# Paedo Interpretation of Col 2:11-12



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

These verses appear to give the very definition of baptism as a symbol and declaration of past regeneration. They directly relate circumcision to baptism saying, effectively, that baptism is the new circumcision by Christ....and that through it those who have been baptised have been buried with Christ and raised with Him through the power of God.

How do paedo's interpret this text?? Can an unregenerate, who has supposedly been brought into the new covenant through baptism, declare that he has been buried with Christ and has been raised with Him through the power of God...even as he is unregenerate??

I'm interested in hearing their exegesis of this text...i can think of no possible way to interpret this text as not espousing baptism of only those who profess faith. Thoughts?

forgive me if this has been discussed before, i'm looking for a discussion based solely on this text.

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 13, 2004)

Calvin writes:
11. In whom ye also are circumcised. From this it appears, that he has a controversy with the false apostles, who mixed the law with the gospel, and by that means made Christ have, as it were, two faces. He specifies, however, one instance by way of example. He proves that the circumcision of Moses is not merely unnecessary, but is opposed to Christ, because it destroys the spiritual circumcision of Christ. For circumcision was given to the Fathers that it might be the figure of a thing that was absent: those, therefore, who retain that figure after Christ's advent, deny the accomplishment of what it prefigures. Let us, therefore, bear in mind that outward circumcision is here compared with spiritual, just as a figure with the reality. The figure is of a thing that is absent: hence it puts away the presence of the reality. What Paul contends for is this -- that, inasmuch as what was shadowed forth by a circumcision made with hands, has been completed in Christ, there is now no fruit or advantage from it. 15 Hence he says, that the circumcision which is made in the heart is the circumcision of Christ, and that, on this account, that which is outward is not now required, because, where the reality exists, that shadowy emblem vanishes, 16 inasmuch as it has no place except in the absence of the reality.

By the putting off of the body. He employs the term body, by an elegant metaphor, to denote a mass, made up of all vices. For as we are encompassed by our bodies, so we are surrounded on all sides by an accumulation of vices. And as the body is composed of various members, each of which has its own actings and offices, so from that accumulation of corruption all sins take their rise as members of the entire body. There is a similar manner of expression in Romans 6:13.

He takes the term flesh, as he is wont, to denote corrupt nature. The body of the sins of the flesh, therefore, is the old man with his deeds; only, there is a difference in the manner of expression, for here he expresses more properly the mass of vices which proceed from corrupt nature. He says that we obtain this 17through Christ, so that unquestionably an entire regeneration is his benefit. It is he that circumcises the foreskin of our heart, or, in other words, mortifies all the lusts of the flesh, not with the hand, but by his Spirit. Hence there is in him the reality of the figure.

12. Buried with him, in baptism. He explains still more clearly the manner of spiritual circumcision -- because, being buried with Christ, we are partakers of his death. He expressly declares that we obtain this by means of baptism, that it may be the more clearly apparent that there is no advantage from circumcision under the reign of Christ. For some one might otherwise object: &quot;Why do you abolish circumcision on this pretext -- that its accomplishment is in Christ? Was not Abraham, also, circumcised spiritually, and yet this did not hinder the adding of the sign to the reality? Outward circumcision, therefore, is not superfluous, although that which is inward is conferred by Christ.&quot; Paul anticipates an objection of this kind, by making mention of baptism. Christ, says he, accomplishes in us spiritual circumcision, not through means of that ancient sign, which was in force under Moses, but by baptism. Baptism, therefore, is a sign of the thing that is presented to us, which while absent was prefigured by circumcision. The argument is taken from the, economy 18 which God has appointed; for those who retain circumcision contrive a mode of dispensation different from that which God has appointed.

When he says that we are buried with Christ, this means more than that we are crucified with him; for burial expresses a continued process of mortification. When he says, that this is done through means of baptism, as he says also in Romans 6:4, he speaks in his usual manner, ascribing efficacy to the sacrament, that it may not fruitlessly signify what does not exist. 19 By baptism, therefore, we are buried with Christ, because Christ does at the same time accomplish efficaciously that mortification, which he there represents, that the reality may be conjoined with the sign.

In which also ye are risen. He magnifies the grace which we obtain in Christ, as being greatly superior to circumcision. &quot;We are not only,&quot; says he, &quot;ingrafted into Christ's death, but we also rise to newness of life:&quot; hence the more injury is done to Christ by those who endeavor to bring us back to circumcision. He adds, by faith, for unquestionably it is by it that we receive what is presented to us in baptism. But what faith? That of his efficacy or operation, by which he means, that faith is founded upon the power of God. As, however, faith does not wander in a confused and undefined contemplation, as they speak, of divine power, he intimates what efficacy it ought to have in view -- that by which God raised Christ from the dead. He takes this, however, for granted, that, inasmuch as it is impossible that believers should be severed from their head, the same power of God, which shewed itself in Christ, is diffused among them all in common.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:e45b0df3fc]When he says that we are buried with Christ, this means more than that we are crucified with him; for burial expresses a continued process of mortification. When he says, that this is done through means of baptism, as he says also in Romans 6:4, he speaks in his usual manner, ascribing efficacy to the sacrament, [b:e45b0df3fc]that it may not fruitlessly signify what does not exist[/b:e45b0df3fc]. 19 By baptism, therefore, we are buried with Christ, because Christ does at the same time accomplish efficaciously that mortification, which he there represents, that the reality may be conjoined with the sign.[/quote:e45b0df3fc]

[quote:e45b0df3fc]In which also ye are risen. He magnifies the grace which we obtain in Christ, as being greatly superior to circumcision. &quot;We are not only,&quot; says he, &quot;ingrafted into Christ's death, [b:e45b0df3fc]but we also rise to newness of life[/b:e45b0df3fc]:&quot; hence the more injury is done to Christ by those who endeavor to bring us back to circumcision. He adds, by faith, [i:e45b0df3fc][b:e45b0df3fc]for unquestionably it is by faith that we receive what is presented to us in baptism[/i:e45b0df3fc][/b:e45b0df3fc]. But what faith? That of his efficacy or operation, by which he means, that faith is founded upon the power of God. [/quote:e45b0df3fc]

sounds like a good case for baptism of only professing believers to me 
:biggrin:

the question remains: If we are buried in baptism with Christ, and raised with Him through the power of God - how can you justify giving this sign to an individual who does not even profess the regeneration this signifies???

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 13, 2004)

Jeremy,
Think about this. Calvin was a paedobaptist, as well as all the writers of the WCF. Johnathan Edwards was paedo. Whats my point? Could you possibly believe that these great Christian minds missed something so so obvious in this text?

Baptism is the outward expression to what happens internally. From the perspective of the covenant theologian, based upon the promise of God (to our children), the application of baptism verifies the inward in the obedience and faith of the parent.


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:8507437c90][i:8507437c90]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8507437c90]
[quote:8507437c90]
sounds like a good case for baptism of only professing believers to me 
[/quote:8507437c90]

sounds like a good case for circumcision of only professing believers as well, we will call it &quot;credo circumcists.&quot; Why, Rom. 4 tells us that circ. represents a sign of faith!

So, if you lived 4 thousand years agao would you tell Abraham that he needs to wait until Issac &quot;professed&quot; faith?

_apul [/quote:8507437c90]

Does circumcision merely represent that or does it represent more? Has it not typicial aspects as well? 

Hence, I conclude Paul that you would be right if circumcison only sinfied regeneration but circumcison does not mere signify that it also has shadowy aspects like it promises possion of land which nobody baptized to can claim today.


We may have to conclude that there is an analogy between circumcison and baptism but to say that there is identity between them because of Roman 4 is an impossibel arguement to make not even Calvin tried that he and the rest of the reformers admited that only Col 2:11-12 clearly taught the identity


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

Paul, There is a major discrepancy i see in your connection between my position on baptism and what you say might be my logically equivalent position on circumcision.

The practice of circumcision was never once intended to signify regeneration while here we have that being directly stated by Paul in relation to baptism. 

In Romans 4 the practice of circumcision was a sign and seal of Abraham's justifying faith - and was to be given to national Israel (without regard to their faith at the time) as a sign that they needed to seek faith in the Lord in the same way Abraham did. The practice of circumcision was a GENERAL sign of the past regeneration of one man, while it was given as a sign to an entire nation full of many unregenerates.

Yet, in Col. 2, we have Paul saying that the baptism is prescribed to the entire Church to signify past personal and collective regeneration and faith. Circumcision had no such purpose.

Scott wrote: [quote:4276042748]Jeremy, 
Think about this. Calvin was a paedobaptist, as well as all the writers of the WCF. Johnathan Edwards was paedo. Whats my point? Could you possibly believe that these great Christian minds missed something so so obvious in this text? [/quote:4276042748]

Yes. 

Baptism is here presented to the church as a sign of something that every single recipient of this letter professes. Circumcision was given as a sign of what every single member in the old covenant needed (faith like Abraham's). 

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

Paul, that is precisely my point!

Physical circumcision was given as a sign to tell them of their grave need for circumcision of the heart! He says, now that you have been circumcised physically, circumcise the foreskin of your heart as Abraham did.

All Israel needed to circumcise the foreskin of their heart - with faith. 

I say that Col. 2:11-12 goes straight to the heart and gives the very definition of baptism. It signifies the death of a believer in his sin, and being raised through faith in the power of God.

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

Then i suppose i missed your point. Forgive me. 

I say circumcision was indeed designed to represent regeneration - the need for it. That is why God tells them to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts, not just their bodies. Baptism symbolizes regeneration as well....the presence of it.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

You are right, when i said that, i thought it was implied that i meant - &quot;circumcision was never intended to signify PAST regeneration of that individual, while baptism is&quot;

baptism is given to an individual based on what he claims to have happened in his life (regeneration) and sufficient evidence given for that claim to be believed. I am not espousing baptismal regeneration, or that everyone who is baptized physically is saved, or any other such nonsense.

I say it is a requirement for baptism that the person claim to have been regenerated and claim to possess faith. 

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:cfc0f51c3e]Well, your saying so is a far way from proving it to be so[/quote:cfc0f51c3e].

first, i was only clarifying my position, not giving an &quot;it's just so because i say so&quot; proof and i think you knew that. But it honestly appears you just wanted to undermine my position through sarcasm. This is the way i took that last comment, if this is not the case, then i am sorry, but I was offended by it.

and your quote from deuteronomy is great - God commands their hearts to be circumcised in addition to their physical circumcision - and He has promised to, and did, circumcise their hearts.

I have no argument against infant circumcision in the OT. The sign of circumcision can be given to an infant and have its intended purpose - to let them know of their grave need for heart circumcision when they are older.

Infant baptism cannot be done in this same manner, if indeed my first postulate is correct (that it always signifies past regeneration). It will not fulfill its intended purpose then, for the infant cannot declare that he is regenerate or provide any evidence of that regeneration. So this is the center of my question about this text: Is it the very definition of baptism to signify and declare the claimed past regeneration of an individual? If so, paedobaptism is out the window. If not, then my position falls as well.


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:0a9927972c] First, I assume that you are prepared to PROVE that this is a requiremnet for ALL ages? Yes this is true for adults, we are concerned with infants here. Furthermore, adults have ALWAYS had to profess. Show me where adults were tied down and forced to be circumcised. Especially when we read of the sojourners. They &quot;professed&quot; that they wanted to live for Jehovah, and were circumcised. So, again, what can you bring against infant baptism that could not be brought against infant circumcision? [/quote:0a9927972c]

Actually, when the Kings of Israel invaded Gentiles they circumcised the inhibites to make them part of the Jewish nation- these gentiles were clearly forced to be circumcised- some may object that they were not suppose to that- but why not what verse says that you cannot force someone to be circumicsed all I see is that God commands everyone who is male and under the household to be receive that rite so these Kings were simply obeying Gods command.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

Could you give more reasons as to why you think my first postulate is incorrect.

How, according to this text, is baptism to have any significance to a non-believer? Is some non-believer in the new covenant actually buried with Christ in his baptism and raised with Him through the power of God? Does this text not give a prescriptive definition of the nature and importance of baptism in the Church? I'd like to hear your exegesis of this text with these specific questions in mind.

and i believe you may be misinterpreting my position again (partially because i may be unclear and partially because straw-men are easy knock-downs). when i say &quot;baptism always signifies past regeneration&quot; I mean &quot;the sole purpose and role of baptism in the church is to declare the past regeneration of a professing believer&quot;

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:224ba67f67][i:224ba67f67]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:224ba67f67]
[quote:224ba67f67][i:224ba67f67]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:224ba67f67]
[quote:224ba67f67] First, I assume that you are prepared to PROVE that this is a requiremnet for ALL ages? Yes this is true for adults, we are concerned with infants here. Furthermore, adults have ALWAYS had to profess. Show me where adults were tied down and forced to be circumcised. Especially when we read of the sojourners. They &quot;professed&quot; that they wanted to live for Jehovah, and were circumcised. So, again, what can you bring against infant baptism that could not be brought against infant circumcision? [/quote:224ba67f67]

Actually, when the Kings of Israel invaded Gentiles they circumcised the inhibites to make them part of the Jewish nation- these gentiles were clearly forced to be circumcised- some may object that they were not suppose to that- but why not what verse says that you cannot force someone to be circumicsed all I see is that God commands everyone who is male and under the household to be receive that rite so these Kings were simply obeying Gods command.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:224ba67f67]

they were not supposed to. circ was sign between Me and you. If someone chose not to be circumcised they were cut of from Israel. [/quote:224ba67f67]

hmmm so if all a slave had to do was say they did not want to be circumcised and they could leave? and besides I think the Kings if they were here would ask you for a verse that says we have to let these people free I mean they just invaded and conquered the land and once they became part of the household they have to be circumcicsed- right? 

Remember if Abraham did not circumise his household he would have been cut off and so if the Kings did not circumcise these people they would have been cut off- so all the more reason to force these people to be circumcized.



[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

haha, fine. i will clarify further....&quot;the sole purpose of water baptism is to declare the past regeneration of a professing believer&quot;

i think this text provides an excellent starting point for my position, which is why i brought it up - to see the paedo understanding of it.

Here, Paul is saying to the Church that in their baptism THEY WERE buried with Christ in His death and THEY WERE raised with Him through the power of God. I see this as taking a dead sinner and making Him alive in Christ in faith. Baptism is an outward picture of this professed change. Additionally, I see this as giving a definition of baptism and its purpose in the Church. Definition: remembering your regeneration. Purpose: to encourage believers in obedience to Christ that they may continue in the faith they have been brought to. Paul says this very thing later, when as he encourages them to obedience, he says, in effect, &quot;remember your baptism&quot; as a motivation for it.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

again, i think you are totally misunderstanding my argument.

i do not claim that all infants were regenerated before their baptism, as your last paragraph states. I say infant baptism is wrong because water baptism is in the church to declare the resurrection of professing believers from the dead! I say that if one cannot declare his own belief and show fruits of said belief - then he should not be baptized.

since infants cannot declare their faith or show any visible fruits, they should not be baptized, because we have no reason to believe that they have already been buried in their sins and raised to spiritual life by the power of God. that is my position.

i agree that some infants are regenerate and possess faith - but since there is no fruit of that regeneration visible to the church - they should not be baptized....there is absolutely no evidence of their faith - so how can i honestly baptise them representing their death in sin and life in Christ?

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:831fc8fc3d][i:831fc8fc3d]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:831fc8fc3d]
[quote:831fc8fc3d]
hmmm so if all a slave had to do was say they did not want to be circumcised and they could leave? 
[/quote:831fc8fc3d]

well, you can make it sound like it would have been a picnic if you want to.

and, I think the slave's liked being slaves. I mean they did not get mistreated (or at least there were laws against it.)

Also, can you pst the verse about the kings and forcing circumcision. I can find it? Thanls.

-Paul [/quote:831fc8fc3d]

Well, I think it would have caused a panic in Israel if all the slaves could leave just be asking not to be circumcised- after all it is a rare thing indeed when somebody decides to a slave out of their own free will.


The story of the Kings circumcising the gentiles took place during intertestament times but the point is that it happened and there was they were not prohibited form doing so by the teachers of the law with just reason- all whom were part of Israel were to be circumcised and if you did not want the person to leave (for example a slave or newly conquered people you circumcised them)

But if you want a more Bible command see this verse:

Ex 12:44 "but every man's slave purchased with money, after you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it".

Note the slaves were "circumcised" by their master, is it really a natural reading of the text so say that the master asked his salves to be circumcised so that he could participate in the celebration? The hired servants were not to partake the feast because the master could not force them to be circumcised but the master could force his servants to be circumcised and that brought up the whole issue if slaves could be allowed to participate in the celebration even though their masters had forced them to be circumcised and Moses' reply- yes they could.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

I already addressed your objection in a previous post. 

I discussed why circumcision could accomplish it's full purpose in an infant while it baptism could not. Please go back and read this.

Circumcision is a sign that circumcision of the heart (regeneration and faith) is needed. It can accomplish this in an infant. Baptism is a sign of the regeneration and faith that has already occured - in infants we cannot have reasonable certainty that they are regenerate and they do not profess faith - so we cannot baptise them commemorating that faith.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 14, 2004)

*Back to the text*

[quote:208528088d][i:208528088d]Originally posted by smhbbag[/i:208528088d]
Circumcision is a sign that circumcision of the heart (regeneration and faith) is needed. It can accomplish this in an infant. Baptism is a sign of the regeneration and faith that has already occured - in infants we cannot have reasonable certainty that they are regenerate and they do not profess faith - so we cannot baptise them commemorating that faith.[/quote:208528088d]
Let's get back to the text here. Your distinction here I believe is unwarranted. 
[quote:208528088d] Col. 2
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[3] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 
12buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 
13And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 
14having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. [/quote:208528088d]
True circumcision is that of the heart, done by Christ, or regeneration. All saints must have this circumcision, both OT and NT saints. And this circumcision mentioned is the same thing as the baptism mentoined, Spirit baptism. Paul here, is not addressing physical baptism or circumcision in this passage, but rather the reality that these signs point too. So, this passage is not a proof text to your assertion, rather an encouragment to holy and free living based on this work of Christ, not on the traditions of men.


----------



## Roldan (Mar 14, 2004)

[quote:116918676f][i:116918676f]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:116918676f]
[quote:116918676f][i:116918676f]Originally posted by smhbbag[/i:116918676f]
Circumcision is a sign that circumcision of the heart (regeneration and faith) is needed. It can accomplish this in an infant. Baptism is a sign of the regeneration and faith that has already occured - in infants we cannot have reasonable certainty that they are regenerate and they do not profess faith - so we cannot baptise them commemorating that faith.[/quote:116918676f]
Let's get back to the text here. Your distinction here I believe is unwarranted. 
[quote:116918676f] Col. 2
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[3] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 
12buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 
13And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 
14having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. [/quote:116918676f]
True circumcision is that of the heart, done by Christ, or regeneration. All saints must have this circumcision, both OT and NT saints. And this circumcision mentioned is the same thing as the baptism mentoined, Spirit baptism. Paul here, is not addressing physical baptism or circumcision in this passage, but rather the reality that these signs point too. So, this passage is not a proof text to your assertion, rather an encouragment to holy and free living based on this work of Christ, not on the traditions of men. [/quote:116918676f]

Second that!


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 20, 2004)

[quote:e6aa1b56ad][i:e6aa1b56ad]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:e6aa1b56ad]
[quote:e6aa1b56ad][i:e6aa1b56ad]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:e6aa1b56ad]
[quote:e6aa1b56ad][i:e6aa1b56ad]Originally posted by smhbbag[/i:e6aa1b56ad]
Circumcision is a sign that circumcision of the heart (regeneration and faith) is needed. It can accomplish this in an infant. Baptism is a sign of the regeneration and faith that has already occured - in infants we cannot have reasonable certainty that they are regenerate and they do not profess faith - so we cannot baptise them commemorating that faith.[/quote:e6aa1b56ad]
Let's get back to the text here. Your distinction here I believe is unwarranted. 
[quote:e6aa1b56ad] Col. 2
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[3] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 
12buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 
13And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 
14having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. [/quote:e6aa1b56ad]
True circumcision is that of the heart, done by Christ, or regeneration. All saints must have this circumcision, both OT and NT saints. And this circumcision mentioned is the same thing as the baptism mentoined, Spirit baptism. Paul here, is not addressing physical baptism or circumcision in this passage, but rather the reality that these signs point too. So, this passage is not a proof text to your assertion, rather an encouragment to holy and free living based on this work of Christ, not on the traditions of men. [/quote:e6aa1b56ad]

Second that! [/quote:e6aa1b56ad]

Actually if it is taught that this refers to &quot;spiritual baptism and circumcison&quot; not the physical ones then we have no reason to connect the physical circumcision with the physical baptism, for we must now say that their respective meanings are identical but that in the physical world there is analogy but not identity. 

Now it has been established that physical baptism being identical to physical circumcision is not tuaght in these verses. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 20, 2004)

[quote:6dca24bf79][i:6dca24bf79]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:6dca24bf79]
[quote:6dca24bf79][i:6dca24bf79]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:6dca24bf79]
[quote:6dca24bf79][i:6dca24bf79]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:6dca24bf79]
[quote:6dca24bf79][i:6dca24bf79]Originally posted by smhbbag[/i:6dca24bf79]
Circumcision is a sign that circumcision of the heart (regeneration and faith) is needed. It can accomplish this in an infant. Baptism is a sign of the regeneration and faith that has already occured - in infants we cannot have reasonable certainty that they are regenerate and they do not profess faith - so we cannot baptise them commemorating that faith.[/quote:6dca24bf79]
Let's get back to the text here. Your distinction here I believe is unwarranted. 
[quote:6dca24bf79] Col. 2
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[3] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 
12buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 
13And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 
14having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. [/quote:6dca24bf79]
True circumcision is that of the heart, done by Christ, or regeneration. All saints must have this circumcision, both OT and NT saints. And this circumcision mentioned is the same thing as the baptism mentoined, Spirit baptism. Paul here, is not addressing physical baptism or circumcision in this passage, but rather the reality that these signs point too. So, this passage is not a proof text to your assertion, rather an encouragment to holy and free living based on this work of Christ, not on the traditions of men. [/quote:6dca24bf79]

Second that! [/quote:6dca24bf79]

Actually if it is taught that this refers to &quot;spiritual baptism and circumcison&quot; not the physical ones then we have no reason to connect the physical circumcision with the physical baptism, for we must now say that their respective meanings are identical but that in the physical world there is analogy but not identity. 
Now it has been established that physical baptism being identical to physical circumcision is not tuaght in these verses.
[/quote:6dca24bf79]
Dont follow you here. If you are refering to there outward ceremonial form, then yes, there is know similarity. But, they both symbolize the same thing and they both serve as public comfirmation of entrance into the covenant. The fact that Paul uses these terms synonymously indicates that the their physical counterparts are synonomous as well. But you would also have to deduce this from other Scriptures, not just the passage above.


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 20, 2004)

[quote:ebde33c70e][i:ebde33c70e]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:ebde33c70e]
[
Dont follow you here. If you are refering to there outward ceremonial form, then yes, there is know similarity. [/quote:ebde33c70e]

We are in agreement here.

[quote:ebde33c70e] But, they both symbolize the same thing and they both serve as public comfirmation of entrance into the covenant. The fact that Paul uses these terms synonymously indicates that the their physical counterparts are synonomous as well. [/quote:ebde33c70e]

This does not follow from just the text, I mean according to your interpration the identity between these two rite is found in the meaning not in how they are administered so we can see that to draw conclusion about who gets the signs from a text like this on your interpration of the text is unwarranted because it goes beyound the evidence.

[quote:ebde33c70e] But you would also have to deduce this from other Scriptures, not just the passage above. [/quote:ebde33c70e]

You are logicially right, unfortunatly, however, I think that nowhere in Scripture does the Bible ever connect physical circumcision with physical baptism unless you know of a verse that teaches that which I do not yet know.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 20, 2004)

[quote:7d93334841][i:7d93334841]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:7d93334841]
[quote:7d93334841][i:7d93334841]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:7d93334841]
[
Dont follow you here. If you are refering to there outward ceremonial form, then yes, there is know similarity. [/quote:7d93334841]

We are in agreement here.

[quote:7d93334841] But, they both symbolize the same thing and they both serve as public comfirmation of entrance into the covenant. The fact that Paul uses these terms synonymously indicates that the their physical counterparts are synonomous as well. [/quote:7d93334841]

This does not follow from just the text, I mean according to your interpration the identity between these two rite is found in the meaning not in how they are administered so we can see that to draw conclusion about who gets the signs from a text like this on your interpration of the text is unwarranted because it goes beyound the evidence.
[/quote:7d93334841]
Agreed. It's just one more link in the chain for the peado's view on baptism/ circumcision and how it applies to us and our children. 
[quote:7d93334841]
[quote:7d93334841] But you would also have to deduce this from other Scriptures, not just the passage above. [/quote:7d93334841]

You are logicially right, unfortunatly, however, I think that nowhere in Scripture does the Bible ever connect physical circumcision with physical baptism unless you know of a verse that teaches that which I do not yet know.
[/quote:7d93334841]
The other baptism threads go into depth on this so I won't do it here. I'll just summarize, circumcision publically confirmed someone in the covenant in the OT. Baptism does this in the NT. I think we are both agreed here. Our disagreement I believe would fall under the nature of covenant inclusion for children of believers in the NT. And that is where I'll leave it because then we are getting beyond the text we're discussing.

[Edited on 3-20-2004 by puritansailor]


----------

