If Circumcision is of no use, why baptise babies.

[Pilgrim's Progeny]

I have been asked,

"Paedos baptise babies in part because baptism has replaced circumcision. Yet, circumcision is to no avail. So, if circumcision of infants boys is to no avail, what are the benefits of baptism which has replaced circumcision? If infant circumcision means nothing , but faith working through love per Galatians 5:6, how can infant baptism stand?"

This is a question that I cannot answer adequately. Please help.

 

[Pilgrim's Progeny]

What exactly does he mean by "to no avail"?

6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love
Gal 5:6 (KJV)

That is my question as well, to add to OP.

 

[Pilgrim's Progeny]

So, what set's baptism apart from circumcision in it's application to infants as a covenant sign? Is the faith that works through love, in the istance of infant baptism, the loving faith of the parents? Looking for answers.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

You could ask the question: "What does baptism avail?" for all the same reasons Paul asks "What does circumcision avail?" If someone misuses a thing, the abuse does not invalidate a proper use.

Are there people today who "trust their baptism" will get them to heaven? People who were dunked as grownups, I'm talking about, not just babies. Sure there are.

So let me "rephrase" Gal.5:6 for a different context:
For in Jesus Christ neither [baptism] availeth any thing, nor [unbaptism]; but faith which worketh by love.

Gal.5:6 isn't addressing circumcision in any constructive way at all. Its simply stating something about what it doesn't accomplish: justification.

Faith, that is exhibited in love--that justifies.

 

[Poimen]

See Romans 3:1-3 to understand how circumcision 'avails'.

 

[Thomas2007]

I have been asked,

"Paedos baptise babies in part because baptism has replaced circumcision. Yet, circumcision is to no avail. So, if circumcision of infants boys is to no avail, what are the benefits of baptism which has replaced circumcision? If infant circumcision means nothing , but faith working through love per Galatians 5:6, how can infant baptism stand?"

This is a question that I cannot answer adequately. Please help.

Based upon this question - why baptize anybody? Circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant, just as baptism - neither are soteriological in their scope. That is to say neither circumcision nor baptism justify a person.

So, this person is presupposing that baptism is linked to justification, but then he notices that justification is through faith - not ritual, so his question is internally inconsistent.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What exactly does he mean by "to no avail"?

6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love
Gal 5:6 (KJV)

That is my question as well, to add to OP.

See Romans 3:1-3 to understand how circumcision 'avails'.

I'm actually surprised to see Baptists resort to this kind of hand-waving with respect to circumcision. They "prooftext" Paul in Galatians as intimating that circumcision means nothing only to forget the same Apostle wrote Romans 3:1-3. Either the Scriptures contradict themselves or there is something more going on.

The key to unlocking huge swaths of Galatians as Paul uses the terms "circumcision" and the "law" is to understand that he is condemning a Judaizing corruption of the meaning of the law and of the sign of circumcision. Paul has to demonstrate that the Judaizers have not properly apprehended either what Abraham was about or what the Law was added for.

In that context, then, when the reader is brought through a presentation in which Paul decimates the false Gospel he completely rejects any notion that a Gentile believer needs circumcision in order to be complete in Christ. That is to say, this is all about Gentiles wanting to be like Jews and Jews convincing Gentile Christians that they aren't full Christians until they become circumcised and keep the demands of the Law. This circumcision avails nothing. This circumcision is a denial of the Gospel.

It is to the detriment of many Baptists that they do not study this more closely and gloss over Paul's argument to get their "circumcision avails nothing" gems. Paul is condemning a heresy and not what God gave to Abraham. Something that was a seal of righteousness by faith (Romans 4:11) hardly availed nothing for Abraham!

The really sad thing for me is not that some want to argue for their positions but the means that they argue and those that they throw under the bus in the process really bothers me.

 

[Pilgrim's Progeny]

I think the root problem is that each defines baptism differently.

-----Added 1/12/2009 at 04:52:45 EST-----

Baptism just as circumcision availeth nothing, yet both in each economy show forth faith in the promise of God by the parents who submit their infants to the covenant sign.