| Most Recently Posted Ask a Question |
| If Paul states that when it comes to Christ Jesus, circumcision will have no effect for them, how can baptism replace something that had no effect. Would that not mean also that physical baptism has no effect, but rather is a work, just like the Jews thought their work of circumcision saved them?
|
|
| Paul did not say circumcision had no effect for Old Testament believers who were using it as a means of entering the covenant relationship with God, which was based on faith in the coming Savior. He says it has no effect for those like the Judaizers who were using it as part of a system of salvation by works. New Testament Christians do not need it as a means of entering the covenant relationship with the Lord because they have baptism to fill that purpose. Neither circumcision nor baptism will ultimately benefit a person who has no faith. Baptisms which are part of a system of works like that of the Mormons will benefit no one. But both baptism and circumcision were instituted by God as a means for entering the covenant relationship with him through faith.
To see what the effect of baptism is we read the passages that say what that effect is, such as 1 Peter 3:21. We don't argue by reason and analogy.
|
|