Baptism and Circumcision

In the Presbyterian Church we practice the baptism of infants. It was a bit of a change to me given my Baptist/Methodist background. Once I thought about it a bit and saw how it went down though I was largely okay with it. It’s basically almost identical to a baby dedication similar to what’s practiced in both of those other denominations (at least the ones I attended) there’s just the added bit of the baby’s head getting wet.

I’ll admit I wasn’t too sure about getting it done to my kids since I was raised with the notion of a “believer’s baptism” firmly entrenched in my mind. After I thought about it though and had it explained to me by some of the elders in my church I decided to go ahead with it and each of my children was baptized as an infant.

Essentially Presbyterians look at it as akin to circumcision. It’s a symbol of you being in the covenant family. Though it’s not a visible mark, it serves the same purpose. There’s no salvation implied for the baby as their might be with someone who engages in a “believer’s baptism” situation. Basically the parents and the church agree to work together to raise the child in a way that pleases God, teaching them about our religion our beliefs.

So I was reading the Bible this morning and came across Romans 2:25-26. “25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?” I think this applies to baptism as well. To me the parallels seem obvious.

Whether you’re baptized as an infant, as an adult believer, or not at all what’s more important is that you have the Gospel. If you don’t have that, no amount of water is going to make you one of God’s children. That’s not to say that baptism isn’t important. It has its place as circumcision did, but the water isn’t the active agent in any of this. I’m not sure that anyone’s arguing that in the case of the believers who are baptized as adults. I just want it to be clear to those that are anti-”paedo baptsim” that we don’t believe it is in the case of children either.

  • jrmurdock
    I guess I'm a little confused here. Please explain this to me if you can.

    Baptism: Sprinkling water on an infants head or immersion.

    Circumcision: Strapping a baby down, putting a device on his most sensitive area of his body, putting the child into shock (this has been proven) then taking a knife to the most sensitive part of his sensitive parts and cutting it away without the use of any anesthesia all in an effort to sexually mutilate the child by cutting away a piece of skin that God put there in the first place? Isn't that just saying God made man wrong? Or is it saying that infants need to suffer mutilation in order to correct God's little mistake?

    This act has always horrified me as something society has seen as useful but only serves to torture infants. If you've never seen an infant go through this procedure, watch it once and you'll change your mind that this is something godly.

    Just my opinion. :)
  • spiritualtramp
    Hi JR. Yeah the practices are certainly more than a little different. When practiced religiously though there are similarities.

    As far as your specific questions go, the removal of the foreskin isn't an admission that God made the penis wrong. If they were removing it in order to make it work better you'd have a point.

    As I understand it, it's all got to do with the power of blood, which is something that resonated through most ancient religions I'm aware of. It was almost definitely a practice before God ordained it for the Jews.

    So is the act godly? Absent from any religious belief, no. Nothing inherent in the act itself is godly. Specifically in the Jewish religion, it's a symbol of the Covenant between God and Abraham. It also wasn't limited to children if I read correctly. Since God apparently called for it in the case of the people he chose, it is by definition godly under those circumstances.

    Personally I don't think anyone outside of the Jewish religion is required by God to circumcise anyone. Apparently Orthodox Jews still practice it for religious reasons. Culturally it's practiced for a number of aesthetic reasons and believe it or not (and this might be TMI) my wife and I talked long and hard about this very topic when our son was born. We opted to go with the procedure. I assume since I have no memory of when it was done to me that he has no memory of it being done to hom and so I don't think there's any lasting trauma as their might be with actual torture.

    There was a point in all of this somewhere. I seem to have lost it.
  • jrmurdock
    There are many things that were done as 'part of the church' that have become main stream. Personally it still doesn't make them right.

    And yes, the only reason to circumcise a child would be so when he's taking a shower at school he won't get laughed at. Kids did that when I was in school to those who were left uncut. They got the procedure done as teens. From what I hear, it's a life changer in more ways than one.
  • spiritualtramp
    Oh to be sure. It being part of church tradition (something it should never have been if I read Paul correctly) doesn't make it right. Of course the flip side of that is, just because there's pain and blood involved (both temporary and without serious repercussions that I'm aware of) doesn't make it wrong.

    There are plenty of people who would disagree with your "only" reason at least in as much as it being the only reason. There are plenty of reasons whether you or I think they're valid or not being a different kettle of fish.

    Personally I can't imagine getting it done as a teen.
  • Jon
    Maybe I'm just being too "presbyterian" here, but there's a pretty significant difference between infant baptism and a mere "baby dedication". Aside from the fact that baby dedications are really odd in Baptistic circles, we are accepting individuals into the visible body of Christ through baptism, whether infant or adult. While there is some overlap in the community obligation to seek to train the one being baptized in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and while (as you state) we are not implying the "final salvation" of the infant, we do believe that:

    Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world. (WCF Chap. XXVIII)
  • spiritualtramp
    Well a) I did qualify that with "at least the ones I attended" and b) you ARE being to Presbyterian (okay not really.... well maybe just a little).

    On the surface at least I would argue that there's not a whole lot of difference between the baby dedications I saw and the infant baptisms I see. If I recall correctly the infant dedications I saw in my past made the child a member of the visible church (at least until they were of an accountable age) and the parents were exhorted "to bring up the child in the knowledge of the grounds of the Christian religion, and in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and to let him know the danger of God’s wrath to himself and child, if he be negligent; requiring his solemn promise for the performance of his duty."

    And evidently as a Methodist I wasn't a very good one apparently Methodist don't dedicate their babies, they also baptize them and view it pretty seriously. http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid...

    And as I said I'm not arguing against the practice or trying to diminish it in any way. I'm just saying that the practice itself is a sign as much as it's a seal. If you're baptized and you break covenant then it's as though it didn't happen. At least that's how I read it.
blog comments powered by Disqus
«
»