Baptism in the Bible

Baptism in the Bible

In scripture, we have a two-fold problem with believers who ascribe to the infant baptism position. Paedobaptists tend to Christianize the Old Testament and Judaize the New Testament. Paedobaptists never consistently practice the same kind of “household baptism” they claim that is found in the New Testament. Below are some passages that explain why that the New Covenant consists of only Elect believers.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 “‘The time is coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,’ declares the LORD. ‘This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,’ declares the LORD. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, “Know the LORD,” because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,’ declares the LORD. ‘For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'”

The New Covenant (NC) is an unbreakable covenant. That’s what makes it different from the Old Covenant (OC). See Genesis 17:14, Jeremiah 31:32; Deuteronomy 28, 29:19-25). The Three blessings described in the New Covenant:

·         Law Written on the Heart

·         Personal Knowledge of God

·         Forgiveness of Sins

When the Law is written in your heart, it cannot be unwritten. A stone heart that turns into flesh cannot turn to stone again. It’s not to say that the OC elect didn’t experience any of these blessings. They did in Psalm 37:31, 9:10, 76:1; personal knowledge of God can be seen in 1 Samuel 2:12, 3:7; the forgiveness of sins can be found in Psalm 32:1-2.

The difference is that ALL- NOT SOME- NC members experienced these unconditional blessings. The OC blessings for all beneficiaries (elect and non-elect) were re-administered to the elect only. In the OC, an ethnic Jew was able to receive conditional blessings regardless if they were the elect or non-elect; the external condition didn’t match the internal condition. In contrast, the NC, the spiritual Jew/Christian has unconditional blessings. The internal matches the external condition. A non-elect “Christian” cannot be in Christ within the NC.

Paedobaptist Defense: “They shall all know me,” applies only to those covenant members who are possibly the elect.

Baptist Offense: It is All (the elect) shall know me,” not “all (who are in the covenant) shall know me.” This would get rid of the very reason why the NC is different. In every OC administration (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) only the elect covenant members knew the Lord, even if all covenant members did not. All the covenant members in the NC will know him. There are no covenant members in the NC who do not know the Lord.

Paedobaptist Defense: You don’t love your child. My kids need to be blessed through baptism.

Baptist Offense: We do not baptize our children according to the flesh, not because we don't love them, but because we want to preserve for them the purity and the power of the spiritual community that God ordained for the believing church of the living Christ. Kids have more now in the NC compared to those in the OC. We have Christ crucified, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts, Spiritual Israel over Physical Israel, etc. We have more than they ever had. God has every right to bless whomever he wants. We shouldn't let our sentiments or well intentions color that.

Paedobaptist Defense: “They shall all know me,” applies to all types of people in the NC. Only leaders knew the Lord and not individuals in the OC. Now in the NC, all people can know the Lord.

Baptist Offense: This is incorrect. The OC relationship was only accessible through leaders and also to some low rank people. We have examples in the OC with Hannah and Mary, Rahab, Abigail, and Jael. Under both covenants, both leaders and laymen knew the Lord. However, the function of the Holy Spirit does not work this way.

Paedobaptist Defense: The knowledge of God is an external knowledge about the things of God revealed in Scripture. For example, this is catechizing your kids; this is about passing down knowledge to our children.

Baptist Offense: This cannot be talking about external knowledge because that is a recurring issue in the OC with Israel. They kept worshipping idols although they claimed to know God. The Pharisees were known for their external knowledge, yet they rebelled against Christ.

Paedobaptist Defense: The issue in Jeremiah is between the NC and the Mosaic-OC administration, and not between the NC and Abrahamic-OC. Paedobaptists justify infant baptism with the Abrahamic (not the Mosaic) Covenant. The NC is different from the Mosaic. Therefore, it is not relevant to the infant baptism debate.

Baptist Offense: Yes, the Mosaic Covenant was added to the Abrahamic promises. It does not nullify or replace it. Instead, it furthers its ultimate purpose according to Galatians 3:17-19.The same differences that are found between the New and Mosaic Covenants, can also apply between the New and the Abrahamic covenant. Under the Abrahamic Covenant, not all members did not have the law written on their hearts, or knew the Lord, or have their sins forgiven. This would apply to covenant children like Ishmael and Esau, who lived during the Abrahamic covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant.

Jeremiah 32:37-41 “I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger and great wrath; I will bring them back to this place and let them live in safety. They will be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good to them, and I will inspire them to fear me, so that they will never turn away from me. I will rejoice in doing them good and will assuredly plant them in this land with all my heart and soul.”

NOTE: Jeremiah 32:37-41 is about the NC inaugurated in 70AD. Just like mentioned before, this is an unbreakable covenant. The text says God will inspire all NC partakers to” always fear Him” and “never turn away from Him.” They will do it for “their own good” and “the good of their children after them”. This means that believer’s children are the elect. Because their parents are believers does not make them covenant members by proxy or guarantees salvation. To interpret this “doing of good” to the children as a guarantee of salvation would be erroneous. Not all “covenant children” are saved.

John 1:11-13 “He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God–children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”

John 6:45 45 It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will ALL be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me

NOTE: The Jews were “his own” people because they were in covenant with God during the OC Age.  Therefore, they were called God’s children. See Hosea 11:1. Yet his own children rejected and crucified him. But now who are the children of God, according to the text? Not those who are in an “external covenant” with God, not those who are called out of Egypt but then later rejected him, not those who come from Christian parents. It is those who believe that are in covenant with God.

Romans 9:2-4, 6-8 “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.” ….6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Romans 8:15-17 “For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs–heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory”

NOTE: Thus the concept of adoption has been transformed in the NC. NC adoption involves election, regeneration, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This indwelling was not necessary for OC adoption. The “covenant children” of Romans 9 (OC) are not the same “covenant children” of Romans 8 (NC).

Romans 4:11-12, 23 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised…..23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone

Paedobaptist Defense: This text says that Paul is giving a definition of what circumcision sealed for everybody who received it: righteousness by faith. Therefore, circumcision was not just an earthly sign. Just like baptism, it sealed the believer into receiving the spiritual blessings of the covenant of grace.

Baptist Offense: This is incorrect. Paedobaptists disregard the context of Romans 4. They force the text into a general principle instead of seeing it as context specific for Abraham and OC members. Abraham’s seed is defined as those who possess “the righteousness of the faith” while Abraham was uncircumcised. It is not whether they were uncircumcised or circumcised. There is no mention of believers children being added to the NC by proxy of their parent’s faith; rather, it points to those who have obtained salvation through “the righteousness of faith.” See John 1:12-13, Galatians 3:16, 22, and 29. Furthermore, Paul is speaking of circumcision sealing the righteousness by faith which Abraham already possessed, and a righteousness by faith which Abraham already had. Abraham’s circumcision sealed to him a present possession/reality. It did not seal his need for righteousness or a conditional promise of righteousness. It sealed to him a righteousness which he already had while uncircumcised. He did not receive anything additional.

Paedobaptist Defense: Baptists artificially create two different definitions for circumcision: one for believers and one for non-believers.

Baptist Offense: That’s not true. Circumcision represented the same promises to everyone who received it. But for those who received it in faith like Abraham and professing believers in the OC, it also sealed the righteousness which they already had by faith.

 Interestingly, the Paedobaptist’s argument can be turned against them since they are also creating two different definitions for circumcision. For Abraham it sealed a righteousness which he already had by faith; it sealed a present possession/reality. But then for Isaac, and for all who received it in infancy, it sealed their NEED for righteousness by faith. That is problematic.

 

Colossians 2:9-14 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and YOU have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also YOU were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which YOU were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And YOU, who were dead in YOUR trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

NOTE: Paedobaptists misinterpret this passage in a few ways. First, it is describing the heresy of Jewish mysticism mixed up with Greek philosophy infiltrating the Church while acknowledging the fullness of Christ. It is not about infant baptism. Next, this text is talking about believers-those who have put off the flesh, and have been raised with Christ through their faith. The inward reality of spiritual circumcision is connected to baptism in the NT. In addition, compare this passage with Romans 6. We received the spiritual circumcision (a better circumcision) of Christ because of his death and resurrection. Notice it says it is made without hands for this administration. Verse 13 applies to the Elect’s faith (buried with Christ). This fulfills the OC circumcision. Their water baptism is an outward expression of their spiritual circumcision/condition through faith in Christ.

Romans 6:3-4 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

NOTE: Paedobaptists see Romans 6:3-4 as a regeneration passage and a secondary passage for water baptism. Inconsistently, they use the same concept of union with Christ in Colossians 2:11-12 as a primary connection (causal fallacy) between water baptism and circumcision instead of seeing the correct relationship: Physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision through faith (regeneration).  Paul was against physical circumcision-See Galatians 3:3, Ephesians 1:13-14, John 3:5-6.

·         Physical Circumcision (Shadow-Physical-Corporate Adoption, National identifier)-Abrahamic Covenant-Seal of Abraham’s saving faith. Physical circumcision was truly fulfilled in spiritual circumcision confirmed/by their walk- outward walk ideally was to express their inward spiritual condition. Not just for believers- it served as a national identification.

·         Spiritual Circumcision by repentance, faith, and cleansing/baptism (Substance-Spiritual-Individual Adoption, Individual identifier)-New Covenant-Seal of the individual’s saving faith through Christ. Spiritual circumcision was confirmed by baptism- the inward spiritual condition expressed by the individual’s outward walk.

·         Baptism ≠ Physical Circumcision

·         Baptism=Inward spiritual condition of the believer/outward sign of Spiritual Circumcision

 

Baptist Offense: If Christians are the “seed” of Abraham, should we expect to have physical descendants as many as the stars of the sky, or claim physical Canaan as our “everlasting” possession? If circumcision is a “forever” sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, then why do the New Covenant “seed” of Abraham not continue the practice of circumcision? Should Christians baptize not only infants but also all males brought into or born into their homes? Only the circumcised interacted with the circumcised within their communities.

Paedobaptist Defense: It is not legitimate to identify both children and the Canaan promise in the same category with the covenant promises of Abraham. This is a category error.

Baptist Offense: True, but what would you say about the 318 men in Abraham’s household. They were circumcised before entering Canaan. In order to be consistent, how would you apply this to the NC? In Genesis 17:25-26, Ishmael got circumcised at age 13 and the other Israelites up to age 40 in Joshua 5:1-9.The Paedobaptism creates an artificial age of accountability for baptism. There is no restriction to baptism regardless of age. A child can be an adult child whether they profess or not. The comparison between circumcision and baptism had nothing to do with the age of the ones who are baptized.

·         Mark Sr.-Elderly-True believer

·         Mark Jr.- Young Adult-Nominal believer

·         Mark III-Infant (Paedobaptists would say no to his baptism-However, scripture doesn’t give any restrictions). Why would we differ if circumcision replaced baptism? “You and your seed after you” includes all generations regardless of spiritual status.

So if infant baptism is correct, and if Paedobaptists want to be consistent, one cannot withhold baptism or communion for a non-believing teen or adult child. The only warning to prevent baptism was found in Acts 10:47.

 

Acts 8:12 12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

NOTE: According to Acts 8:12, Jews interested in Christianity needed to show signs of faith and repentance before being considered for baptism. It is faith then baptism. We don’t use the OC to explain the NC. We use the NC to explain the OC. Also, in the OC, men’s circumcision affected women’s covenant status by proxy just like the leader with the Holy Spirit affected the nation of Israel. Now in the NC, men and women have the spiritual circumcision of Christ, which causes the Holy Spirit to dwell within the individual believer.

 

 

If baptism did replace circumcision…..

Scripture never says the baptism replaces circumcision. Circumcision is not identical to the sign of baptism. No doubt there is some overlap and a relationship between the two (Romans 4:11-12; Colossians 2:11-12). Baptism is a sign for disciples, which is believer’s Baptism.

 

If circumcision replaced baptism, why institute a new sign in the first place? Why baptize those who been circumcised since they are in the covenant already?

 

According to Acts 16:3, why did Paul tell Timothy to get circumcised if they were the same practice? This doesn’t make sense. Was Timothy’s baptism missing something since he needed to get circumcised? Why wasn’t his baptism sufficient if they are the same sign?

 

Why did Paul accommodated the Jewish converts and their children in continuing the practice of circumcision in Acts 21:20-26? See also Romans 14:4-6, Acts 18:18-21, 1 Corinthians 9:20. Why did he not rather challenge the practice as completely inappropriate for Christian converts, since now baptism replaced circumcision?

 

Why didn’t the apostles and elders at the Jerusalem council challenge the Pharisees’ charge in Acts 15:5 if baptism has now replaced circumcision? Acts 15:5 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses”

Why didn’t Paul, in the book of Galatians challenge the Judaizers who supported circumcision say “baptism has replaced circumcision”?

************************************************************************

 

The Promise (Acts 2:37-42) 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. 42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

NOTE: The Children in Acts 2:37-42-the only children baptized- were the ones who repented and received faith in Christ. Outward expression is needed for an “inner circumcision”. See 2 Cor 4:16 and 1 Cor 15:46. This pattern is confirmed in Matthew 16:16-18, 28:19. In fact, those who confessed participated in communion together. Therefore, if infant baptism is correct, they have no scriptural basis for withholding communion from their infant because children were able to partake in the Passover meal. The three phrases must be taken together: (1) you, (2) your children, (3) all who are far off. According to the text, the NC promise is equally applied to all three categories of people. There is nothing “special” about category (2) which cannot be said about category (1) and (3). This does not prove that there is a “special” promise for covenant children. The term covenant children are nowhere found in NT. Furthermore, do we baptize all hearers into the NC, regardless on their response to the gospel? How does a promise for EVERYONE is distinguished between covenant children and anyone else that hears the gospel?

 

The Unbelieving Spouse (1 Corinthians 7:14)  14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

NOTE: Paedobaptists claim that Paul is saying that at least one believing parent will make one’s child “covenantally holy. They will not be considered externally unclean, like the children of non-believers. The issue with this interpretation is that the same root word for “holy” is applied to BOTH the child and to the non-believing spouse. If they are both “covenantally holy,” then why are they not BOTH included in the covenant community and baptized? Paedobaptists will baptize the child, but not the non-believing spouse. To force a different meaning for “holy” when it is applied to the unbelieving spouse is erroneous. The same Greek root word is applied to both individuals. Ironically, this sabotages Paul’s argument that the holiness of the child guarantees the holiness of the non-believing spouse. In order for this argument to be valid, the same type of holiness must be applied to each individual. This is a perfect example of importing OC concepts into the NT. Covenant holiness has been done away with in the NT. In Acts 10:28, Peter explained to Cornelius’ household that “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. In this context, Peter is talking about external, covenantal holiness. Therefore, the very thing God commanded Peter never to do (call men unclean because of their birth outside the covenant community), paedobaptists do to the children of non-believers (call them unclean). These distinctions are no longer used in the NC.

************************************************************************

Cornelius’ Household (Acts 10:46-48)- Compare this passage with Acts 10:44 and 11:14-18. The first issue is that the Holy Spirit fell upon “ALL” of them and led them to repentance and faith (11:17, 18). Peter stated in Acts 10:47 that he baptized only those who “received the Holy Spirit as we did.” There is no mention of infants in the household; only those who were “listening to the message” and able to “speak with tongues and extol God” (Acts 10:44, 46). These believers received baptism as a sign of the Abrahamic promise of the Spirit. See Galatians 3:14.

 

Lydia’s Household (Acts 16:15)-No husband or infants/older children are mentioned in this story. It is “her house.” To say they are infants, is a big assumption.  Most likely her household consisted of women at the riverbank. It appears that Lydia and her household were baptized at the river before she took Paul back to her house. Therefore, it is inconclusive.

 

Philippian Jailer’s Household (Acts 16:32-34) With this passage, we see that the whole household heard the gospel. Now we come to the conclusion either (2) the jailer believed the gospel but the others rejected it, which led to the whole household rejoicing that the head of the household believed while they themselves rejected the same message or (3) they believed the same message through faith. Option (2) doesn’t make sense to rejoice for a message you have rejected. Even if there was proof of infants in this household, how can they be cognizant in rejoicing over one’s salvation in Christ and receive baptism for themselves? This is the basis for the whole household’s joy. I believe their rejoicing was the same as the jailer’s rejoicing because of the Spirit’s regeneration. They all heard the gospel, believed, were baptized, and rejoiced. Infants cannot hear the Word and respond in faith.

 

Stephanas’ Household (1 Corinthians 1:16) Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints” (1 Corinthians 16:15). This is evidence that a household conversion occurred, and not a household baptism. This cannot be about infants. How can an infant be set apart for service. It doesn’t say “some” in the text.

 

Crispus’ Household (Acts 18:8) Crispus and the whole household believed in the Lord. It should also be noted that in the same verse, the other Corinthians who were baptized had first believed. It appears very clear that the whole household first believed and then was baptized.

 

The Baptism of Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2) The Baptism of Moses (similar to John’s Baptism in Acts 19) is a commitment to Moses and God’s leadership. A few reasons why this passage cannot be considered a proof text for infant baptism: First, the water did not touch the Hebrews. Second, it focused on saving their physical lives. Not their spiritual lives (Exodus 14:22).Third, there is no criteria for the proper candidate of baptism. It pretty much justifies anyone and everyone. We even see their possessions and animals walking across the Red Sea. Should we baptize our possessions and pets too?! Lastly, before crossing the Red Sea, the Jews had to make a decision to follow God the same way when someone was baptized in Christ and decided to die to sin and the world.

The Good Conscience (1 Peter 3:20-21) This is similar to repent (good conscience) and be baptized. Repentance is given or revealed by God. It is the recognition of not doing the will of God. Infants can't recognize their sinfulness; therefore, they cannot repent and be baptized. Verse 18 and 21 are the audience. Not particularly about infants. I believe the verse clearly says that Baptism is done as a result of a good conscience.

Withholding Baptism (Acts 10:47) - The only commandment not to withhold baptism is from a believer’s baptism point of you. Infant baptism is not mentioned here.

The Lord’s Supper and Women (1 Corinthians 11:17-34)- According to Paedobaptists, to withhold infant baptism is to withhold women from the Lord’s supper. However, when you read 1 Corinthians 11, from the beginning, it mentions the head-covering issue to both men and women. Where does the passage stop talking about both men and women? It doesn’t say that. Speaking of consistency, why is the Unbelieving spouse withheld from baptism in 1 Corinthians 7:14?

The Holy Spirit- In the OC, the Holy Spirit operated in a collective manner/external holiness within a covenant mixed with believers and non-believers. The Holy Spirit under the OC temporarily dwelt in the presence of the leadership in order to help the nation of Israel prosper. For example, Moses and the 70 elders (Numbers 11:17-25), the lead craftsmen for the tabernacle (Exodus 31:1-6), Joshua (Deuteronomy 34:9), the Judges (Judges 3:10; 6:34), Saul (1 Samuel 10:6-10), David (1 Samuel 16:1-14; Psalm 51:11), and Solomon (1 Kings 3:7-12, 28; 4:29-34), all had the Holy Spirit with them. This same pattern is imitated with Jesus. He had the Holy Spirit in his midst and the Apostles were affected by proxy. This is why Judas Iscariot was able to cast out demons (Matthew 7:22; Luke 10:17-20) being a non-believer. In Romans 8:9, in the NC, the Holy Spirit dwells within the believer. If a person didn’t have the Holy Spirit they did not belong to Christ.

You cannot be in the NC and NOT be a son or daughter (Galatians 4:6), NOT an heir (Romans 8:17), NOT have the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 1:22, Ezekiel 36:27; 2 Timothy 1:14; Romans 8:11), NOT paid with the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28), have NO access to God’s truth and revelation (John 16:13), have NO better promises (Hebrews 8:6), NO inheritance (Psalm 16:5-6; Ephesians 1:11-14; Colossians 3:24; 1 Peter 1:14), NOT be wash/cleansed/ sanctified  (1 Corinthians 6:11; Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5,  Acts 22:16), have NO mediator (Hebrews 7:26, 9:15)  and be under the Law (Galatians 5:8). In accordance to Galatians 5:8, how can you have a mix of people in the NC and OC members within the mystical body of Christ? Because the NC emphasizes a spiritual circumcision does not automatically imply that there must be physical members in the New Covenant without such a heart. If infant baptism is correct, and we say that the NC has a mix of elect and non-elect member, we diminish Christ’s perfect work. We make it comparable to Moses, which it isn’t. How can some believers have the Holy Spirit and others not, yet be in covenant with Christ? How can Christ be your mediator in the NC and still end up in Hell? A mix NC of believers and non-believers is not consistent with scripture. They either all have the Holy Spirit or none of them have Him. There is no remnant in the NC. Water baptism signifies membership not in a visible body composed of believers and unbelievers, but in the invisible Church composed of believers only.

Simon The Magician and the 12 Men from Ephesus (Acts 8:1-25, 19:1-7): Simon the Magician was baptized under the Elder, Phillip. Simon, the Magician later turned out to be a false convert when Peter and John interacted with him. Phillip was not authorized, but baptized with the correct baptism. A similar event occurred with Apollos possibly baptizing (using John’s Baptism post-Christ’s death) with the 12 men in Ephesus. This resulted in them receiving the Holy Spirit later on. Apollos was not authorized and baptized with the wrong baptism. Overall, Phillip and Apollos did not have the authority to baptize anyone. Phillip most likely served as forerunner like John the Baptist for the Gentiles. However, only the Apostles and Paul were entrusted to baptize in the 1^st century (Matthew 28:19).

New Covenant and Cleanliness (Isaiah 52:1) - What makes the New Covenant new is that nothing dirty can enter into the mystical body Christ. Heaven and Earth were “married” in 70 AD. The merger process of Heaven and Earth started from that point on and will continue to the end of history. See Revelation 21:27, Ezekiel 44:7-9, Joel 3:17, Zechariah 12:8-9, 14:21

False Professors (Hebrews 6 and 10) - Hebrews 6 and 10 are about false professors. They are not in covenant with God. It is a call to examine the self. You have to read your premise into the passage to get that result. It's not there. Hebrews 6 is similar to the Parable of the Soils in Matthew 13. They only got a "taste," which doesn't mean they were saved (Hebrews 6:5). Compare this to "taste" in Hebrews 2:9. This will show this as a temporary action and why they were able to fall away. Jeremiah 31:32- says that the new covenant is a covenant with no covenant breakers. That's the difference. The law is in their hearts; a heart of flesh, not stone. Therefore, there is no such thing as non-believers in the New Covenant. The heart doesn't turn back into stone or the law gets unwritten in their hearts.

Tradition: Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr describes only believer's baptism without any mention of Infant Baptism. Irenaeus, known for recording infant baptism in tradition, is notorious for making errors. For example, he has claimed that Jesus was 40-50 years old in scripture.

 

Old Covenant Verses on Spiritual Circumcision

-Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you."

-Exodus 6:12 "But Moses said to the LORD, 'Behold, the people of Israel have not listened to me. How then shall Pharaoh listen to me, for I am of uncircumcised lips?'" (see also verse 30)

-Leviticus 26:40-42 (emphasis mine) "But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies—if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land."

-Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn."

-Deuteronomy 30:6 "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."

-Isaiah 52:1 "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion; put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for there shall no more come into you the uncircumcised and the unclean." Revelation 21:27, Ezekiel 44:7-9, Joel 3:17, Zechariah 12:8-9, 14:21

-Jeremiah 4:3-4 (emphasis mine) "For thus says the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem: 'Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds.'"

-Jeremiah 9:25-26 (emphasis mine) "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh—Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart."