When I read Col 2:11-12 am I to understand that baptism is the new circumcision?
If so, wouldn't there be good reason for followers of Christ to baptize their infant children just as Abraham's descendants circumcised their offspring? In other words, descendants of Abraham were circumcised before they were old enough to have faith. Some of those who were circumcised never had faith, and thus, were never part of the elect. They were merely identified (or set aside) as those who were part of the promises. Likewise, should children of followers be set aside through infant baptism in hope that they will one day have faith?
Baptism, the new circumcision?
Re: Baptism, the new circumcision?
I don't think so.
We don't ever read in scripture of the policy of baptizing infants.
I am not persuaded that Colossians 2 is saying baptism is the new circumcision, though the passage is often taken that way. In fact, this comparison would appear to provide the primary argument for the practice of infant baptism. Paul mentions baptism and circumcision together, but not in such a way as to make one of them the antitype of the other.
While many Old Testament rituals (of which circumcision is one) do have their antitype in some New Testament phenomenon (of which baptism is one), it is generally the case that something ceremonial or ritual in the Old corresponds to something spiritual in the New. If circumcision is indeed a type of baptism, then we would have the unique case of a ritual having its antitype in another ritual.
That there is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision is affirmed in both Testaments. That counterpart is circumcision of the heart—a spiritual thing. The ritual of water baptism, then, would seem redundant as an antitype of that which already has an identified spiritual antitype.
In my opinion, Paul is mentioning two outward rituals which both have a spiritual counterpart in the Christian experience. Water baptism and circumcision both, in their own ways, speak of cleansing and renewal, so they both have spiritual counterparts in spiritual regeneration.
We don't ever read in scripture of the policy of baptizing infants.
I am not persuaded that Colossians 2 is saying baptism is the new circumcision, though the passage is often taken that way. In fact, this comparison would appear to provide the primary argument for the practice of infant baptism. Paul mentions baptism and circumcision together, but not in such a way as to make one of them the antitype of the other.
While many Old Testament rituals (of which circumcision is one) do have their antitype in some New Testament phenomenon (of which baptism is one), it is generally the case that something ceremonial or ritual in the Old corresponds to something spiritual in the New. If circumcision is indeed a type of baptism, then we would have the unique case of a ritual having its antitype in another ritual.
That there is a spiritual counterpart to circumcision is affirmed in both Testaments. That counterpart is circumcision of the heart—a spiritual thing. The ritual of water baptism, then, would seem redundant as an antitype of that which already has an identified spiritual antitype.
In my opinion, Paul is mentioning two outward rituals which both have a spiritual counterpart in the Christian experience. Water baptism and circumcision both, in their own ways, speak of cleansing and renewal, so they both have spiritual counterparts in spiritual regeneration.
Re: Baptism, the new circumcision?
Steve or anyone who would like to reply,
Thank you for the reply. Since I posted my original question I found a couple of media files on your site under topical lectures specifically on the subject of baptism. I'm still digesting all of the information, but so far I'm thinking it was VERY helpful.
I guess the only follow up question I have right now is related to if a child, born to Christian parents, is baptized as an infant is it required that they be baptized again after they confirm their faith?
You mention in "Foundations of the Faith" that baptism always follows faith in the NT. I agree on the baptism always follows faith, but could the argument be made that those were "charter" members of Christianity and doesn't necessarily correspond to those who grow up under the authority of a Christian home?
You also gave the example of Acts 19:5 where the 12 were baptized with John's baptism. However, is this comparing apples and oranges since an infant's baptism is in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost (minus the faith of course) not John's baptism. Also with respect to infants, what does Acts 2:39 mean?
Any help is appreciated, and THANKS so much for the plethora of media on your site!
Thank you for the reply. Since I posted my original question I found a couple of media files on your site under topical lectures specifically on the subject of baptism. I'm still digesting all of the information, but so far I'm thinking it was VERY helpful.
I guess the only follow up question I have right now is related to if a child, born to Christian parents, is baptized as an infant is it required that they be baptized again after they confirm their faith?
You mention in "Foundations of the Faith" that baptism always follows faith in the NT. I agree on the baptism always follows faith, but could the argument be made that those were "charter" members of Christianity and doesn't necessarily correspond to those who grow up under the authority of a Christian home?
You also gave the example of Acts 19:5 where the 12 were baptized with John's baptism. However, is this comparing apples and oranges since an infant's baptism is in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost (minus the faith of course) not John's baptism. Also with respect to infants, what does Acts 2:39 mean?
Any help is appreciated, and THANKS so much for the plethora of media on your site!
Re: Baptism, the new circumcision?
I am glad you have found the media resources to be helpful. It is also good that you are thinking through these matters, as they seem important.
I think "the promise" (in Acts 2:39) that is to "your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call," is the promise of the previous verse, namely, that these others, too, if they repent and be baptized, will also receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, as is promised to the original hearers. I also understand Acts 16:31 this way, namely, that, if the jailor will believe in Christ, he will be saved—and the same applies to his household, namely, if they will believe in Christ, they too will be saved.
You are right that Acts 2:28 was addressed to charter members of the church, but their children had to believe in the same way that they did in order to be included in baptism (Acts 16:32-34).
The argument for baptizing children born and reared in Christian homes would have more weight if the children of Christians were born into the world as Christians (as Jews were born into the world as Jews, and were, therefore, to be circumcised at birth). I believe that baptism, in scripture, is for Christians. Infants are not Christians, regardless what the faith of their parents may be. If you baptize an adult Buddhist, without his consent, this would hardly count as a Christian rite. If the man should later come to Christ, I believe he should then be baptized as a believer. The same would seem to apply to those baptized against their wills as unbelieving infants.
The comparison of the 12 men in Acts 19 with those today who were baptized in infancy was that both represent instances of people getting wet before they believed. Both called their experience "baptism," but what they experienced was sub-Christian, and was not, therefore, baptism as described in scripture.
I think "the promise" (in Acts 2:39) that is to "your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call," is the promise of the previous verse, namely, that these others, too, if they repent and be baptized, will also receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, as is promised to the original hearers. I also understand Acts 16:31 this way, namely, that, if the jailor will believe in Christ, he will be saved—and the same applies to his household, namely, if they will believe in Christ, they too will be saved.
You are right that Acts 2:28 was addressed to charter members of the church, but their children had to believe in the same way that they did in order to be included in baptism (Acts 16:32-34).
The argument for baptizing children born and reared in Christian homes would have more weight if the children of Christians were born into the world as Christians (as Jews were born into the world as Jews, and were, therefore, to be circumcised at birth). I believe that baptism, in scripture, is for Christians. Infants are not Christians, regardless what the faith of their parents may be. If you baptize an adult Buddhist, without his consent, this would hardly count as a Christian rite. If the man should later come to Christ, I believe he should then be baptized as a believer. The same would seem to apply to those baptized against their wills as unbelieving infants.
The comparison of the 12 men in Acts 19 with those today who were baptized in infancy was that both represent instances of people getting wet before they believed. Both called their experience "baptism," but what they experienced was sub-Christian, and was not, therefore, baptism as described in scripture.
Re: Baptism, the new circumcision?
Thank you very much.
Now, the task of presenting this to my wife is before me.
Now, the task of presenting this to my wife is before me.