No, because a walk with God is all about the inside. Welcoming infants and moving them toward confirmation is a discipline that works very well. Read Romans 2:25-29 and substitute the word "baptism" every time the word "circumcision" is used. Then read Romans 10:5-13. We major on minors and the world suffers.
We do not have the authority to substitute baptism for circumcision and there is no evidence that Paul had in mind Christian baptism in these verses.
You might think it's a discipline that works very well, but it is contrary to scripture. Baptism in the New Testament is always associated with faith and repentence. Even the mode of baptism is described as a burial which is at odds with infant baptism.
I suspect that you know this, but for whatever reason you choose to deny it.
There is in fact scriptural "warrant" for Larry's proposed reading:
God's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:10-14) demanded that every male child was to be circumcised when eight days old. By circumcision, the baby entered into a covenant relationship with the true God.
Paul then says in the New Testament that baptism has replaced circumcision. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism . . ." (Col. 2:11-12).
This question has been batted around for hundreds of years but in my opinion one cannot say that baptism has replaced circumcision. To read various opinions, just google the words.
In Acts 15, a group of men came down from Judea and said something like, "If you aren't circumcised, you won't go to heaven") (What about the women?) They made quite a stir, so much so that a special meeting was called in Jerusalem to resolve the question.
Now if baptism had replaced circumcision, the answer would be clear. Just say, "These folks have been baptised." End of story.
That is not what they did. They decided that thwy did not need to be circumcised but baptism is not mentioned at all.
The circumcision of Christ, Col. 2;11, refers to the death of Christ. It's a metaphor. That raises the question of how we participate in the death of Christ, which is answered in verse 12.
What is the point of this? So what? What rock do you people crawl out from under anyway? You're so far out of it you don't even know what 'it' is. It's quite sad, actually. Get a life, and an educated opinion.
"Anonymous said... Rev. Al Sharpton Rev. Jesse Jackson Rev. Gerald Britt Rev. Larry James
What do they have in common? All lefties, and all Rev's. I wonder what else they have in common?"
8 comments:
"Rev", doesn't baptizing those babies make you a little uncomfortable?
No, because a walk with God is all about the inside. Welcoming infants and moving them toward confirmation is a discipline that works very well. Read Romans 2:25-29 and substitute the word "baptism" every time the word "circumcision" is used. Then read Romans 10:5-13. We major on minors and the world suffers.
Rev. Al Sharpton
Rev. Jesse Jackson
Rev. Gerald Britt
Rev. Larry James
What do they have in common? All lefties, and all Rev's. I wonder what else they have in common?
We do not have the authority to substitute baptism for circumcision and there is no evidence that Paul had in mind Christian baptism in these verses.
You might think it's a discipline that works very well, but it is contrary to scripture. Baptism in the New Testament is always associated with faith and repentence. Even the mode of baptism is described as a burial which is at odds with infant baptism.
I suspect that you know this, but for whatever reason you choose to deny it.
There is in fact scriptural "warrant" for Larry's proposed reading:
God's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:10-14) demanded that every male child was to be circumcised when eight days old. By circumcision, the baby entered into a covenant relationship with the true God.
Paul then says in the New Testament that baptism has replaced circumcision. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism . . ." (Col. 2:11-12).
"If all afflictions in the world were on one side of the scale and poverty on the other, poverty would outweigh them all." - Mishpatim 31:14
This question has been batted around for hundreds of years but in my opinion one cannot say that baptism has replaced circumcision. To read various opinions, just google the words.
In Acts 15, a group of men came down from Judea and said something like, "If you aren't circumcised, you won't go to heaven") (What about the women?) They made quite a stir, so much so that a special meeting was called in Jerusalem to resolve the question.
Now if baptism had replaced circumcision, the answer would be clear. Just say, "These folks have been baptised." End of story.
That is not what they did. They decided that thwy did not need to be circumcised but baptism is not mentioned at all.
The circumcision of Christ, Col. 2;11, refers to the death of Christ. It's a metaphor. That raises the question of how we participate in the death of Christ, which is answered in verse 12.
What is the point of this? So what? What rock do you people crawl out from under anyway? You're so far out of it you don't even know what 'it' is. It's quite sad, actually. Get a life, and an educated opinion.
"Anonymous said...
Rev. Al Sharpton
Rev. Jesse Jackson
Rev. Gerald Britt
Rev. Larry James
What do they have in common? All lefties, and all Rev's. I wonder what else they have in common?"
Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:13:00 PM CDT
Post a Comment