MTMattie
Well-known member
PART 2
Hebrews 10:22
Isaiah 52:15
Acts 8:36
"And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."
Some theologians say that this proves immersion because it says that the eunuch went down into the water, but this is presupposition. For it doesn't say the eunuch went down into the water, it 'clearly' says that they stopped the chariot, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water. If this meant immersion, then they both were immersed. And God meticulously inspired this language so there would be no mistake. They simply stepped out of the chariot--both stepped down into the water, and Then it says philip baptized the eunuch. The going down into the water has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual baptism, which occurs after they go down into the water. Likewise, when they came out.
Acts 8:39
"And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."
You see, both went down into the water, THEN the eunuch was baptized, and THEN they "both" came up out of the water. So contrary to some who view this as evidence, the going down into the water was not the baptism. Indeed we should expect that because of the context of Isaiah that the eunuch was reading, they went down into the water, and then Philip sprinkled or poured water on the eunuch, and then they both came up out of the water. The sprinkling recorded in Isaiah is God's word of baptismal cleansing or washing, which prophesied of this baptism of many outside of Israel. If we compare Scripture with Scripture, we see how the Bible deals with the sign of baptismal cleansing throughout scripture.
Numbers 8:7
"And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean."
Ezekiel 36:25-26
"Then will I Sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be Clean: from all your filthiness, and from your idols, will I cleanse you.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh."
Note God again says that He will sprinkle clean water upon us and we shall be clean from all our sins. Clearly God says sprinkle, not dip or immerse. Because of church tradition, some would retort that this is wrong, and cling to the idea that only immersion is the proper mode of Baptism. God forbid, for true baptism or washing is of God and not by our denominational presuppositions. These scriptures should preclude anyone from claiming that immersion is the only mode of baptism. In Illustrating spiritual baptism, God uses sprinkling. Thus I believe that sprinkling is a perfectly acceptable and biblically defensible way of baptizing, based upon my study of the pertinent scriptures. Water baptism that is efficacious and important is not H²0, but spiritual waters. When God says, repent (Acts 2:38) and be baptized and you will be saved, this repentance is unto salvation, but Baptism in literal water is not. How do we know? Because Ephesians carefully tells us there is one baptism:
Ephesians 4:5
"One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.."
Those are God's words and so they are faithful and true. Nevertheless, it is clear that we saw in Acts 1:5 the mention of two baptisms. John Baptized in water, and spoke of one coming who will baptize in the holy spirit. This is important because we just read God's word specifically declare that there is only one baptism. How can this be? Well, it can be because the only true Baptism is Baptism in the Holy Spirit, the baptism in water is merely a token of that one Baptism. It's just like there is only one sacrifice, which is Christ Jesus. Yet the Israelites offered sacrifices that pointed to the one true Sacrifice, and we offer the sacrifice of ourselves in Christ as holy and acceptable to God. Because of His mercy, that one true sacrifice covers all our works that are wrought in Him.
Hebrews 9:21-22
These diverse baptisms (different washings) of the old testament do not in any way mean dippings. It signified a "cleansing" in ceremonial washing, all of which ultimately pointed to Christ. In these cases, this ceremonial cleansing was definitely sprinkling. This blood sprinkled is the shadow or picture of the death, burial, and resurrection with Christ by whose blood we are Spiritually made clean. This cleansing in Christ's death has nothing whatsoever to do with immersion, it has to do only with the "washing" away of our sins in his blood. They weren't immersed in blood because immersion is not the point. Did the Israelites immerse the Altar or whatever they sprinkled the blood on to signify cleansing? Not at all, and these cleansings is what the sacrament of these diverse baptisms or ablutions signified. The baptism [baptismos] in which the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, was a sign of sanctification for the purifying of the flesh. The New Covenant is the confirming of the old Covenant by Christ, who came not to do away with the law, but to fulfill or complete it. Old Covenant ablution becomes New Covenant Baptism. Old Covenant Sacrifice becomes New Covenant Communion. Old Covenant Sabbath becomes New Covenant Day of Rest. Old Covenant Israel becomes New Covenant Israel. These were all everlasting laws, and continue only in Christ Jesus. Likewise, Old Covenant baptisms refers to our being 'cleansed' ceremonially, not to us being dipped ceremonially.
Would we use the word to say we are 'dipped' with the Holy Spirit? No, that would be improper because God washes or cleanses us with the Holy Spirit, not dips or immerses us. This baptism in the Holy Spirit of God has everything to do with the cleansing of regeneration. It's about making us clean spiritually, not about a church tradition of dipping or immersion. That is not to say that immersion cannot be a perfectly acceptable way to baptize, it is to say that it is not the 'only' or 'most Biblical' way to baptize. Unfortunately, this position is so often postulated by some Christians.
The fact is, water is not spiritually salvific. When we consider if water can wash away sins, the answer is a resounding, no. Thus how could the amount of water used in a ceremonial sacrament be a qualifier when it is simply a token of the true? In God's eyes, whether one is washed by sprinkling, washing in a cup of water, a tub, a river or a ocean is not the point. The washing of H²0 is not the point, the washing of the Holy Spirit of God is. In Hebrews 9:21-22, and all throughout the Bible this is clearly illustrated.
Ephesians 5:26
This cleansing water by the word is the birth water of the Spirit, the only water than can sanctify and cleanse so that we might enter the Kingdom of God. Literal water does not cleanse that one may enter the Kingdom, nor does it sanctify, but the washing of the Spiritual water is something far superior than physical water. The water we are born of is not H²0, but the pure water that comes from the new birth, whereby we are regenerated clean from the stain of sin. And truth be known, when we carefully study scripture, we most often see this symbolism of spiritual cleansing in sprinkling, not in immersion. For example:
Hebrews 10:22
This word "washed" is [louo], but it speaks of the very same baptism of the Holy Spirit that cleanses our desperately wicked hearts. That water spoken of there is not physical water upon our body, but pure spiritual water, the waters of the cleansing of the Holy Spirit. This can only come through the blood of Christ Jesus. We read even when Philip met the Ethiopian eunuch whom he "baptized," the passage of scripture that he was reading from was Isaiah chapter 53, which is introduced by the end of chapter 52:
Isaiah 52:15
This prophesies' of the baptizing of all nations in the New Covenant dispensation, and God says He sprinkled. Did the Prophet speak of Himself or some other? The Disciple Philip says that he spoke of Christ. This is the context of the passages the Ethiopian eunuch would have been reading. That Christ would cleanse many nations (including his Ethiopia), and this is surely what Philip was speaking of when he asked him if he understood what he read, and then expounded unto him, beginning at Christ the Saviour.
Acts 8:36
Surely after philip explained to him the cleansing of many nations by sprinkling, which the Prophet Isaiah spoke of was of was Christ, the eunuch wanted to be baptized.
Acts 8:38
Some theologians say that this proves immersion because it says that the eunuch went down into the water, but this is presupposition. For it doesn't say the eunuch went down into the water, it 'clearly' says that they stopped the chariot, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water. If this meant immersion, then they both were immersed. And God meticulously inspired this language so there would be no mistake. They simply stepped out of the chariot--both stepped down into the water, and Then it says philip baptized the eunuch. The going down into the water has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual baptism, which occurs after they go down into the water. Likewise, when they came out.
Acts 8:39
You see, both went down into the water, THEN the eunuch was baptized, and THEN they "both" came up out of the water. So contrary to some who view this as evidence, the going down into the water was not the baptism. Indeed we should expect that because of the context of Isaiah that the eunuch was reading, they went down into the water, and then Philip sprinkled or poured water on the eunuch, and then they both came up out of the water. The sprinkling recorded in Isaiah is God's word of baptismal cleansing or washing, which prophesied of this baptism of many outside of Israel. If we compare Scripture with Scripture, we see how the Bible deals with the sign of baptismal cleansing throughout scripture.
Numbers 8:7
Note God again says that He will sprinkle clean water upon us and we shall be clean from all our sins. Clearly God says sprinkle, not dip or immerse. Because of church tradition, some would retort that this is wrong, and cling to the idea that only immersion is the proper mode of Baptism. God forbid, for true baptism or washing is of God and not by our denominational presuppositions. These scriptures should preclude anyone from claiming that immersion is the only mode of baptism. In Illustrating spiritual baptism, God uses sprinkling. Thus I believe that sprinkling is a perfectly acceptable and biblically defensible way of baptizing, based upon my study of the pertinent scriptures. Water baptism that is efficacious and important is not H²0, but spiritual waters. When God says, repent (Acts 2:38) and be baptized and you will be saved, this repentance is unto salvation, but Baptism in literal water is not. How do we know? Because Ephesians carefully tells us there is one baptism:
Ephesians 4:5
Those are God's words and so they are faithful and true. Nevertheless, it is clear that we saw in Acts 1:5 the mention of two baptisms. John Baptized in water, and spoke of one coming who will baptize in the holy spirit. This is important because we just read God's word specifically declare that there is only one baptism. How can this be? Well, it can be because the only true Baptism is Baptism in the Holy Spirit, the baptism in water is merely a token of that one Baptism. It's just like there is only one sacrifice, which is Christ Jesus. Yet the Israelites offered sacrifices that pointed to the one true Sacrifice, and we offer the sacrifice of ourselves in Christ as holy and acceptable to God. Because of His mercy, that one true sacrifice covers all our works that are wrought in Him.
Romans 12:1
As in the one sacrifice, so in the one Baptism. What that clearly means is that any other Baptism (physical water) is merely a sign or token of this one real Baptism. Anyone who denies that might as well call God's word a lie, because He says there is only one--meaning only one that is efficacious to cleanse us from sin.
John 1:33
John baptized with water as a sign, but the "One Baptism" that the sign pointed to was this baptism in the Holy Spirit he prophesied Christ would bring. There is no contradiction of these Baptisms. Because the only real Baptism (Cleansing/Washing) is the Baptism of the Spirit, and all water Baptisms are simply a token of that one Baptism. We could say the same thing about circumcision. There was one circumcision, and that was the circumcision of the Heart. The circumcision r cutting away of the flesh was merely a token of that one true spiritual circumcision.
Colossians 2:11
There we see confirmed the one circumcision of salvation. The physical cutting off of the flesh was merely a token of this one Spiritual circumcision in cutting off of the flesh in rebirth without that fleshly or carnal nature. Anyone not of this one true circumcision, the circumcision made without hands, God declares as being truly 'uncircumcised' to Him. That is even if he had been circumcised in the flesh, to God he is as uncircumcised and spiritually a heathen separated from the covenant of God. That it is not about physical circumcision, but Spiritual is the principle that we see at work here.
Likewise, there is one Lamb of God that is slain for our sins. Therefore those literal lambs that were slain in the Old Testament were simply tokens of the One true Lamb of God that would be slain and :"truly" take away sin. Can you imagine those of the Old Testament congregation arguing over if the blood used from the lamb slain should be two cups or three? But that is exactly what some of the church today contend about with this issue. It's ridiculous for the church to argue over how much, or literally the amount of water used to signify baptismal cleansing. What is Biblically commanded in baptism is water as a token, and that's all. Any other added requirements are meaningless. So why is the church today so concerned whether it should be a splash of water, a pool of water, or a river of water? My opinion is that it is because of their church traditions. But while they are busy pointing, they are in truth (and ironically) missing the whole point of water Baptism.
Hebrews 10:22
- "Let us draw near with a true heart in assurance of faith, having our hearts Sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies Washed with pure water."
Isaiah 52:15
- "So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider."
Acts 8:36
- "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?"
"And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."
Some theologians say that this proves immersion because it says that the eunuch went down into the water, but this is presupposition. For it doesn't say the eunuch went down into the water, it 'clearly' says that they stopped the chariot, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water. If this meant immersion, then they both were immersed. And God meticulously inspired this language so there would be no mistake. They simply stepped out of the chariot--both stepped down into the water, and Then it says philip baptized the eunuch. The going down into the water has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual baptism, which occurs after they go down into the water. Likewise, when they came out.
Acts 8:39
"And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."
You see, both went down into the water, THEN the eunuch was baptized, and THEN they "both" came up out of the water. So contrary to some who view this as evidence, the going down into the water was not the baptism. Indeed we should expect that because of the context of Isaiah that the eunuch was reading, they went down into the water, and then Philip sprinkled or poured water on the eunuch, and then they both came up out of the water. The sprinkling recorded in Isaiah is God's word of baptismal cleansing or washing, which prophesied of this baptism of many outside of Israel. If we compare Scripture with Scripture, we see how the Bible deals with the sign of baptismal cleansing throughout scripture.
Numbers 8:7
"And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean."
Ezekiel 36:25-26
"Then will I Sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be Clean: from all your filthiness, and from your idols, will I cleanse you.
A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh."
Note God again says that He will sprinkle clean water upon us and we shall be clean from all our sins. Clearly God says sprinkle, not dip or immerse. Because of church tradition, some would retort that this is wrong, and cling to the idea that only immersion is the proper mode of Baptism. God forbid, for true baptism or washing is of God and not by our denominational presuppositions. These scriptures should preclude anyone from claiming that immersion is the only mode of baptism. In Illustrating spiritual baptism, God uses sprinkling. Thus I believe that sprinkling is a perfectly acceptable and biblically defensible way of baptizing, based upon my study of the pertinent scriptures. Water baptism that is efficacious and important is not H²0, but spiritual waters. When God says, repent (Acts 2:38) and be baptized and you will be saved, this repentance is unto salvation, but Baptism in literal water is not. How do we know? Because Ephesians carefully tells us there is one baptism:
Ephesians 4:5
"One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.."
Those are God's words and so they are faithful and true. Nevertheless, it is clear that we saw in Acts 1:5 the mention of two baptisms. John Baptized in water, and spoke of one coming who will baptize in the holy spirit. This is important because we just read God's word specifically declare that there is only one baptism. How can this be? Well, it can be because the only true Baptism is Baptism in the Holy Spirit, the baptism in water is merely a token of that one Baptism. It's just like there is only one sacrifice, which is Christ Jesus. Yet the Israelites offered sacrifices that pointed to the one true Sacrifice, and we offer the sacrifice of ourselves in Christ as holy and acceptable to God. Because of His mercy, that one true sacrifice covers all our works that are wrought in Him.
Hebrews 9:21-22
- "Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
- And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
These diverse baptisms (different washings) of the old testament do not in any way mean dippings. It signified a "cleansing" in ceremonial washing, all of which ultimately pointed to Christ. In these cases, this ceremonial cleansing was definitely sprinkling. This blood sprinkled is the shadow or picture of the death, burial, and resurrection with Christ by whose blood we are Spiritually made clean. This cleansing in Christ's death has nothing whatsoever to do with immersion, it has to do only with the "washing" away of our sins in his blood. They weren't immersed in blood because immersion is not the point. Did the Israelites immerse the Altar or whatever they sprinkled the blood on to signify cleansing? Not at all, and these cleansings is what the sacrament of these diverse baptisms or ablutions signified. The baptism [baptismos] in which the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, was a sign of sanctification for the purifying of the flesh. The New Covenant is the confirming of the old Covenant by Christ, who came not to do away with the law, but to fulfill or complete it. Old Covenant ablution becomes New Covenant Baptism. Old Covenant Sacrifice becomes New Covenant Communion. Old Covenant Sabbath becomes New Covenant Day of Rest. Old Covenant Israel becomes New Covenant Israel. These were all everlasting laws, and continue only in Christ Jesus. Likewise, Old Covenant baptisms refers to our being 'cleansed' ceremonially, not to us being dipped ceremonially.
Would we use the word to say we are 'dipped' with the Holy Spirit? No, that would be improper because God washes or cleanses us with the Holy Spirit, not dips or immerses us. This baptism in the Holy Spirit of God has everything to do with the cleansing of regeneration. It's about making us clean spiritually, not about a church tradition of dipping or immersion. That is not to say that immersion cannot be a perfectly acceptable way to baptize, it is to say that it is not the 'only' or 'most Biblical' way to baptize. Unfortunately, this position is so often postulated by some Christians.
The fact is, water is not spiritually salvific. When we consider if water can wash away sins, the answer is a resounding, no. Thus how could the amount of water used in a ceremonial sacrament be a qualifier when it is simply a token of the true? In God's eyes, whether one is washed by sprinkling, washing in a cup of water, a tub, a river or a ocean is not the point. The washing of H²0 is not the point, the washing of the Holy Spirit of God is. In Hebrews 9:21-22, and all throughout the Bible this is clearly illustrated.
Ephesians 5:26
- "that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word."
- "..except a man be born OF WATER and of The Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."
This cleansing water by the word is the birth water of the Spirit, the only water than can sanctify and cleanse so that we might enter the Kingdom of God. Literal water does not cleanse that one may enter the Kingdom, nor does it sanctify, but the washing of the Spiritual water is something far superior than physical water. The water we are born of is not H²0, but the pure water that comes from the new birth, whereby we are regenerated clean from the stain of sin. And truth be known, when we carefully study scripture, we most often see this symbolism of spiritual cleansing in sprinkling, not in immersion. For example:
Hebrews 10:22
- "Let us draw near with a true heart in assurance of faith, having our hearts Sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies Washed with pure water."
This word "washed" is [louo], but it speaks of the very same baptism of the Holy Spirit that cleanses our desperately wicked hearts. That water spoken of there is not physical water upon our body, but pure spiritual water, the waters of the cleansing of the Holy Spirit. This can only come through the blood of Christ Jesus. We read even when Philip met the Ethiopian eunuch whom he "baptized," the passage of scripture that he was reading from was Isaiah chapter 53, which is introduced by the end of chapter 52:
Isaiah 52:15
- "So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider."
This prophesies' of the baptizing of all nations in the New Covenant dispensation, and God says He sprinkled. Did the Prophet speak of Himself or some other? The Disciple Philip says that he spoke of Christ. This is the context of the passages the Ethiopian eunuch would have been reading. That Christ would cleanse many nations (including his Ethiopia), and this is surely what Philip was speaking of when he asked him if he understood what he read, and then expounded unto him, beginning at Christ the Saviour.
Acts 8:36
- "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?"
Surely after philip explained to him the cleansing of many nations by sprinkling, which the Prophet Isaiah spoke of was of was Christ, the eunuch wanted to be baptized.
Acts 8:38
- "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."
Some theologians say that this proves immersion because it says that the eunuch went down into the water, but this is presupposition. For it doesn't say the eunuch went down into the water, it 'clearly' says that they stopped the chariot, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water. If this meant immersion, then they both were immersed. And God meticulously inspired this language so there would be no mistake. They simply stepped out of the chariot--both stepped down into the water, and Then it says philip baptized the eunuch. The going down into the water has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual baptism, which occurs after they go down into the water. Likewise, when they came out.
Acts 8:39
- "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."
You see, both went down into the water, THEN the eunuch was baptized, and THEN they "both" came up out of the water. So contrary to some who view this as evidence, the going down into the water was not the baptism. Indeed we should expect that because of the context of Isaiah that the eunuch was reading, they went down into the water, and then Philip sprinkled or poured water on the eunuch, and then they both came up out of the water. The sprinkling recorded in Isaiah is God's word of baptismal cleansing or washing, which prophesied of this baptism of many outside of Israel. If we compare Scripture with Scripture, we see how the Bible deals with the sign of baptismal cleansing throughout scripture.
Numbers 8:7
- "And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean."
- "Then will I Sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be Clean: from all your filthiness, and from your idols, will I cleanse you.
- A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh."
Note God again says that He will sprinkle clean water upon us and we shall be clean from all our sins. Clearly God says sprinkle, not dip or immerse. Because of church tradition, some would retort that this is wrong, and cling to the idea that only immersion is the proper mode of Baptism. God forbid, for true baptism or washing is of God and not by our denominational presuppositions. These scriptures should preclude anyone from claiming that immersion is the only mode of baptism. In Illustrating spiritual baptism, God uses sprinkling. Thus I believe that sprinkling is a perfectly acceptable and biblically defensible way of baptizing, based upon my study of the pertinent scriptures. Water baptism that is efficacious and important is not H²0, but spiritual waters. When God says, repent (Acts 2:38) and be baptized and you will be saved, this repentance is unto salvation, but Baptism in literal water is not. How do we know? Because Ephesians carefully tells us there is one baptism:
Ephesians 4:5
- "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.."
Those are God's words and so they are faithful and true. Nevertheless, it is clear that we saw in Acts 1:5 the mention of two baptisms. John Baptized in water, and spoke of one coming who will baptize in the holy spirit. This is important because we just read God's word specifically declare that there is only one baptism. How can this be? Well, it can be because the only true Baptism is Baptism in the Holy Spirit, the baptism in water is merely a token of that one Baptism. It's just like there is only one sacrifice, which is Christ Jesus. Yet the Israelites offered sacrifices that pointed to the one true Sacrifice, and we offer the sacrifice of ourselves in Christ as holy and acceptable to God. Because of His mercy, that one true sacrifice covers all our works that are wrought in Him.
Romans 12:1
- "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service."
As in the one sacrifice, so in the one Baptism. What that clearly means is that any other Baptism (physical water) is merely a sign or token of this one real Baptism. Anyone who denies that might as well call God's word a lie, because He says there is only one--meaning only one that is efficacious to cleanse us from sin.
John 1:33
- "And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
John baptized with water as a sign, but the "One Baptism" that the sign pointed to was this baptism in the Holy Spirit he prophesied Christ would bring. There is no contradiction of these Baptisms. Because the only real Baptism (Cleansing/Washing) is the Baptism of the Spirit, and all water Baptisms are simply a token of that one Baptism. We could say the same thing about circumcision. There was one circumcision, and that was the circumcision of the Heart. The circumcision r cutting away of the flesh was merely a token of that one true spiritual circumcision.
Colossians 2:11
- "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:"
There we see confirmed the one circumcision of salvation. The physical cutting off of the flesh was merely a token of this one Spiritual circumcision in cutting off of the flesh in rebirth without that fleshly or carnal nature. Anyone not of this one true circumcision, the circumcision made without hands, God declares as being truly 'uncircumcised' to Him. That is even if he had been circumcised in the flesh, to God he is as uncircumcised and spiritually a heathen separated from the covenant of God. That it is not about physical circumcision, but Spiritual is the principle that we see at work here.
Likewise, there is one Lamb of God that is slain for our sins. Therefore those literal lambs that were slain in the Old Testament were simply tokens of the One true Lamb of God that would be slain and :"truly" take away sin. Can you imagine those of the Old Testament congregation arguing over if the blood used from the lamb slain should be two cups or three? But that is exactly what some of the church today contend about with this issue. It's ridiculous for the church to argue over how much, or literally the amount of water used to signify baptismal cleansing. What is Biblically commanded in baptism is water as a token, and that's all. Any other added requirements are meaningless. So why is the church today so concerned whether it should be a splash of water, a pool of water, or a river of water? My opinion is that it is because of their church traditions. But while they are busy pointing, they are in truth (and ironically) missing the whole point of water Baptism.
