The Error of Infant Baptism

...

Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:55:38 +0100

uh-oh...

thanks brother Brian. - Rey

...

Tue, 19 Jul 2005 17:52:46 +0100

uh-oh...

thanks brother Brian. - Rey

...

Tue, 19 Jul 2005 16:14:23 +0100

Jollyblogger is talking about infant baptism :

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2005/07/another_post_on.html - brian

...

Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:45:21 +0100

The James bit kinda annoys me. It should\'ve been Jacob. - Rey

...

Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:30:23 +0100

If you could correct that Yesuah to Yeshua, I would be grateful! Doh! - Shane

...

Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:25:44 +0100

[quote] Huge when we get to Romans 14, written not only to Gentile Romans but to Those Who Are in Rome[/quote]

I agree that it was written to more than the Gentiles, but the decisions written as a starting point were I feel were clearly for the Gentile. Moreover, it was noted that they would learn Torah on Sabbath! If it Torah (Law of Moses) was not \"binding\" on Gentiles why learn it? Why go on Sabbath?

[quote]Act 15:19 �Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the gentiles who are turning to Elohim, but that we write to them to abstain from the defilements of idols, and from whoring, and from what is strangled, and from blood. �For from ancient generations Mosheh has, in every city, those proclaiming him � being read in the congregations every Sabbath.�
[/quote]

The problem overall is one of dispensation. Yeshua gave full meaning to the statues. The problem with the teaching that these expansions were replacements is that it simply can\'t be consistent. Replacement theology teaches that the heartfelt application (spiritual circumcision) takes the place of the physical (physical circumcision). Even reading what I just wrote, one may be thinking, \"exactly\"! But that just begins an inconsistancy which I will attempt to point out.

The heart application of not hating in your heart will cause you to WANT to do the physical application of not murdering. To WANT to obey His will which IS His Torah. (quoted from constantly by Yeshua, Sha\'ul, Kefa, Yochannon, Ya\'akov (better rendered Jacob, not James), etc.)

Now let\'s look at the opposite: The heart application of loving the Lord your God or remembering The Sabbath, you will not have to (or want to) do the physical of keeping the Sabbath? Or if I am not angry in my heart when I physically murder, then the physical is made void?

It\'s obvious that does not make sense. But rather, by loving Him in the heart you will WANT to love Him in the physical by remembering His set-apart day and in the physical by not murdering.

It could be said that by keeping His Torah out of love I could be \"a man after God\'s own heart\" as David was who meditated on His Torah and LOVED His statutes.

[quote]1Jo 5:3 For this is the love for Elohim, that we guard His commands, and His commands are not heavy [/quote]

It works with any commandment. It draws the focus on the heart by which you do(or do not do) the physical. The physical application of the Law without the heart will only serve as a schoolmaster to show you that you need a heart change... a circumcision of the heart.

The Torah is written in our hearts. Torah keeping without love leads only to disobedience.

Shalom! - Shane

...

Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:42:01 +0100

Great post Rey!! I think an often overlooked aspect of the correlation between circumcision and baptism is that the covenents that were sealed with circumcision were never salvation based. Thus it is not an argument to say \'All the Jews (males at least) were circumcised but they weren\'t all believers in God.\' The statement is true but misses the point of the circumcision. It is the sealing of a covenant between God and the Jewish people to fulfill certain promises through them - which He has done, continues to, and will do. But to state that the symbolism of baptism (becoming part of the New Covenent which is a covenant of salvation) is the same or similar to circumcision (a seal on covenents made to the physical descendents of Abraham) is to misunderstand the initial covenents. - Philthreten

...

Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:55:45 +0100

Loving the conversation guys. Just wanted to drop in this bit:
[quote]I\'m not sure I am getting what you are saying about Timothy and Acts 15 together, but sometimes I am slow. :)[/quote]

Luke seems to organize all his material in sets to prove his points. Acts 15:1 is definitely about people going around saying that someone has to be circumcised to be saved.

Acts 16:3 all of a sudden has Paul circumcising a Jew/Gentile mix. Why did Paul do it? �Because the Jews that were in those parts�. A matter of conscience�not his own, but of those that he planned to preach the gospel to with young Timothy. Because they all knew that Tim�s father was Greek. Huge when we get to Romans 14, written not only to Gentile Romans but to Those Who Are in Rome: I would take that to include Jew and Gentile. The Entire book of Romans touches on the theme of Jew and Gentile and in 14 we get the notion of how they are to live with each other without describing who is strong or who is weak. - Rey

...

Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:36:54 +0100

You jammed a lot of questions in there brother!

I think circumcision is a commandment just like, thou shalt not murder or love thy neighbor. I know there are requirements for conversion and it was physical. I do believe in a circumcised heart. I think for converts, the best place to start is Acts 15. Taking on all of the Torah for salvation is a the \"yoke of burden\" that should not be placed on them. Torah was never for salvation. The truly contrite heart will seek out His Law of liberty. Circumcision is something I am still exploring. Erik is well versed on that topic.

As for, \"The Law of the Jews\", I am not sure what that is? All of the commandments (declogue included) were given to the Jews and sprinkled with blood. Yet even before that, Joseph knew adultery was sin, Avraham stopped worshipping idols, Noach knew clean and unclean, Cain and Abel sacrificed. Terms like ceremonial, are made in translations and catechisms. Scripture \"mingles\" commandments, but, I do concede such referneces as catoegorizing simply for discussion.

My point being, it is His Law. David meditated on His statues, not the Jewish statues. His statues are perfect and as you must be sick of hearing me say, \"Sabbath was made for man\".

What I feel is a more literal translation is:
[quote]while Sha’ul said in his own defence, “Neither against the Torah of the Yuhedim nor against the Set-apart Place, nor against Caesar did I commit any sin.”
[/quote]

I believe Sha\'ul kept all of His Sabbaths (Passover, weekly, etc.) as did Yeshua, even in His death and resurrection. (Died before Sabbath, rested, raised after Sabbath) The Feasts have meaning and application after the cross. Many are told that they pointed to the cross only and simply accept it without ever experiencing one. (I\'ve done that also in the past)

It\'s hard to answer if he kept them out of \"requirement\". I believe they are commandments and I believe Sha\'ul loved Adonai. I believe he kept them for the same reasons Avraham, Moshe, etc. did. Faith and because they knew Elohim. 1 John 5 is a great explanation.

We have a choice whom we will follow. I do not believe we can claim to know Adonai then murder, etc. By that example, I believe His Sabbaths that He commanded forever, are testament of our Master. This is why I personally do not observe Easter, generally celebrated by eating unclean meat. I do as Yeshua commanded, \"Do this in rememberance of me\", Pesach (Passover).

I\'m not sure how to answer the question about why we don\'t keep it. I don\'t keep it because I am still a sinner. But refering to my intent, I feel that I and many others do want to keep Torah while still believing in Yeshua\'s sacrifice and Adonai\'s grace. Macion is the one that started the concept that they were at odds. But, to answer directly, if you\'ll forgive, Rome is the reason why many do not keep Torah. My question is, why would one not want to keep His Law?

Other than bias translations, I am not sure where in Scripture the reference of Law changed from Torah to Ten Commandments. Much of the NT is merely quoting OT and Torah. I am going to plug my site again, but examples of anti-Semitic translating are explored in a post I wrote called The DaVinity Code.

I keeping waiting for the post where I have offended, I hope this is not that one.

I hope that I hit your questions.

Shalom - Shane

...

Sun, 17 Jul 2005 23:39:06 +0100

[quote] Circumcision is required for Passover/Communion. At the minimum, of the heart. Late in Acts (25 I think?), he says that he kept the Torah all of his life.. even after the cross. [/quote]

Shane,

Are you saying that physical circumcision, while not absolutely reqired, would be better in some respect? If so, how?

And the verse in Acts 25, is it verse 8? - \"Paul argued in his defense, \'Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.\'\"

Did he keep the cermonial part of the Law as well? If so, was it out of requirement or for some other reason?

Because if he didn\'t keep it, then he has something else in mind oter than perfect law keeping when he says he didn\'t commit any offense aginst the Law of the Jews.

If he did keep it out of requirement, then why aren\'t we keeping it as well?

If he kept it out of preference, then you can\'t really point to any examples of Paul\'s law-keeping as binding on us.

Clear as mud? :) - brian

...

Sun, 17 Jul 2005 19:03:20 +0100

I see we completely agree about the apostles and Scripture and their role. We seem to completely agree also on what we don\'t need!

I probably didn\'t make myself clear about the circumcision. Sha\'ul never gives a ruling on getting circumcised or not getting circumcised. He could not, because binding and loosing is not the power to abrogate commandments. He debunks the premise that it is salvational. Circumcision is required for Passover/Communion. At the minimum, of the heart. Late in Acts (25 I think?), he says that he kept the Torah all of his life.. even after the cross.

I\'m not sure I am getting what you are saying about Timothy and Acts 15 together, but sometimes I am slow. :)

Yes, we indeed are heretics of equality. Equal oppurtunity offender? - shane

...

Sun, 17 Jul 2005 18:18:20 +0100

Thanks for the link and the article brothers. I just read it and he pretty much went down that route of making a believer and his house entering into a covenant community sort of deal. It\'s fascinating because I have an inkling how their theology may be affecting their exegesis but I can\'t quite put my finger on it. Thanks for the article. I\'m amazed that he actually went credo to paedo!

Brother Shane, I agree that Paul never said to get circumcised. Heck, Luke purposefully puts the situation in Acts 15 in near locale to Timothy\'s circumcision for a specific purpose. I think it is interesting to look at that and also to look at Romans 14 to see some interesting correlations.

I\'ll further your Torah as Scripture by saying we also have Paul and Peter and John--we do not need catechisms or creeds made up by churches or councils.

Now our heresy is in comfy proximity. B) - Rey

...

Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:17:09 +0100

I found it [url=http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/ShepardThomasChildrenAdministrationCovenant.htm]here[/url]. I haven\'t read it yet, though. - Doug

...

Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:16:39 +0100

Well done my friend. Another problem with claiming baptism for circumcision is that Sha\'ul never once says to not get circumcised. Every place it is addresed, he is addressing those that say it is salvational, not the commandment itself. In fact, he strongly rebukes them saying he wishes they would go all the way and cut themselves off. He in fact performs a circumcision. (Interesting that there is circucision before The Law as sign unto His people, our ancestors by grating. Rom. 11)

Infant baptism is simply false and based on blaphemous \"binding and loosing\" of Law versus man-made traditions as are all \"sacraments\". We have Scripture/Torah, we do not need cathecisms made up by the churches.

I think I just out \"heretic\'ed\" you!

:laugh: - Shane

...

Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:45:32 +0100

How does a person get into practicing infant baptism? Well, I was born Lutheran, that\'s how I got it. I think that is usually the case. However, I know Presbyterians who honestly believe in covenant baptism based on exegesis. I believe their exegesis is faulty, but nevertheless, they come by it honestly. Then there\'s [url=http://www.apuritansmind.com/MainPage.htm]Dr. C. Matthew McMahon of A Puritan\'s Mind[/url], who has converted from credobaptism to paedobaptism, and has an excellent website of puritan writings. Somewhere on his site you can find his reasoning. I can\'t find it right now, but it\'s there. - david

...

Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:57:28 +0100

I would like some Presbyterian to actual interact with some of these things instead of just stating that it is a logical deduction from the Confession and a Covenant theology. Maybe we can fetch one somewhere.
[quote]Keep the heresy coming, Rey! Next thing you know you\'ll be saying there\'s nothing special about the Sabbath...[/quote]
uh...oh... :laugh: - Rey

...

Fri, 15 Jul 2005 15:47:00 +0100

Good post Rey. Especially since I agree with it :) .

The whole baptism/circumcision thing never made any sense to me either. I mean, there is just nothing in scripture which says that one is a replcement for the other. It all has to be inferred.

Another thing which I just don\'t quite get are the \"blessings\" of being part of the \"covenant family\" and being brought into that family by baptism. I mean, is an infant in a Presbyterian household somehow more blessed than one in a Nazarene household? And if so, how?

Keep the heresy coming, Rey! Next thing you know you\'ll be saying there\'s nothing special about the Sabbath... :laugh: - brian

...

Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:17:40 +0100

heh heh. Step right in...the heresy feels just fine :)

I personally wonder how someone does get into doing it. Is it because they did it in their church and were used to it and then justify the position later or do they actually become convicted of it by reading the catechism and by studying Covenant theology: which sounds like a stretch. I saw some quotes from a bunch of authors who still practiced it but didn\'t think it was Biblical...I should find those things... - Rey

...

Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:37:09 +0100

Oh great. Now I have something in common with the biggest heretic in the blogosphere...

Great post, Rey! The section of that catechism doesn\'t have anything that has \"convicted\" me that infant baptism is right. I just don\'t see enough of a connection between it and circumcision. - Doug