Quote:
Originally Posted by GrowingPains
Yes, I do agree. My faith is in Christ and His promises.
He's promised certain things through repentance and water baptism, all covenants made available through the atonement. It wasn't enough for him to die, but I must effectuates and provides a sign of our covenant with Him.
Baptism is said to represent the death of the person ( Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ ( Gal. 3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins ( Acts 22:16), the identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were baptized into Moses ( 1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church ( 1 Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus.
Since the covenant with Abraham used circumcision as its sign ( Gen 17), did God care about who was circumcised? Can you think of any OT stories where the enemy was referred to as "the uncircumcised?" Do you think it's pretty imporant, this sign he's given us? Circumcision was important enough that Moses' wife circumcised her son, and threw the foreskin at Moses' feet! ( Exodus 4). Would the "new circumcision" also be equally important ( Col 2)?
Please explain the multitude of scriptures that combine references of sin and baptism. I'm more in the mood to discuss now. And I will ask questions from the other side too  Happy Friday. |
I'm trying to figure out your position here, GP
First you state that God has promised certain thing to us through repentance and water baptism.
Then carefully choose your words to say the baptism is merely a sign and representation which fits what most of Orthodox Protestanism believes and not the traditional view of many Apostolics who say that if the baptism isn't performed correctly there is no application of the blood for the remission of sin or removal of the "old man".
As for the verses you provided to what baptism represents I did not see one that links it to a circumcision. Although there a couple you can try to attest to.
I don't think all of your verses substantiate your claims fully, however.
Can we agree that many of the verses in the NT do not necessarily point to water baptism as essential TO BE, OR GET, SAVED INTITIALLY - OR WHAT WE TERM AS THE NEW BIRTH? And can we agree that not all instances point to water baptism but Spirit baptism, of which Jesus, John the Baptism, and even Peter recognized as a work Christ came to bear?
Some other questions:
Most accept
Romans 6 to point to water baptism but the entire passage seems to say it
represents his death, burial and resurrection? Do you disagree?
We agree that it
represents a union of Christ with the believer that would come through the Spirit.
Acts 22:19, to many is not interpreted to mean that baptism represents the washing of sins. Many believe this command to be baptism was coupled with Ananias telling Paul to himself call on the name of the Lord, which scripturally means to have faith/believe in the testator of a covenant for the washing of sins.
I will also grant you that the Red Sea is a typology of baptism and possibly speaks of both water and Spirit baptism as we see in
1 Cor. 10. Still a
representation is to be stressed here.
Lastly, I have to disagree that the passage in
1 Cor. 12 has anything to do with water baptism and falls under what many would consider prooftexting. The entire chapter is speaking of the work and gifts of the Spirit.
And so if we can accept that baptism like circumcision is a sign,seal,representation and does not have to be properly done for there to be a New Birth, or the application of the blood for the washing of sins, or a command that causes initial salvation - we might agree. Although this would not be your traditional Apostolic view.
Also if you would speak more as to the following:
1. You are aware that Abraham was justified, credited as to being right with God for 17 years between the establishment of the covenant and his circumcision?
2. Do you think that this physical representation, water baptism, is a picture of what an inward work of the Spirit has done in our regeneration and circumcision of the heart.
This is what Paul seems to say about inward circumcision and it's value:
Romans 2:
Quote:
Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
|
Your thoughts on
Romans 2?
How does this all fit your conclusion that " I must effectuate and provide a sign of covenant with Him"?
Hybrid Mode
