and JW are American made) can reject infant baptism, but still adhere to baptismal regeneration.

The Confession of Faith: I, art. ii

ARTICLE II Original Sin

1 Our churches teach that since the fall of Adam [Romans 5:12], all who are naturally born are born with sin [Psalm 51:5], that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with the inclination to sin, called concupiscence. 2 Concupiscence is a disease and original vice that is truly sin. It damns and brings eternal death on those who are not born anew through Baptism and the Holy Spirit [John 3:5].
3 Our churches condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, thus obscuring the glory of Christ’s merit and benefits. Pelagians argue that a person can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.

ARTICLE IX Baptism

Note: The Bible teaches that Baptism is a gift of God’s grace by which He applies the benefits of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection to us personally. Because all people are conceived and born in sin, we all need salvation. Because Baptism is God’s way of bringing us salvation, infants should also be baptized. During the Reformation, as now, some Christian groups turned Baptism from God’s saving activity into an act of Christian obedience. This view of Baptism arises from the denial of original sin and a semi-Pelagian view of salvation, whereby faith becomes the good work we contribute. This article concentrates on what God gives in this Sacrament. (See also Ap IX; SA III V; LC IV.)

1 Concerning Baptism, our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation [Mark 16:16] and that God’s grace is offered through Baptism [Titus 3:4–7]. 2 They teach that children are to be baptized [Acts 2:38–39]. Being offered to God through Baptism, they are received into God’s grace.
3 Our churches condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the Baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

The Smalcald Articles: III, art. i, par. 1

Article I: Of Sin

1 Here we must confess, as Paul says in Rom. 5:12, that sin originated [and entered the world] from one man Adam, by whose disobedience all men were made sinners, [and] subject to death and the devil. This is called original or capital sin.

2 The fruits of this sin are afterwards the evil deeds which are forbidden in the Ten Commandments, such as [distrust] unbelief, false faith, idolatry, to be without the fear of God, presumption [recklessness], despair, blindness [or complete loss of sight], and, in short not to know or regard God; furthermore to lie, to swear by [to abuse] God’s name [to swear falsely], not to pray, not to call upon God, not to regard [to despise or neglect] God’s Word, to be disobedient to parents, to murder, to be unchaste, to steal, to deceive, etc.

3 This hereditary sin is so deep [and horrible] a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be [learned and] believed from the revelation of Scriptures, Ps. 51:5; Rom. 6:12ff ; Ex. 33:3; Gen. 3:7ff Hence, it is nothing but error and blindness in regard to this article what the scholastic doctors have taught, namely: 4 That since the fall of Adam the natural powers of man have remained entire and incorrupt, and that man by nature has a right reason and a good will; which things the philosophers teach…

——————

Sin is defined as any thought, word, or deed that transgresses the law of God. In the famous words of Saint Augustine, sin is “something said, done, or desired that is contrary to the eternal law”.

St. Augustine, “the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin”.

It is not a personal crime, objected the Pelagians. “No”, answered St. Augustine, “but it is paternal crime”.

St. Anselm: “the sin of Adam was one thing but the sin of children at their birth is quite another, the former was the cause, the latter is the effect”.

St. Irenaeus; “In the person of the first Adam we offend God, disobeying His precept”

——————

Thread 'Full Immersion'

Full Immersion

Baptismal mode is a preference, whither it by either sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, all are valid methods for applying for applying water in Holy Baptism (as long as it’s done in the Trinitarian format). This should not be a point of argument. —————— It is not wrong to baptize by...

forums.carm.org

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

There are limitations on type/antitype relationships. However, there are a few problems here.
1) You are assuming that this is an example of such a relationship. The text doesn't say that explicitly.

There is no requirement for there to be an explicit statement as such. There are many type-antitype relationships that are not explicitly stated as such. The whole point of the OT is to teach us about the coming NT through the shadows, the types. Heb. 8 basically says that everything in the law was a shadow or type of the new covenant. I believe very strongly that it is.

2) The passage equates baptism to "a circumcision made without hands." In what way is it "made without hands?" Is it fair to say that the author is claiming here that another person is not involved in the process of baptism (That their "hands" aren't involved, if you wish to be literal.)? I think you would agree the answer is no. Paul at this particular moment appears to be focusing on God's activity in the sacrament and not on the mechanics of it.

I believe the "circumcision made without hands" is a cutting away of the lusts of the flesh, the inordinate desires for things of the world. Under the Old Testament they did this by keeping the law and looking forward to the cross and true salvation they could not obtain under the law. Under the New Testament, we do this through obedient faith in water immersion. If we are to talk about God's activity in the event, we must talk about how God is involved or there is not enough information to converse. We will end up talking past one another. I believe God's activity is done through the Word, that living, two-edged sword.

Furthermore, the circumcision made without hands can only apply to adults since infants and small children have no inordinate desires.

3) Even if this were a type/antitype relationship. It is still scripture, and Jesus used scripture to make necessary inferences and call out our hypocrisy.

Agreed.

In these passages, the law of Moses has a few explicit statements. The first is that males of the covenant, and even those bought with money who aren't ethnic Jews, should be circumcised on the 8th day. The second that no work should be done on the Sabbath. These are two explicit teachings that sometimes came into conflict. The Jews "broke" the latter in favor of the former. In one instance
Jesus called out their double-standard about this "breach" of the Sabbath, warning the people
It would've been easy for them to take Jesus's words on this occasion and force them into a very narrow mold. They could've said, for instance, that Jesus was only sanctioning the healing of a man on the Sabbath because the scripture only allows the Sabbath to be "breached" by the circumcision of a male child. However, we know that such an understanding of the passage, though in complete harmony, perhaps, with Jesus's words, was not what he meant. He invited the people to look beyond his words. By doing so, we can properly understand his healing of a Jewish woman.
Even though the teachers of the law had a good argument against this activity, Jesus went beyond the written law to the intent of the law. It it true that there is danger in pressing the principle too closely, but we must also acknowledge that we may well be guilty of such Pharisee-ism ourselves.

It's always possible. I do not think so here.

I doubt that I would've understood these truths properly if I had only this explanation to go on; I almost certainly would've sided with the Pharisees:



This would be a good place to respond to the above.

I feel that we are getting away from the original point of our discussion at this point as I do not see how these relate to infant immersion. I will try to summarize to see if I can return to you what you are telling me.

1. While infants may not need baptism due to sin, there is no prohibition against it so it is okay.
2. Since circumcision is tied to baptism and circumcision in the Old Testament was done to infants mostly, baptism can be done to infants now.
3. If we condemn infant baptism, even if it is not for the purpose of saving or washing away sin, we have become like Pharisees forbidding what has not been explicitly forbidden.

This is what I was able to get from this post. If that is not correct, please correct my understanding.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

If circumcision was imparted through Abraham to those who believe so that they may be righteous, even though uncircumcised,
why should we object to understanding baptism in the same manner?

Because the purpose is different. Abraham was righteous before and outside of circumcision (Gen 12 vs 17; Romans 2-4) and physical circumcision was a sign of the covenant promise to Abraham that through Abraham's seed Messiah would come. That was a physical descent/genetics covenant. The higher, spiritual covenant requires circumcision not when we are physical babies, but a circumcision of the heart to become spiritual newborns, babes in Christ. Only those who need to die to their old master of sin need to be reborn, those who need to cut away the inordinate desires of the flesh that produce sin, can actually undergo NT immersion. Anyone else for any other purpose is just getting wet.

This simply acknowledges the testimony of scripture that God isn't limited in his ability to save others. That God required those who were under his covenant to be circumcised (Abraham, also the incident between God, Moses, and Zipporah is instructive) in no way prevented him from saving those who were not physically circumcised. In the same way, that God requires baptism for those who believe on him in no way limits his ability to save those who are not baptized. There isn't any obvious reason why the baptism of infants is any different than circumcision administered to infants when the purpose and aim of both are fully understood.

But physical circumcision was not about salvation at all so you don't have the direct correlation here. This is the limitation of the type/antitype relationship. Not every detail matches or there would be no need for the antitype. What physical circumcision teaches is about the cutting away of the flesh and participation in a covenant that brings. Physical circumcision does not teach about salvation because no one was saved in Abraham or in Moses.

I had to separate these due to length, and I haven't proofread them. There may be a few unintentional errors/typos.

No worries, chief. I have fat thumbs. If I try to respond on my phone, the typos will abound. LOL

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

They could circumcise their hearts. They could not circumcise themselves. The males were too young and the females had no such requirement. Your remarks seem only to address half of the whole.

I don't believe an infant could circumcise their hearts. Not only was it something they did not have the mental capacity to do, they did not have anything to circumcise since infants and small children are incapable of inordinate desire.

This seems pretentious, but I believe it is intended to be self-deprecating humor or something along that line. In any event I understand your intent.

Yes. It was totally meant to be self-deprecating. Something along the lines of "oh, you silly church-of-Christers".

Given your remarks earlier in the thread, would you consider this entirely on-topic (instrumental music) if it came from someone else?

Yes. It's an analogy using a much simpler example to hopefully help explain a more complex one.

As I argued above, there are times when explicit comments from scripture conflict with one another. Jesus provides us a reasonable example for dealing with these issues while still requiring fidelity to the word of the law.

I'm still not certain how this applies to infant baptism. I'm not actually seeing a conflict in the New Law.

Paul calls circumcision the sign of the righteousness attributed to Abraham. As such the infants who received the mark were considered righteous as well, but not exclusively on the grounds of the mark itself. It could be said that the mark of circumcision was a sign of this righteousness as long as the child remained sinless with the mark of circumcision or subject to God, in spite of his sin, while still possessing it. It could also be said that this sign was imparted by virtue of birth to Jewish females.

I think that the sign of righteousness is a reverse of what baptism does. Circumcision didn't make Abraham righteous. It was a sign of God's covenant with Abraham to bring Messiah into the world through his descendants. I think this is what Paul is getting at in Romans 4. Conversely, we circumcise the heart to participate in the blessings of the New Covenant when we are baptized and in so doing we are made righteous by the blood of the Messiah. Again, I attribute this to the differences between types and antitypes.

I would argue that baptism is superior to circumcision because it has his roots in Christ's righteousness and not Abraham's. I believe that would be Paul's argument.

I agree.

I believe that it is also superior in that it can be applied to both men and women and this as a public display of one's loyalty, not a private one (No pun is intended!).

Hehe. It is most definitely superior in that it can be applied to both sexes (of which there are only two).

I don't think the public display has anything to do with it. The eunuch was not baptized publically, nor was the Philippian jailor and his prisoners. Baptism is not an outward sign like circumcision was. Baptism is the work of obedient faith that actually accesses God's grace according to His will.

The big thing I think that you are missing is that circumcision wasn't a sign either.

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" (Rom. 4:11)

It was the means by which God chose to impart righteousness until Christ. It's true no one is saved apart from Christ, but circumcision was the seal that God provided to those who would later be sealed in Christ.

I don't believe that circumcision imparted righteousness. I believe it imparted participation in the covenant, which - as you said - pointed to salvation in Christ.

Again, you have assumed type/antitype, and you have focused only on one aspect of circumcision. But you can't be faulted for that here: I hadn't responded yet. However, I cited two different scriptures, and there are others, that demonstrate that there are at least two different aspects of circumcision. One of those aspects cannot apply to an infant. You did not acknowledge this part of my argument. You seem only to have addressed the part that was convenient for your view.

I believe that there are not two parts but two kinds of circumcision under the OT. The circumcision of the flesh was done as a sign of participation in the covenant with Abraham. The circumcision of the heart was a putting away from your life those inordinate fleshly desires as best you could in order to focus on God. You couldn't get rid of them completely as there was no salvation to be found in Moses, but you could turn to God looking forward to the Messiah.

That was my point above, the particulars aren't there for you to say that infant baptism is sinful/wrong. The particulars aren't there to say that infant baptism is right/must be done.

I believe they are. I believe that if God provides a command and a reason for that command and you either refuse the command or try to obey the command for the wrong reasons (e.g. those who baptize as an outward sign they have already been saved as so many do) then you are adding to God's command. Adding to God's commands is sinful. I don't need explicit condemnation of the specific act since any adding to God's specified commands is sinful by God's explicit statement.

We would not say that a person who is not saved who goes swimming has been baptized according to the NT. We would not say that a person who is not saved who takes a bath has been baptized according to the NT. We would not say that a person who is not saved who believes they were saved by faith before and without baptism who was later baptized "as an outward sign that they have already been saved" has been baptized according to the NT. I think you and I would agree to all of these.

Why would they not have been baptized according to the NT? Because it wasn't for Biblical reasons. The last one, in an attempt to fulfill God's command for man's reasons rather than for God's reasons is even sinful because it teaches a false doctrine regarding salvation.

Why isn't infant baptism according to the NT? Because it's not for Biblical reasons. And, because it is an attempt to fulfill God's command for man's reasons rather than for God's reasons is sinful because it teaches a false doctrine regarding salvation.

However, the superiority of my argument, I believe, rests on the inference that God will accept for baptism what he allowed for circumcision. I'm not bold enough to presume that this is the correct argument, but I am bold enough to assume that it is a safer one than the position you are taking. You have to neglect this logical inference, also, in order to say that it is wrong/sinful to baptize an infant. If you say that, you have gone beyond what scripture explicitly teaches and what it apparently suggests.

I do not believe it is a necessary inference since physical circumcision is not the same thing or even the same kind of thing as NT water immersion even though they are associated in some aspects. The type does not equate to the antitype.

Furthermore, any addition to God's specified commands is explicitly sinful without having to state every possible instance of doing so. So I am not going beyond what is explicitly taught in that regard.

I feel the same way. Please, know that no snark or ugliness was intended from me or perceived from you.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

Prior to any response by Nicodemus Jesus made the categorical statement, "Except a man [tis, an indefinite pronoun which indicates a person, a human regardless of age or mental acuity] be born again he cannot see the kingdom God." John 3:3 -KJV

I believe you are reading too much into the indefinite pronoun. While I agree that it does indicate a human person regardless of age, generally speaking, the more specific context implies one who is spiritually dead. Those who are not dead do not need to be made alive again. Those who are not outside of the kingdom cannot enter it (John 3:5) because they are already there. Verse 5 gives the specificity needed to understand that this is not talking about those who never separated from God by sin in the first place. Furthermore, Isaiah 59:1-2 indicates that one is initially in a right relationship with God because you cannot separate what is not joined.

That is only your assertion which is contrary to the statements made by Jesus in John 3 and to which the rest of the Scriptures testify and affirm, for example, "Jesus is the Savior of all men [anthropos, humans], " 1 Tim 4:10, "For God so [houto, in this manner] loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son...," John 3:16. Those too are categorical statements of who is a sinner as Jesus came to save sinners.

These are general statements that do not require us to infer the specific individuals. Note that if we move from the general to the specific we end up in universalism. 1 Tim. 4:10 must be talking about all kinds of men (Jew and not-Jew) rather than every individual specific person because not every individual specific person is saved. John 3:16 is contextually relegated to all those who can believe in Jesus else God is unjust by making it a requirement for those who cannot believe to believe in order to be saved. Those categories you keep mentioning are general types, not specific to individuals.

John 3:3 is before John 3:4. John 3:5ff is a restatement of John 3:3

Yes, they flow contextually. Nicodemus was confused and thought Jesus was talking about physical rebirth. Jesus wasn't. Jesus was talking about spiritual rebirth via obedient faith in water. Only those who are spiritually dead need to be made spiritually alive again.

There is nothing regarding choice in the passage since it only indicates the fact that through the one man's sin sin entered the world, and death by sin, so death spread to all because of the fact that all sinned.

I disagree completely. It literally says that all sinned. That is choice. If you say that sin is not a choice, then we have completely different definitions of sin.

There is nothing to indicate that it is only a "spiritual" death.

This is going to require a whole other conversation if you believe that physical death is a direct consequence of sin rather than spiritual death.

It is a generalization which applies to all men, both Jew and Gentile.

I'm glad we agree that it is a generalization that applies to both kinds of humans.

Jesus is the exception because He was not born of a human father and mother.

If Jesus is an exception then He is a lie and we are all lost. Jesus is human just as we. He was tempted just as we. Everything about Him is the same as we. The only difference is, He never chose to sin. In so doing, He showed that it was possible for all humans to never choose to sin. If sin is inevitable, God is unjust for designing us in a way that we are not capable of doing what He commands us to do. If Christ "cheated" to not sin, then the whole Bible is a lie and no one can be saved.

Two things, the sin that separated us from God was Adam's sin which is how sin and death entered the world. The context of the passage in Isaiah is that of the the people of God who were sepated from God yet given laws or statutes by which they could be brought near to God. Their continued sin, that of which Isaiah speaks, separates them from the God who brings them near.

I do not agree with this at all. The sin that separates us from God is our own. Romans 5 says this "in that all sinned". Isaiah 59:2 says this "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear." Ezekiel 18:20 says this "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:20 flat out denies hereditary sin in a very clear, explicit manner. Any interpretations or inferences to the contrary are just a contradiction of the text and must be discarded in favor of a non-contradictory option.

That is strictly eisegesis as anyone who follows the pronouns knows. The words "me" and "I" do not refer to others.

Right. They refer to Paul.

 

[John Milton]

There is no requirement for there to be an explicit statement as such. There are many type-antitype relationships that are not explicitly stated as such. The whole point of the OT is to teach us about the coming NT through the shadows, the types. Heb. 8 basically says that everything in the law was a shadow or type of the new covenant. I believe very strongly that it is.

You have simplified the issue too much. I don't believe you are saying, for instance, that Moses's instructions about divorce were a shadow of things to come, for instance. Likewise, the marriage relationship does not find some greater fulfillment than what was already given to Adam and Eve. In the New Testament Jesus sometimes corrects behavior that had been allowed (divorce), sometimes reaffirms what had already been established (marriage, one man and one woman), and sometimes enlarges previous commandments to bring out their intent (lust, anger, forgiveness, etc.).

While I agree with you that there is no requirement that a type/antitype figure must be explicit, I disagree that it can be assumed in every case as you have done in this instance.

I believe the "circumcision made without hands" is a cutting away of the lusts of the flesh, the inordinate desires for things of the world. Under the Old Testament they did this by keeping the law and looking forward to the cross and true salvation they could not obtain under the law. Under the New Testament, we do this through obedient faith in water immersion.

In the Old Testament, there were several components to circumcision, and I gave most of them earlier. One entered the covenant relationship at birth and ratified the covenant in different ways. There was a physical requirement for males (with no corresponding symbol for females), a spiritual fidelity component on the part of each individual member of the covenant, and the activity of God on behalf of the covenant member. All three of these aspects were essential, yet you are still neglecting two of them.

Besides this your assertion about people in the Old Testament is anachronistic. Not everyone in the Old Testament was under the law or had the rite of circumcision. Many of those under the law had no conception or a faint conception of the "cross," and they likely believed they had "true salvation" as we do though they did not know all it entailed. This is not your main point, but I didn't think it should be ignored.

In the New Testament Paul speak of these components as well.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

There is mention here of the physical requirement, the act of baptism, and God's activity on behalf of the believer.

If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you

Here we see the spiritual fidelity component.

Peter and Paul both make it clear that God's covenant is for all Christians, just like the covenant he had the Jews had with God. It is not only a covenant between an individual and God.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Note the similarities of the underlined portion above with the passage below.

“For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Just a few verses earlier in the same passage

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

we find the context of Paul's remarks here:

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 holy.

here:

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Underlining added.

and here:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

This aspect carries over from the old covenant to the new.

If we are to talk about God's activity in the event, we must talk about how God is involved or there is not enough information to converse. We will end up talking past one another. I believe God's activity is done through the Word, that living, two-edged sword.

This would take away from the current discussion. I'll let this topic pass with only a couple remarks. God's activity isn't limited only to baptism. Scripture mentions intercession, renewal, etc. and not all of these are said to come from the Word (if by this you mean the Bible and not Jesus).

Furthermore, the circumcision made without hands can only apply to adults since infants and small children have no inordinate desires.

Yes, but the circumcision made with hands was applied before the male infants came to that point even though Abraham himself was justified before he was circumcised. You are arguing that baptism is only appropriate in one instance but not the other, without scriptural justification. But you have to take an extra step to say that baptizing an infant is wrong.

It's always possible. I do not think so here.

All you can do it be aware of the possibility and steeped in the scriptures.

I feel that we are getting away from the original point of our discussion at this point as I do not see how these relate to infant immersion. I will try to summarize to see if I can return to you what you are telling me.

The bit below was very helpful. Thanks.

 

[John Milton]

1. While infants may not need baptism due to sin, there is no prohibition against it so it is okay.

There is no prohibition against it or sanction for it. It is a gray area.

2. Since circumcision is tied to baptism and circumcision in the Old Testament was done to infants mostly, baptism can be done to infants now.

Correct, with some clarifications. Circumcision wasn't simply the removal of skin. It involved all of those aspects mentioned above as does baptism. They are both signs of a covenant and new life in relation to God. They distinguish both the group and the individuals of the group from the rest of the world. There are aspects of both that require the activities of God and the individuals involved. Many (All?) of the scruples we have about baptism are addressed by a comparison with the rite of circumcision.

3. If we condemn infant baptism, even if it is not for the purpose of saving or washing away sin, we have become like Pharisees forbidding what has not been explicitly forbidden.

I don't think that having doubts about whether infant baptism is appropriate or not necessarily makes one "become like a Pharisee." It may well be the mark of a sincere, God-seeking person. What I question is the wisdom of condemning infant baptism. I agree with you that there are aspects of infant baptism that do not fit with what the scriptures show us. However, this is easily explained when we remember that our scriptures are describing the process of one covenant replacing another. The new covenant was a relationship with God that no human being had previously possessed. Thus, baptism marked the entrance of those who received Christ into that covenant. The examples that we have in the New Testament all show adult individuals who are capable of understanding the gospel, because, for an indefinite period of time, it's the only way it could've happened. You couldn't have children born into that covenant relationship without that first occurring, and there is no mention in the New Testament one way or the other about baptizing those who were unable to understand the gospel. You can make reasonable inferences, however. Both Paul and Peter refer to the Old Testament precedent of being a holy people. If that part still held true, why wouldn't or, at least why couldn't, the rest hold true as well?

If that is not correct, please correct my understanding.

I've tried. If I've failed be patient with me.

 

[John Milton]

I only saw your first reply. I didn't see the others. Would you prefer me to reply to them before you respond again?

 

[John Milton]

Because the purpose is different. Abraham was righteous before and outside of circumcision (Gen 12 vs 17; Romans 2-4) and physical circumcision was a sign of the covenant promise to Abraham that through Abraham's seed Messiah would come. That was a physical descent/genetics covenant. The higher, spiritual covenant requires circumcision not when we are physical babies, but a circumcision of the heart to become spiritual newborns, babes in Christ. Only those who need to die to their old master of sin need to be reborn, those who need to cut away the inordinate desires of the flesh that produce sin, can actually undergo NT immersion. Anyone else for any other purpose is just getting wet.

I think I addressed this adequately enough, for now, above.

But physical circumcision was not about salvation at all so you don't have the direct correlation here. This is the limitation of the type/antitype relationship. Not every detail matches or there would be no need for the antitype. What physical circumcision teaches is about the cutting away of the flesh and participation in a covenant that brings. Physical circumcision does not teach about salvation because no one was saved in Abraham or in Moses.

Both are, as you are aware from Hebrews, covenants with Gods. They have different symbols for a similar purpose. (Well, I suppose technically you could say the same purpose, but we are a bunch of covenant breakers. We needed more grace.)

No worries, chief. I have fat thumbs. If I try to respond on my phone, the typos will abound. LOL

I appreciate it. I am most worried about the formatting of my quotations. If something is wonky, please point it out so I can fix it.