Replies

I think the better distinction is when someone is baptized not how. In Scripture baptism follows belief and the clearest examples we have are immersion, but if it is done after belief and does not impart grace the method is probably not critical.

Herein is found the truth IMO.

The baptism of children, or other second hand means have always rung false to me. What makes the baptism a better circumcision is that it is done by choice, and not by mandate. The "circumcision of the heart," not done by human hands.

As to the act, I think it should be by immersion in flowing (living) water. That should be the standard, and is generally the standard of the Bible.

But I also believe that it is not efficacious. It is what happens on the inside that counts. Because of that, if water is not readily available, as in many foxhole conversions, splashes from a canteen or whatnot could replace the standard with ease. Still, the standard SHOULD be the standard.

What makes the baptism a better circumcision is that it is done by choice, and not by mandate. The "circumcision of the heart," not done by human hands.

Amen brother.

It's this "circumcision of the heart" that unites us and makes us a part of the body of Christ regardless of the church we are associated with.

But I also believe that it is not efficacious. It is what happens on the inside that counts.

Amen

We had an elderly lady in our church, a dear friend for many years, who had never been baptised. When approached about the matter she explained that she had always shied away from it because she was embarrassed about a certain medical condition she had, which would cause difficulties if she was publically baptised.

So we did a complete baptismal service for her, with all the promises and testimony and songs, she even got dressed in the baptismal gown, but we didnt do the actual immersion in water.

That was a circumsicion of the heart in my book.