Circumcision was given only to sons because it pointed to the SON. Baptism is for sons and daughters, because Christ’s work is for all whom God gives to him.
Women could not be physically circumcised, but they were still considered part of the circumcised community. They were still considered "circumcised" and set apart by God. That's one of the beauties of baptism and why it is richer, because women are now able to receive the sign equally with men
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. What is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, The term "New Covenant" is not found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, or in the 1689 LBCF. We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion in Hebrews 12:22-24.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
What about the thief on the cross who didn't have time to get Baptised on thr cross but God still allowed him in heaven? Cant God save a child in the mother's womb before the child is born? Can he allow the child to be baptised as a child and later on the child receives the gospel should they then be baptised again?
@@Olwethu._.Mkhwanazi When people argue salvation without baptism by using the example of the thief on the cross, they are making an assumption that he was never baptized. They are assuming that since he was a condemned thief and that he was being executed that he had never received any prior instruction on Jesus Christ and had never been baptized. The truth is, we don't know for sure whether or not he was baptized because the Bible doesn't say one way or another.
@@Olwethu._.Mkhwanazi Baptism in the name of the Lord was not required for salvation before the death of Jesus. Baptism in the name of the Lord is a part of the New Testament, not the Old Testament. The New Testament, the will of the Lord, did not become effective until after the death of Jesus. The scriptures teach, "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Hebrews 9:16,17).
@@kac0404 the thief was not converted until his last seconds on the cross prior to that he was a stone cold unrepentant thug, and even before that baptism wasnt a religious thing to do because jews had to circumcise not be baptised baptism if i may argue wasnt that well known when jesus was hanging on the cross, even then people in the old testiment did not get Baptised are you telling me they are all going to hell?
The problem with infant baptism is that a large number of Believers children are not believers and become big sinners when they become adults. Infant baptism implies that the children of Believers are automatically saved. I think it's evident that that's not the case by observation. So some raunchy unbelieving sinner can say "hey my parents were Christians, they baptized me, I'm saved!!! Best of both worlds!!!" Or it's unfair to them because they falsely are led to believe that they're saved and they look at their lives and know that that's not true so it alienates them from the faith altogether
@jamesers99 do Presbyterians teach that Believers children should be baptized regardless of whether or not they demonstrate regeneration? And do they believe that their parents salvation brings salvation to their children?
@@Rbl7132 Presbyterians believe in infant baptism but not that the baptism is salvific. Children are included in the covenant. That doesn't mean they are or will be guaranteed salvation - same as ancient Israel.
@@jamesers99 what does baptism accomplish for these infants? And what in the biblical definition of baptism is true in their baptism, considering it is unknown if they are among the elect or if they are Wicked
Babies are not subject to God's command for baptism because no command was given to them, they could not understand the need nor meaning, they could not comply (perform the necessary actions nor hold the proper attitudes) and they have no sin to be washed away. One cannot obey God by proxy; no parent can obey God for a child; no child can make peace with God for a parent (Ezekiel 18:4,20).
Great to See Dr Gerstner. Stanley and Mariann Big Island Hawaii
If circumcision and baptism are the same, how would female babies fit into this construct?
They get baptized
ThaIt means it’s universal unlike circumcision
They fit in the same fashion that women are included in the NT salvation construct.
Circumcision was given only to sons because it pointed to the SON. Baptism is for sons and daughters, because Christ’s work is for all whom God gives to him.
Women could not be physically circumcised, but they were still considered part of the circumcised community. They were still considered "circumcised" and set apart by God. That's one of the beauties of baptism and why it is richer, because women are now able to receive the sign equally with men
Do you understand what mikvah is?
Yes, and ?? I don't see anything in scripture equivocating
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. What is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
The term "New Covenant" is not found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, or in the 1689 LBCF. We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion in Hebrews 12:22-24.
Baptism for the remission of sins is certainly necessary to salvation (Acts 2:38), and every case of conversion in Acts specifically records that they were baptized. Baptism is the event in which a penitent believer completes the obedience necessary to be saved (see Heb. 5:9). The Scriptures clearly show that baptism stands squarely between the sinner and the forgiveness of sins. But the practice of infant baptism is not authorized in the New Testament. Its origin is with men, not God. And there is no evidence in the New Testament to show that the apostles ever baptized anyone who was too young to hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of his sins.
What about the thief on the cross who didn't have time to get Baptised on thr cross but God still allowed him in heaven? Cant God save a child in the mother's womb before the child is born? Can he allow the child to be baptised as a child and later on the child receives the gospel should they then be baptised again?
@@Olwethu._.Mkhwanazi When people argue salvation without baptism by using the example of the thief on the cross, they are making an assumption that he was never baptized. They are assuming that since he was a condemned thief and that he was being executed that he had never received any prior instruction on Jesus Christ and had never been baptized. The truth is, we don't know for sure whether or not he was baptized because the Bible doesn't say one way or another.
@@Olwethu._.Mkhwanazi Baptism in the name of the Lord was not required for salvation before the death of Jesus. Baptism in the name of the Lord is a part of the New Testament, not the Old Testament. The New Testament, the will of the Lord, did not become effective until after the death of Jesus. The scriptures teach, "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Hebrews 9:16,17).
@@kac0404 the thief was not converted until his last seconds on the cross prior to that he was a stone cold unrepentant thug, and even before that baptism wasnt a religious thing to do because jews had to circumcise not be baptised baptism if i may argue wasnt that well known when jesus was hanging on the cross, even then people in the old testiment did not get Baptised are you telling me they are all going to hell?
@@Olwethu._.Mkhwanazi It's obvious that you didn't read a thing I posted. Don't respond to unless you read and understand what I'm saying.
The problem with infant baptism is that a large number of Believers children are not believers and become big sinners when they become adults. Infant baptism implies that the children of Believers are automatically saved. I think it's evident that that's not the case by observation. So some raunchy unbelieving sinner can say "hey my parents were Christians, they baptized me, I'm saved!!! Best of both worlds!!!" Or it's unfair to them because they falsely are led to believe that they're saved and they look at their lives and know that that's not true so it alienates them from the faith altogether
Presbyterians do not teach that.
@jamesers99 do Presbyterians teach that Believers children should be baptized regardless of whether or not they demonstrate regeneration? And do they believe that their parents salvation brings salvation to their children?
@@Rbl7132 Presbyterians believe in infant baptism but not that the baptism is salvific. Children are included in the covenant. That doesn't mean they are or will be guaranteed salvation - same as ancient Israel.
@@jamesers99 what does baptism accomplish for these infants? And what in the biblical definition of baptism is true in their baptism, considering it is unknown if they are among the elect or if they are Wicked
@rl6985 many adult recipients go on to become gross sinners as well
Babies are not subject to God's command for baptism because no command was given to them, they could not understand the need nor meaning, they could not comply (perform the necessary actions nor hold the proper attitudes) and they have no sin to be washed away. One cannot obey God by proxy; no parent can obey God for a child; no child can make peace with God for a parent (Ezekiel 18:4,20).
RUBBISH!
How so? Do you have an argument against this?
How so? Do you have an argument against this?