Jeff Overduin
Puritan Board Freshman
Note: I realize this question has been addressed before, but my question is a little more specific and I would like some fresh insights.
Hi all,
I'm a member of a paedo-baptist church and working through the concept of infant baptism in my mind right now. I have listened to Edward Donnelly's series on baptism and I found it very helpful. I definitely believe that the covenant made with Abraham continues today, and children are thus still included in the covenant, of which circumcision was a sign.
However, I have 3 questions still about baptism--they are ranked in order of importance.
Question 1.
Does baptism replace circumcision as the sign of the covenant? In his series, Donnelly mentions that it has, but does not elaborate on it. The Heidelberg Catechism in Q & A 74 gives Colossians 2:11-13 as proof of this. The Scripture (NKJV) reads:
"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."
I'm having a hard time understanding this passage, much less seeing how the catechism gets the idea that baptism replaces circumcision. If there is even a replacement in the text, isn't it more that the circumcision of the heart (made without hands, by putting off...sins) replaces physical circumcision? Are there other Scriptures to show that baptism replaces circumcision?
In my mind, the replacement of the Passover with the Lord's Supper is much more clear, because the Lord instituted it on the same night.
Question 2:
In Romans 4, Paul deals with justification by faith in the OT and explains that justification happened before circumcision. I would imagine this is in response to the Jews who said that believers had to be circumcised (as in Acts 15). I know Paul is talking more about justification by faith rather than the function of circumcision/baptism in Romans 4, but if baptism replaced circumcision and the apostles taught that, why did the Jews have such a hard time with it? I guess I just think that if baptism replaced circumcision, wouldn't Paul have at least mentioned it in Romans 4, in case Christians were tempted to treat baptism like the Jews treated circumcision (i.e. as a work) ?
Question 3:
I've always had a question about the actual meaning of baptism. I've heard that it literally means immersion. My dictionary says the Greek word for baptize means "dip." Did they dip or immerse infants in the early church? Why do most paedobaptist churches (all the ones that I know of) practice sprinkling then?
Hi all,
I'm a member of a paedo-baptist church and working through the concept of infant baptism in my mind right now. I have listened to Edward Donnelly's series on baptism and I found it very helpful. I definitely believe that the covenant made with Abraham continues today, and children are thus still included in the covenant, of which circumcision was a sign.
However, I have 3 questions still about baptism--they are ranked in order of importance.
Question 1.
Does baptism replace circumcision as the sign of the covenant? In his series, Donnelly mentions that it has, but does not elaborate on it. The Heidelberg Catechism in Q & A 74 gives Colossians 2:11-13 as proof of this. The Scripture (NKJV) reads:
"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."
I'm having a hard time understanding this passage, much less seeing how the catechism gets the idea that baptism replaces circumcision. If there is even a replacement in the text, isn't it more that the circumcision of the heart (made without hands, by putting off...sins) replaces physical circumcision? Are there other Scriptures to show that baptism replaces circumcision?
In my mind, the replacement of the Passover with the Lord's Supper is much more clear, because the Lord instituted it on the same night.
Question 2:
In Romans 4, Paul deals with justification by faith in the OT and explains that justification happened before circumcision. I would imagine this is in response to the Jews who said that believers had to be circumcised (as in Acts 15). I know Paul is talking more about justification by faith rather than the function of circumcision/baptism in Romans 4, but if baptism replaced circumcision and the apostles taught that, why did the Jews have such a hard time with it? I guess I just think that if baptism replaced circumcision, wouldn't Paul have at least mentioned it in Romans 4, in case Christians were tempted to treat baptism like the Jews treated circumcision (i.e. as a work) ?
Question 3:
I've always had a question about the actual meaning of baptism. I've heard that it literally means immersion. My dictionary says the Greek word for baptize means "dip." Did they dip or immerse infants in the early church? Why do most paedobaptist churches (all the ones that I know of) practice sprinkling then?