From circumcision to baptism?

Baptism took the place of parents dedicating their children to the Lord via circumcision. That's why so many Christian denominations practice it.

 

In Australia There is a Church, under the Church of God denomination that do not allow uncircumsized males to take communion.

Female Circumsion is a Barbaric Practice that should be outlawed everywhere.

 

Gina said:

Did baptism take the place of circumcision as a sign of belief?

No. Remember, the first major doctrinal controversy in the Church was over the so-called "Judaizers" claiming it was necessary to be circumcised to be saved. Both the Apostles living in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and Paul (Galatians) said this was not the case.

If baptism merely replaced circumcision, then Paul made an unnecessarily complex theological argument in Galatians for sola fide touching on the authenticity of his own apostleship, the experience of the Gentile believers, the sufficiency of Christ, the faith of Abraham, and a bit of typology involving Hagar and Mt. Sinai. All he really needed to say was "Baptism replaces circumcision," and that would have settled the matter.

 

Well, its right...

[ June 08, 2003, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

Spiritual circumsision took the place of physical. That is why Paul spent so much time talking about it. Baptism is merely a symbol, a step of obedience to be sure, but not a necessary component of salvation. Circumcision was necessary to become a jew, if you converted, it was the act that made the conversion official. However...

It is interesting that we see in Romans a clear statement by Paul that physical circumcision had little value.

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God." Rom 2:28-29

Paul is addressing Jews specifically here, but also making an important distinction regarding physical outward manifestations of faith, and true possessing of faith.

If you read Galatians, Colossians, and Ephesians there is clearly no value to the Jewish rite from a spiritual perspective, and Paul obviously views baptism as an important step, he does not tie the two together, neither does he give circucision or Baptism any ability to impart spiritual life either before or after the fullfilment of the law by Jesus Christ.

I agree that they are both symbols, but I would not say that there is any direct correlation, the paradigm shift between the OT and NT make most of the analogies between Israel and the Church sketchy at best, and unbiblical at worst

[edited for some very poor spelling on my part]

 

Circumcision was done in the first place for hygiene, so IMHO, it has nothing to do with Baptism.

 

I'll agree with you on hygiene being important, but I thought the heart of the matter was that circumcision was a way for Abraham & his sons to physically separate themselves from other people, as a concrete, physical sign of something spiritual.

Throughout the OT, the Jews are commanded to separate themselves, to be a peculiar people.

Curious to see what anyone has to say about this.