Calling All Scholars And Militants!

[phatcatholic]

i need help with a short exchange between me and "MicahBurke" over at RTWFC Ministries. it may be hard to follow. basicaly, it starts w/ his claim, then i come back w/ a big reply, which is interjected w/ his comments as he replies to each paragraph of my reply. here's a [url="http://reachingforchrist.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=825"][b]link[/b][/url] if this doesn't make sense.

[b]MicahBurke:[/b]
Circumcision:[list]
[*]Gen 17:11-13
"And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

Exodus 12:48
"But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it."
[/list]So circumcision is required of 1) all males, 2) eight days old, 3) all servants (employess) 4) all people who visit your home or travel with you, 5) believers and unbelievers.

On what basis do you see a 'nice parallel'?

Baptism on the other hand is performed on both women and men (Acts 16:15) and on those who claim the name of Christ (Matthew 3:6, Mark 16:16) who confess.

Seems to me that for baptism to be a 'nice parallel' for it would have to be applied to believers and unbelivers on the basis of a national covenant. If you're going to import -some- of the functions of circumcision (infants), on what basis do you ignore the rest? To be consistent, you'd better not baptize women and should baptize servants, employees and folks who travel with you. Right?

Also, circumcision didn't save.[list]
[*]Rom 4:10
How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;

Rom 9:6-7
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED"
[/list]For you to claim parallel with baptism, you'd have to show that circumcision saved. Remember, both Ishmael and Esau (and many others) were circumcised and yet of Esau God declares "Esau I hated."


[b]phatcatholic:[/b] i don't believe "st.claire"--or any catholic really--is claiming that baptism parallels circumcision in every regard. most OT-NT parallels are not similar in every single regard. it is often the case that a NT fulfillment of an OT prophecy or event often retains some aspects of its predecessor while abolishing other things. for instance, Jesus is often called the "New Adam" but Jesus of course did not sin. parallels are meant to emphasize that two things are similar in particular ways--not in every way.


[b]MicahBurke:[/b] On what basis can this be made, simply on the basis of one's opinion? On what basis can one import parts of an OT rite into the New, especially given the fact that an implicit command to do so does not exist? Importing the application to infants of this covenant sign almost solely on the basis that the previous covenant sign did so and yet purposely ignoring the rest of the requirements regarding that old sign is disingenuous. Either consistently import the regulations regarding covenant signs, show why those regulations do not apply, or cease using the concept to support the doctrine.

Some things might be better defined: How do you define the Old Covenant, and do you see circumcision as a seal of that Old Covenant? Was the Old Covenant made with Abraham or with Moses or both?


[b]phatcatholic:[/b] catholics believe that Jesus initiates his new covenant w/ man through baptism. in the OT, he initiated it through circumcision. in the OT, adults were circumcized upon a profession of faith in God and children were circumcized in anticipation of being brought up into this faith as they were raised. likewise, in the Christian world, adults are baptized upon their profession of faith in God/Jesus Christ and children are baptized in anticipation of being brought up into this faith as they are raised.


[b]MicahBurke:[/b] This would be great, if Scripture supported it. Firstly, adults in the OT were circumcised regardless of their profession of faith. If one belonged to the house of Abraham (and his descendants) they were required to be circumcised regardless of faith. In the New Testatment we see a totally different kind of covenant, with a totally different kind of sign. Rather than applying to all of a specific blood-line, the New Covenant sign is applied to believers exclusively, not one infant baptism is documented in the New Testament and yet the fact that those who are baptized were specifically believers is time and again.


[b]phatcatholic:[/b] the parallel usually stops there............and that is ok. plus, Paul himself makes the parallel between baptism and circumcision:

--Col 2:11-12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead

also, it is worth mentioning that often times in the bible, God sanctified one person b/c of the faith and subsequent action of another person:


[b]MicahBurke:[/b] Notice Paul's emphasis on the circumcision made without hands, this is not the OT rite. Paul explains what this is in Romans 2[list]
[*]Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
[/list]It is this circumcision which Paul ties to baptism, "nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh". It is evident from this therefore that Paul has neither physical circumcision nor physical baptism in mind. That which does the regenerating is the "circumcision is that which is of the heart by the Spirit". In regards to water baptism, then, we see that the account in book of Acts is explained:[list]
[*]Act 10:47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
[/list]It is not the baptism in water which truly applies the benefits of the New Covenant, but the baptism which is from above in the Spirit of Christ. In explaining this event, Peter says:[list]
[*]Act 11:15
"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'"
[/list]Here is the explination of what occured in 10:47, these people were baptized with the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized in water. The water then was not regenerative, but secondary to the work which God had already done in the believers.



i'm not really sure what to say next. any help would be appreciated. thanks!

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[qfnol31]

[quote]Gen 17:11-13
"And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."

Exodus 12:48
"But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it."
So circumcision is required of 1) all males, 2) eight days old, 3) all servants (employess) 4) all people who visit your home or travel with you, 5) believers and unbelievers.[/quote]

First off, for something to parallel something else, it does not have to ebe the same. It has to be similar, but not exaclty the same. Take parallel lines, they aren't the same line, but just go in the same direction. All things parallel cannot be the exact same, because then there is a contradiction. Circumcision was first of all a sign of the covenant between God and his people. Baptism too is a partaking in the sign of the covenant that all people can now share with God (though it means so much more).

[quote]Baptism on the other hand is performed on both women and men (Acts 16:15) and on those who claim the name of Christ (Matthew 3:6, Mark 16:16) who confess.

Seems to me that for baptism to be a 'nice parallel' for it would have to be applied to believers and unbelivers on the basis of a national covenant. If you're going to import -some- of the functions of circumcision (infants), on what basis do you ignore the rest? To be consistent, you'd better not baptize women and should baptize servants, employees and folks who travel with you. Right? [/quote]

Baptism is supposed to happen on an infant, but it is possible (and good) to Baptize adults coming into the Church. This too parallels the infant circumcision and those coming into the Passover (men of course) being circumcized. Woman did not need to be circumcized because that was not required. However, today all people must be Baptized, because that is required. It is a standard, and is parallel (not the same). Both are fulfilling the covenants set forth by them.

The first covenant has been fulfilled, therefore a new one was put in place by the one who fulfilled it, namely the Christ. In this covenant, all people are to be Baptized. This has to do with original sin, which was not an issue to the people before. They had no way for their sins to be forgiven because the Sacrifice had not been made at that point. Now it has been made, and for all to be saved they must be washed of original sin.

[quote]Also, circumcision didn't save.
Rom 4:10
How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;

Rom 9:6-7
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED"
For you to claim parallel with baptism, you'd have to show that circumcision saved. Remember, both Ishmael and Esau (and many others) were circumcised and yet of Esau God declares "Esau I hated."[/quote]

Right, the act of circumcision didn't save, but why would you have to say that Baptism doesn't for them to be parallel? They're both necessary to partake in the covenants that the people are in. Jesus says, "...no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water...," that is, Baptism. Both were necessary for their time. That's one way they're parallel.


Okay, that's my first attempt, I'm still working.

[jmjtina]

let me read up on this. I'll get back with you.

And just for my mind's sake, do you know how old he is and his back ground of religion?

It looks so far, that he's going by, "Does Scripture support it?" Does it support the Holy Trinity and other basics other denominations believe?

[Guest JeffCR07]

phat, as many people have already said, I would point out the progression of covenant signs between God and the world.

Your opponent is correct to point out that circumcision was limited to the Jewish people, and that is about where his being correct ends.

His assertion that you must prove that circumcision "saves" is flawed because we do not even assert that Baptism definitively saves. A baptised man can still go to hell, just as a circumcised Jew could still fall from Gods grace (witness the example provided by your opponent). This distinction, in fact, helps your argument. Circumcision was a the sign of being a member of God's chosen people, and was limited to the Jews. The New Testament fullfillment of this, Baptism, is a sign of being an adopted son or daughter of God. It is the sign of familial covenant with God. But it is also more, for our Baptism is not merely an acknowledgement of becoming a member of God's family, it is also the receiving of the Grace that is so vital in helping us to remain in that covenant. Moreover, your opponent makes the claim that "only the saved are baptised, while all of the Jews were circumcised." This is an illegitimate argument because all are called to Baptism and to become brothers and sisters in Christ, just as all Jews were called to be circumcised. Thus Baptism is the sign of a universal covenant between God and all of mankind, for just as circumcision was a sign of ones membership in God's chosen people, and it is a much greater sign, for unlike circumcision, the Sacrament of Baptism bestows much Grace as well.

now, on to something else:

[quote]Here is the explination of what occured in 10:47, these people were baptized with the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized in water. The water then was not regenerative, but secondary to the work which God had already done in the believers[/quote]

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." [Acts 2:38]

I would like to note that, as your opponent states, in 10:47 the Spirit "preceeds" the water, while in 2:38 Peter's response implies that the baptism "preceeds" the Spirit. However, we must humble ourselves and accept that there is no contradiction in the scriptures. The reconciliation of these two verses lies in the catholic tradition and teaching of the Sacrament of Baptism. All Sacraments have both Form and Matter (many have 2 types of matter) that make up the sacrament. Thus, to be sacramentally baptised is to receive both the Spirit (when you are baptised "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit") and the water, which is the proximate matter.

With an understanding of the Church's teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism, one understands that it doesn't matter "which comes first" for they come hand in hand.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2004, 07:25 AM'] His assertion that you must prove that circumcision "saves" is flawed because we do not even assert that Baptism definitively saves. [/quote]
good point w/ this distinction. sometimes i over-analyze things and i forget the basics

also, does anyone have examples of more biblical parallels where the NT version doesn't match the OT version in every way. these should actually be less like parallels and more like fulfillments. i think if i can provide examples of this, then that will bolster the claim that a parallel need not be similar in every regard.

thanks,
phatcatholic

[p0lar_bear]

I know Paul or Peter compares the Flood with Baptism...now I just have to find it again....

Edit: It's in I Peter 3

Edited July 13, 2004 by p0lar_bear

[p0lar_bear]

Isaac prefigures Jesus in Genesis 22. As Abraham offers Isaac, who was his firstborn son according to the covenant God made with him, so our heavenly Father offers His only Son, Jesus, on the same mountain many years later, for indeed God said he would provide a lamb on that mountain (Gen. 22:18). In addition, the redemptive, suffering-servant lamb spoken of in Isaiah 52-53 is fulfilled by Jesus. For example, in Luke 22:37, Jesus makes reference to Isaiah 53:12.

Also, in offering a sacrifice of bread and wine (Gen. 14:18-20), the high priest Melchizedek prefigures Jesus, who offers Himself under the appearance of bread and wine at the Last Supper. Indeed, because of His Sacrifice on Calvary, which is mysteriously pre-presented in sacramental form at the Last Supper, Jesus is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:5-1)

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2004, 01:04 PM'] Isaac prefigures Jesus in Genesis 22. As Abraham offers Isaac, who was his firstborn son according to the covenant God made with him, so our heavenly Father offers His only Son, Jesus, on the same mountain many years later, for indeed God said he would provide a lamb on that mountain (Gen. 22:18). In addition, the redemptive, suffering-servant lamb spoken of in Isaiah 52-53 is fulfilled by Jesus. For example, in Luke 22:37, Jesus makes reference to Isaiah 53:12.

Also, in offering a sacrifice of bread and wine (Gen. 14:18-20), the high priest Melchizedek prefigures Jesus, who offers Himself under the appearance of bread and wine at the Last Supper. Indeed, because of His Sacrifice on Calvary, which is mysteriously pre-presented in sacramental form at the Last Supper, Jesus is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:5-1) [/quote]
now, how do they differ? these are excellent parallels that he would probably agree with. if i can show that differences exist in them (for instance, Jesus is not like Abraham b/c ____) then that would bolster the claim that parallels can be accepted w/o being alike in every regard.

thanks,
phatcatholic

[p0lar_bear]

Jesus is not like Isaac because He really was sacrificed. Isaac was not Abraham's only son (remember Ishmael). Jesus is the Lamb, while in the case of Isaac, an animal was provided. Jesus' sacrifice did what Abraham's could not. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac was proof of his love and trust in God; Jesus' sacrifice was 'proof' of God's love for man. No one would have been saved by Abraham's sacrifice; we [i]are[/i] saved by Jesus'.

That's all I could come up with off the top of my head...

[phatcatholic]

that's good stuff, thanks

[qfnol31]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2004, 01:04 PM'] Also, in offering a sacrifice of bread and wine (Gen. 14:18-20), the high priest Melchizedek prefigures Jesus, who offers Himself under the appearance of bread and wine at the Last Supper. Indeed, because of His Sacrifice on Calvary, which is mysteriously pre-presented in sacramental form at the Last Supper, Jesus is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:5-1) [/quote]
In the Bible, it also never speaks of a beginning or end for Melchizedek, which can be seen as a symbol of Jesus not having a beginning or end.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2004, 01:04 PM'] Also, in offering a sacrifice of bread and wine (Gen. 14:18-20), the high priest Melchizedek prefigures Jesus, who offers Himself under the appearance of bread and wine at the Last Supper. Indeed, because of His Sacrifice on Calvary, which is mysteriously pre-presented in sacramental form at the Last Supper, Jesus is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:5-1) [/quote]
Melkizedek didn't tell everyone that they were eating his body and blood.

There was no sacrifice in Melkizedek's case.

[Cure of Ars]

For arguments sake, if the Bible does not implicitly teach infant baptism (I believe that it does) it also does not implicitly teach age of reason which would be essential in determining when one really should be baptized. It is not really brought up in Scripture because it was not an issue that needed to be addressed. They were already baptizing as babies or baptizing at the age of reason. All we needed to do is look at what the apostolic tradition was to find the truth.


[url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm[/url]


I think this quote is also insightful because it shows that the early church did disagree on what day to baptize because of baptisms prefigurment of circumcision. Some wanted to wait tell the eighth day just like it was commanded for circumcision.


[quote]"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons.."
Cyprian,To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2,6(A.D. 251),in ANF,5:353-354[/quote]

[phatcatholic]

here is my response:[list]
[*]please, correct me if i misunderstand your words, but you seem to assume that i attribute a cause-and-effect relationship between circumcision and baptism. but this relationship does not exist. baptism stands on its own merits. as such, it is not necessary that baptism mirror circumcision in every regard.

furthermore, it is not merely my opinion that parallels don't mirror each other in every regard. look at parallelism in literature. if your contention were the case, when we would only have parallelism when the author repeats the same line over again. but, this isn't parallelism, it is repetition. parallelism exists when two lines have the same construction, when two lines have the same subject-verb-object agreement--not when they are the same in every regard. here are two examples of parallelism in the bible:

[b]Judges 5:27 [/b] (KJV) At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he bowed, there he fell down dead.

([b]note:[/b] Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary cites Judges 5:27 in its definition of parallelism)

[b]Rom 10:10 [/b](RSV) For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved.

likewise, parallels in the bible between two events/people/ideas are similar in limited ways.

[b]Isaac and Jesus[/b]
--these two men parallel each other, Isaac being the prefigurement of Jesus. Abraham, the father, offers his first born son Isaac as a sacrifice. God the father likewise offers his first born son Jesus as a sacrifice--and i believe on the same mountain (although i could be wrong about this).
--however, they are unlike each other in that Jesus is actually sacrificed, whereas Isaac is not. Isaac, while being the firstborn, is not the only son of Abraham, whereas Jesus is the first and only. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac was proof of his love and trust in God; Jesus' sacrifice was 'proof' of God's love for man. No one would have been saved by Abraham's sacrifice; we are saved by Jesus'.
--do these differences therefore eliminate a valid parallel between Isaac and Jesus? of course not! why? Jesus and Isaac are parallels because they are [i]similar[/i], not b/c they are identical.

[b]Melchizedek and Jesus[/b]
--both are priests of the most high God (see Gen 14 and Heb 7)
--both are kings of Jersualm. Melchizedek is the "King of Salem" (Gen 14:18), Salem being traditionally identified w/ Jersualem (see Psalm 76:3). Jesus is the king of Jerusalem (Mat 5:35, 1 Tim 6:15)
--both offer bread and wine with a blessing (Gen 14:18-20 and Luke 22:17-20)
--however, Jesus' offer of bread and wine is sacrificial whereas Melchizedek's is not. likewise, Melchizedek never claimed the bread and wine were his body and blood, whereas Jesus did.
--do these differences elminiate a valid parallel between Melchizedek and Jesus? of course not! why? Melchizedek and Jesus are parallels b/c they are similar, not b/c they are identical. plus, this parallel is affirmed in Heb 7.

the same principles apply to baptism and circumcision. there is no cause-and-effect relationship between the two. we do not baptize infants because infants were circumcized. the reasoning for infant baptism stands on its own merit and separate from the practices of circumcision. the similarities between the two are only brought up b/c it only seems logical that if infants were approved by God for circumcision--the sign of the Old Covenant--then why would infants not be approved by God for baptism. granted, this may not be a rock-solid argument (for God's logic is not always ours), but the similarities are still intriguing and they point to baptism as the fulfillment of circumcision.

likewise, as i showed w/ my two previous examples, parallels in the bible need not mirror each other in every regard. Issac is not identical to Jesus. Melchizedek is not identical to Jesus. circumcision is not identical to baptism. yet, they are all valid parallels.
[/list]

Edited July 14, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Guest JeffCR07]

Also, Christ Himself talks about the "sign of Jonah" when he compares the 3 days of Jonah to the 3 days before the resurrection. Jonah wasn't Christ, but the parallel is there....


This kind of seems like a stupid argument. Parallell lines are not the same line, because then they would be coincident.