Does Circumcision Prove Infant Baptism?
No! For if it is, then only infant boys should be baptized (Gen 17:10; Ex 12:48).
No! Circumcision was a sign of a covenant based on physical descent. Baptism is a sign of conversion resulting from grace, which has nothing to do with physical descent (Matt 3:7-12; Gal 3:16,26-29).
No! John the Baptist baptized in water those who already had the sign of circumcision. This showed that the sign was different and the condition was different.
No! The children of God are not those born of certain parents or given some ritualistic application of water, but rather the result of a spiritual birth (John 1:12-13).
No! The children of God are not the natural descendants of Abraham, but rather the spiritual descendants (Rom 9:6-8). And these are not the same.
No! The early Jewish Christians under apostolic direction did not think so, for they continued to circumcise their infant boys (Acts 21:20-21), which was superfluous and contradictory, if baptism had replaced circumcision.
No! The only circumcision with any meaning in the New Testament is a circumcision made without hands by the cutting off of Jesus Christ, Who died for our sins (Col 2:11). When they start baptizing without using hands, we will reconsider their argument.
No! The only circumcision with any meaning in the New Testament is an internal operation of the Spirit upon the heart of man (Rom 2:28-29), which purifies his heart, and makes him a fit candidate for baptism (I Pet 3:21)!
No! Scripture teaches plainly and repeatedly that faith and repentance are conditions for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37), but circumcision had no prerequisite condition (Lev 12:2-3).
No! Scripture teaches plainly and repeatedly that faith and repentance are conditions for baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37), and this is impossible for infants (Jonah 4:11).
No! When the New Testament church debated in Acts 15 whether circumcision should be required of Gentile believers as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire debate did anyone say anything about baptism taking the place of circumcision. If baptism is the simple replacement of circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and thus valid for children as well as for adults, as circumcision was, surely this would have been the time to develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary. But it was not even mentioned.
No? Then where did this heresy come from? It came from the Presbyterians, who retained the baptismal heresies of their mother church, Rome. They ransacked the church fathers of the Roman Catholic Church to find a logical defense for their continuation of Rome's superstition of infant sprinkling. No apostle or early saint even considered the idea, as faith and repentance were necessary for baptism; and infant baptism was unheard of for at least 200 years.
Are household baptisms an evidence of infant baptism?