Remission Of Sins Through Baptism

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I highly agree in your assessment that baptism is a symbolic token of a covenant made w/ God ... yet, teacher, I still await answers to my questions ...

a. Does baptism cause our New Birth? Or is it an effect of our New Birth?
b. Does a properly administered baptism apply the blood of Jesus effectuating the washing away of our sins?[/B]

---------------------------------------------------------

Daniel,
My reply indicated that water baptism correlates to circumcision in the old testament. Romans 4 states Abraham was justified by faith prior to circumcision, so the correlation would be that justification comes prior to baptism in the new testament. Justification is by faith, faith in the work of Jesus Christ on my behalf. Baptism is the symbol of the believer entering into that covenant relationship.

Thus, I do not think that baptism causes our New Birth, nonetheless it is required.

However, my question to you still stands. What would be the covenantal position of Abraham had he refused the symbol of circumcision? Would he remain in covenant with God?

I believe all saints in the OT were saved by grace through faith in the looking forward to the eventual sacrifice of a Perfect Lamb that would forgive his sins once and for all.

Abraham's righteous was imputed upon him by virtue the same blood shed by Christ that washes away my sins and yours.

I fully agree with the above.

As for his circumcision ... for a period of 12 years he does not perform this ritual while being in covenant. It's not until Genesis 17 that he is circumcised.

Which begs to be asked was he saved during this period ... Had he died would he have entered the kingdom of God ... would he have seen God w/ a foreskin? And maybe more importantly would this salvation be based on the premise that he would have eventually have been circumcised .... or his faith in the testator?

Agreed that Abraham was justified by faith prior to circumcision.

Had he refused it ... would he have had genuine faith or trust in the God of the covenant? I believe someone who refuses such a token falls under unbelief ... and we know he who does not believe is condemned.

Do you correlate this same belief to water baptism?

You surely agree that circumcision was not the covenant but rather a token of it ... which may or may not answer your second question.

Yes, agreed.

This spiritual circumcision is the invisible work that baptism symbolizes.
Again, baptism points back to the work of Christ since it is the circumcision of Christ (not baptism) that achieves this for a believer. (In the same way, Rom. 6 refers to describing the occurrence of the Gospel.)
In the New Testament, we find that baptism is the sign or seal of the New Covenant, and functions like a substitute for circumcision of the Old Covenant. For the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:21) it was mandatory.

And I believe baptism is mandatory in the new covenant as well.

Under the Mosaic Covenant (Ex. 12:48), it was to show submission to the Law of Moses. Christ commissioned His disciples to go, teach, make disciples, and baptize. Just as circumcision was required of proselytes converting to Judaism, in a like manner, baptism was required as a visible mark of entrance into the New Covenant.

These two rites have similar meanings. Circumcision was characterized by a cutting away of sin and a change of heart. Baptism is a picture of the washing away of sin.

"Baptism did away with the need for circumcision because it signified the union of the believer with Christ, thereby cutting off the old nature. A lesser circumcision has been replaced by a greater circumcision. The spiritual circumcision promised under the Old Testament Covenant has become a reality under the New Covenant through baptism". (George BeasIey-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament).

[B]Again, baptism is only a visible symbol of what occurred by the previous reality, which is the real substance. It points back to Christ.

I agree, but at the same time I must ask your thoughts on the covenantal status of the believer if they refuse the symbol of baptism. By reading your previous thoughts, it would appear that you agree they fall into unbelief, which means they are not accepted. If so, then you agree with my point that baptism is more than symbolic, but that it does indeed carry certain covenantal sanctions, being made a real symbol through the work of Christ.

God bless.

[staysharp]

However, my question to you still stands. What would be the covenantal position of Abraham had he refused the symbol of circumcision? Would he remain in covenant with God?

I'm not DA, but I do have an interesting answer, Moses' wife had a real problem with circumcision, she called it too bloody. Her father was a Midianite Priest and obviously a worshiper of idols. So, to appease his wife, Moses refused to circumcise the people. An entire generation in the wilderness never received circumcision. We see in Joshua where he reinstituted the practice.

Exodus4
25Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

26So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.


Joshua 5
2At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.

3And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.

4And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.

5Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.


So, the truth is, we have a merciful God who overlooks a lot of our foolishness.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by staysharp

I'm not DA, but I do have an interesting answer, Moses' wife had a real problem with circumcision, she called it too bloody. Her father was a Midianite Priest and obviously a worshiper of idols. So, to appease his wife, Moses refused to circumcise the people. An entire generation in the wilderness never received circumcision. We see in Joshua where he reinstituted the practice.

Exodus4
25Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

26So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.


Joshua 5
2At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.

3And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.

4And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.

5Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.


So, the truth is, we have a merciful God who overlooks a lot of our foolishness.

Actually the people that came out of Egypt WERE circumcised. It was the next generation born DURING their trip in the wilderness that was not circumcised yet

God's original covenant was with the people that left Egypt, but they disobeyed God.

Jos 5:6 For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished, because they did not obey the voice of the LORD; the LORD swore to them that he would not let them see the land that the LORD had sworn to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
Jos 5:7 So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised. For they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way.
Jos 5:8 When the circumcising of the whole nation was finished, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed.
Jos 5:9 And the LORD said to Joshua, "Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you." And so the name of that place is called Gilgal to this day.
Jos 5:10 While the people of Israel were encamped at Gilgal, they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening on the plains of Jericho.

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by staysharp

I'm not DA, but I do have an interesting answer, Moses' wife had a real problem with circumcision, she called it too bloody. Her father was a Midianite Priest and obviously a worshiper of idols. So, to appease his wife, Moses refused to circumcise the people. An entire generation in the wilderness never received circumcision. We see in Joshua where he reinstituted the practice.

Exodus4
25Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

26So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.


Joshua 5
2At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.

3And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.

4And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.

5Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.


So, the truth is, we have a merciful God who overlooks a lot of our foolishness.

Yes it is an interesting answer, however, you seem to overlook the obvious. Those who did not circumcise their children in the wilderness were already under judgement from God. They would not and did not inherit the promise land.

According to the scripture you quote above those that were to possess the promise land and inherit the promise made to Abraham had to first be circumcised.

The verses following those you quote, tell us it was not until after the circumcision at Gilgal that the reproach of Egypt was rolled away.

Josh 5:6-9

6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey.

7 And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.

8 And it came to pass, when they had done circumcising all the people, that they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole.

9 And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.
KJV


God did not show his mercy by "overlooking" their foolishness, but rather by pointing it out and allowing them to correct it.

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by embonpoint

Yes it is an interesting answer, however, you seem to overlook the obvious. Those who did not circumcise their children in the wilderness were already under judgement from God. They would not and did not inherit the promise land.

According to the scripture you quote above those that were to possess the promise land and inherit the promise made to Abraham had to first be circumcised.

The verses following those you quote, tell us it was not until after the circumcision at Gilgal that the reproach of Egypt was rolled away.

Josh 5:6-9

6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey.

7 And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.

8 And it came to pass, when they had done circumcising all the people, that they abode in their places in the camp, till they were whole.

9 And the LORD said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you. Wherefore the name of the place is called Gilgal unto this day.
KJV


God did not show his mercy by "overlooking" their foolishness, but rather by pointing it out and allowing them to correct it.

This is His mercy. A generation died, but not because of circumcision. They died because they failed to mix faith with the word. They whined, complained, murmured, gripped, rebelled, doubted, and committed adultery against their God. But in all that, God was merciful.

His reason for not allowing them to enter Canaan was not because of circumcision, but because of they failed to Honor him in the Desert of Zin.

Numbers 27
12 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go up this mountain in the Abarim range and see the land I have given the Israelites. 13 After you have seen it, you too will be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was, 14 for when the community rebelled at the waters in the Desert of Zin, both of you disobeyed my command to honor me as holy before their eyes." (These were the waters of Meribah Kadesh, in the Desert of Zin.)

My point was this. Moses was responsible to continue circumcision, right? He was the leader and disobeyed God numerous times.
He didn't go to the promise land because of circumcision, but because he
failed to honor God and smote the rock twice.

However, he did not loose his eternal salvation, the angel of God even contended for his body. The people who died in the wilderness did not loose their eternal salvation either, they just never enjoyed what God had prepared for them in this life. They lost their destiny.

The people had a leader who did not require circumcision, yet he allowed his own anger to throw down the tablets that God had given him for the people.
In all that, God was merciful.

The original question was as to what happens if we reject baptism. The original poster was using baptism and circumcision in type. Abraham wasn't saved because of circumcision, he was saved by faith.

I believe in baptism, and I certainly believe it should be obeyed and have been in ministry 25 years and can tell you I have never run across a hungry, repentant person who refused baptism.

BTW, God is merciful! His mercy is everlasting and new every morning!

[staysharp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Actually the people that came out of Egypt WERE circumcised. It was the next generation born DURING their trip in the wilderness that was not circumcised yet

God's original covenant was with the people that left Egypt, but they disobeyed God.

Jos 5:6 For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished, because they did not obey the voice of the LORD; the LORD swore to them that he would not let them see the land that the LORD had sworn to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
Jos 5:7 So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised. For they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way.
Jos 5:8 When the circumcising of the whole nation was finished, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed.
Jos 5:9 And the LORD said to Joshua, "Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you." And so the name of that place is called Gilgal to this day.
Jos 5:10 While the people of Israel were encamped at Gilgal, they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening on the plains of Jericho.

I don't think we can blame the people, it was Moses' responsibility to follow covenant? You think? Would they have been in rebellion if they had circumcised on their own? Kinda catch 22? lol - Reminds me of some churches I evangelized in....lol

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by staysharp

I don't think we can blame the people, it was Moses' responsibility to follow covenant? You think? Would they have been in rebellion if they had circumcised on their own? Kinda catch 22? lol - Reminds me of some churches I evangelized in....lol

But Moses DID have that generation circumcised. It was the generation born in the wilderness that had not been circumcised yet and they had to.

BTW I am not sure though who is supposed to circumcise who...is it a priest?

[Praxeas]

Circumcision
Can't keep the Sabbath Supper unless circumcised
Exo 12:43 And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the statute of the Passover: no foreigner shall eat of it,
Exo 12:44 but every slave that is bought for money may eat of it after you have circumcised him.
Exo 12:45 No foreigner or hired servant may eat of it.
Exo 12:46 It shall be eaten in one house; you shall not take any of the flesh outside the house, and you shall not break any of its bones.
Exo 12:47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.
Exo 12:48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
Exo 12:49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you."
Exo 12:50 All the people of Israel did just as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron.
Exo 12:51 And on that very day the LORD brought the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts.

Can't enter the Sanctuary
Eze 44:6 And say to the rebellious house, to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: O house of Israel, enough of all your abominations,
Eze 44:7 in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple, when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant, in addition to all your abominations.
Eze 44:8 And you have not kept charge of my holy things, but you have set others to keep my charge for you in my sanctuary.
Eze 44:9 "Thus says the Lord GOD: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary.
Eze 44:10 But the Levites who went far from me, going astray from me after their idols when Israel went astray, shall bear their punishment.
Eze 44:11 They shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having oversight at the gates of the temple and ministering in the temple. They shall slaughter the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before the people, to minister to them.

Rolled Away the Reproach of Egypt (sin?)
Jos 5:2 At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and circumcise the sons of Israel a second time."
Jos 5:3 So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth.
Jos 5:4 And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way after they had come out of Egypt.
Jos 5:5 Though all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people who were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised.
Jos 5:6 For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished, because they did not obey the voice of the LORD; the LORD swore to them that he would not let them see the land that the LORD had sworn to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
Jos 5:7 So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised. For they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way.
Jos 5:8 When the circumcising of the whole nation was finished, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed.
Jos 5:9 And the LORD said to Joshua, "Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you." And so the name of that place is called Gilgal to this day.

Circumcision in the OT was symbolic of circumcision of the heart, of those that obeyed Jehovah

Deu 30:5 And the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers.
Deu 30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
Deu 30:7 And the LORD your God will put all these curses on your foes and enemies who persecuted you.
Deu 30:8 And you shall again obey the voice of the LORD and keep all his commandments that I command you today.

Real Circumcision
Real circumcision is not the flesh
Php 3:2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.
Php 3:3 For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh--
Php 3:4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more:

Abrahamic covenant; Any that was not circumcised was cut off from the covenant
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."

The important thing is to be circumcised in heart. Jesus said make the inside of the cup clean first so the outside will be clean also.

NT circumcision, the sign of the covenant, seems to be water baptism in Jesus name. This is an outward washing that represents an inward washing that God has done.

Col 2:9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
Col 2:10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
Col 2:11 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,
Col 2:12 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.
Col 2:13 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,
Col 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Here is my thing...no where EVER in the bible is the necessity of baptism questioned. Nobody ever balked at the idea of being baptized. Nobody ever reasoned or questioned Paul or Peter as to whether or not they needed to heed this command. Nobody ever questioned as to whether or not something spiritual happened or not. Nobody ever put it off for a couple weeks or months. Nobody ever gave it as optional. That just never happened in the bible.

To me questions of what exactly takes place, if anything, spiritually are irrelevant. In fact questions as to whether or not one HAS to be baptized...as if a new believer can make a decision whether or not to heed this NT command, are indications that perhaps they have not really entered into covenant with Jesus.

I am not an absolutist in this though. If asked "what about someone that has faith and repents but dies before being baptized" my answer is they were saved by God. God is the savior....not our faith...nor our work of repentance nor our work of baptism. But no man can be saved or was ever really saved that refuses the covenant sign of water baptism nor will they remain saved that refuses to obey this biblical command. IF circumcision of the flesh was only a sign and does nothing significant YET due to disobedience one could not partake of the Covenant then even a sign or a symbol is necessary to have if not essential or substantial in action.

[staysharp]

I am not an absolutist in this though. If asked "what about someone that has faith and repents but dies before being baptized" my answer is they were saved by God. God is the savior....not our faith...nor our work of repentance nor our work of baptism. But no man can be saved or was ever really saved that refuses the covenant sign of water baptism nor will they remain saved that refuses to obey this biblical command. IF circumcision of the flesh was only a sign and does nothing significant YET due to disobedience one could not partake of the Covenant then even a sign or a symbol is necessary to have if not essential or substantial in action.

I agree baptism is necessary. As I stated, I've never seen someone who was truly a repentant believer, full of the HG, refuse baptism.

My problem lies with those who "sit in the seat of Moses" and judge others who may not agree or see it the same way. I pray we are all wrong and it doesn't take all of that. I pray everybody is saved, I'd rather be wrong, but it certainly is good to cover all bases just in case.

As Richard Heard used to say in his crusades, "it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it" lol

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by staysharp

I agree baptism is necessary. As I stated, I've never seen someone who was truly a repentant believer, full of the HG, refuse baptism.

My problem lies with those who "sit in the seat of Moses" and judge others who may not agree or see it the same way. I pray we are all wrong and it doesn't take all of that. I pray everybody is saved, I'd rather be wrong, but it certainly is good to cover all bases just in case.

As Richard Heard used to say in his crusades, "it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it" lol

Hmmm...Richard Heard....I've heard of Heard. Is he still around? I thought he got raptured back in 1988...