'Infant Circumcision' and 'Infant Baptism'

This space is dedicated to the discussion of topics related to theology and Biblical Studies
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 873
Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 11:41 am

'Infant Circumcision' and 'Infant Baptism'

Post by VidaEterna! »

Analyzing the logic and searching for truth...

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.a ... 3210418427

In this message Rev. Cairns says that 'circumcision' is only a seal retrospectively, "looking back" to what God has done, not what God will do, and that it was a 'seal' ONLY to Abraham but to Ishmael it was only a 'sign' not a seal.

He also states that new testament 'baptism' and old testament 'circumcision' represent or symbolize exactly the same thing. He then states that such is the reason why he rejects 'infant baptism' because it is a 'seal' of "what God has done in the past" and not what God will do in the future.

However, his logic fails when applied to old testament "believers" who were circumcised 8 days after birth since every one who became a believer, did so after being old enough to believe. Therefore, even in that case 'circumcision' was NEVER a seal to them, since (according to Mr. Cairns logic) a 'seal' never looks forward to what God will do ONLY to what He has done. What then? Would the Israelites have to be re-circumcised after believing? Impossible!

If we continue to follow his logic then we must also admit that old testament children were either 'believers at birth' and 'justified' or circumcision was NEVER EVER a "seal" to them, since it only applied retrospectively. So IF THAT'S THE CASE, in reality only Abraham (and by the same logic) those adult GENTILE proselytes would have circumcision as 'sign and seal'; Ironically the "gentile converts" would therefore have an advantage over the national born Israelites WHO PERFORMED THE CIRCUMCISIONS ON THEM - while the national Israelite only had circumcision as a 'sign', the new gentile convert would have it as a 'sign and seal'. (Incredible!)

On the contrary, if the newly born old testament Israelite children could have their circumcision as "sign and seal" , EVEN looking forward to a "future" faith and justification, then COULD IT not be the same with baptism in the new testament? Why not if as Mr. Cairns states, they both represent or symbolize the SAME spiritual reality?

Also, if as he states, baptism and circumcision symbolize the exact same spiritual thing, and God instructed the 'believer' Abraham to administer the 'sign' of circumcision to his children even when they had not yet believed to be justified (and some never did); why do "he/we" choose not to baptize children of 'believers' even when they have not yet believed to be justified?

In addition he concludes and states that in the case of baptized infants, baptism, although it is a 'sign' to the baptized child, it is NOT (and cannot ever be) a 'seal' to them.

I ask, If old testament children were not (could not) be re-circumcised after coming to personal faith in God, wouldn't that prove that the circumcision became a ‘retrospective seal’ to them at that time of birth (8 days after), for when they exercised true faith in the future; and if so, following the same covenantal principle (biblical logic), would it not, the baptism become a 'seal' also to those baptized as infants once they come to personal faith in Christ later in life? I find this argument valid and compelling while Mr. Cairns argument against infant baptism seems week and lacking.

Another IMPORTANT observation is the fact tha Mr. Cairns states that the 'only' way to receive someone into the 'visible church' is by baptism (which I believe is right), he also admits that the only way to admit infants into the church is by baptism (a simple presentation DOES NOT make a child part of the visible church). But, since he opposes infant baptism, that also means that by his own admission he opposes the inclusion of children into the christian church.

So, then what other conclusion do we have than to say that according to this preacher (Alan Cairns), the christian church is composed of "adult" baptized believers 'only'.

What do we have then? If children cannot be part of the visible church, who is to say that they can be a part of the 'invisible' church? And if they could be considered part of the 'invisible' church, then why not of the visible church, but if they cannot be considered part of the 'invisible' church (and who can say that infallibly?), then they are simply part of no church, whether invisible or visible. So, children from our earthly stand point have no relationship with God, neither visible nor invisibly.

Crazy, isn't it?

Just food for thought.

"Ministerio .:: Vida Eterna ::. Ministries"
Las Doctrinas de la Gracia

Post Reply