# A short paper from Piper on Colossians 2:8-15



## Peters (Apr 12, 2006)

Apologies if this particular paper has been posted before. I'm interested to see paedobaptists interact with Piper's arguments.

Thanks in advance.

*May 11, 1997

Colossians 2:8-15*

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

*Does Christian Baptism Parallel Old Testament Circumcision?*

This is the second in a four-part series on Christian baptism. Let me tell you a bit about how I am choosing the texts to preach from. I discovered in my seminary and graduate school days that my old ways of defending believer's baptism were not compelling. I used to spend time pointing out that all the baptisms described in the New Testament are baptisms of believers and that all the commands to be baptized are given to believers. I used to point out that infant baptism is simply not mentioned in the Bible and that it is questionable to build a crucial church practice on a theological inference, without explicit Biblical teaching when all the examples go in the opposite direction.

But I discovered that those who baptize infants ("paedobaptists") were not swayed by these observations, because they pointed out that, of course, we only see believer's baptism in the New Testament since we are dealing in all these settings with first generation evangelism, not with second generation child-rearing. Everybody agrees that the only adults that should be baptized are believing adults. The issue is, what happens when these baptized Christian adults have children?

So they pointed out that all my statistics are irrelevant and the question boils down to one of theological inference. Specifically, does Christian baptism parallel Old Testament circumcision as the sign of those who join the covenant people of God, and if so, should not the children of Christians receive baptism the way the sons of Israel received circumcision?

For example, the Heidelberg Catechism was written in 1562 as an expression of the Reformed faith. It is said by some to have the intimacy of Martin Luther and the charity of Philip Melanchthon and the fire of John Calvin : three great Reformers in the 16th century. At the end of the section on baptism, question #74 asks, "Are infants also to be baptized?" The answer goes like this:

Yes; for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are through the blood of Christ promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.

Now this has been the standard understanding of baptism among Presbyterians and Congregationalists and Methodists and many others for hundreds of years. Lutherans and Catholics defend the practice of infant baptism differently, putting more emphasis than these other churches have on the actual regenerating effect of the act.

*Are New Truths Revealed in the New Covenant?*

So one of the most crucial questions you must face as you ponder the New Testament command to be baptized is whether you think this parallel with circumcision settles the matter. That is, is it the will of God revealed in the New Testament that Baptism and circumcision correspond so closely that what circumcision signified, baptism signifies? Or are there new truths about the creation and nature of the people of God in the New Covenant that point toward a discontinuity as well as continuity between circumcision and baptism?

Well, in my struggles with this issue over the years, especially the years in graduate school when I was studying mainly with paedobaptists, three or four texts, more than any others, kept me from embracing the argument from circumcision. One is Colossians 2:11-12. Another is 1 Peter 3:21. Another is Romans 9:8. And another is Galatians 3:26-27. I will take the Colossians text today and build on the others in the weeks to come.

But first let's make sure we don't miss the forest for the trees. This text (Colossians 2:10-15) is a virtual rain forest of strong gospel timber. Get a bird's eye view of it with me. It's all about what God has done for us (in history, objectively through Christ), and what he has done in us so that we will indeed inherit what he purchased

*What God Has Done For Us*

Take first the objective, historical, external work of God in verses 14-15. In essence, what these two verses tell us is that our two greatest enemies were defeated in the death of Christ. Nothing more powerful than the death of Christ has ever happened.

The first enemy defeated was the "certificate of debt" that was filed against us in the courtroom of heaven. In other words, because of our sin and rebellion, the laws of God had become a deadly witness against us and we were in such deep debt to God that there was no way out. Verse 14 says that Christ canceled that whole debt by paying it all on the cross. "[He] canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." So the great enemy of our sin and guilt and debt, Christ defeated. That happened in history, objectively, outside us.

The second enemy defeated was the host of evil spiritual beings : the devil and his forces. Verse 15: "When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him." It's true that we must still "wrestle with principalities and powers" (Ephesians 6:12), but if we wrestle in the power of Christ and his shed blood, they are as good as defeated, because the blow he struck was lethal. Revelation 12:11 says that believers "overcame [the devil] because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even to death." We must fight. But the battle belongs to the Lord and the decisive blow has been struck at Calvary. Satan cannot destroy us.

*What God Has Done in Us*

Now besides these two great objective, external, historical triumphs over our worst enemies (the debt of sin before God and the devil's hosts on earth), this forest also describes what God does in us : not just for us and outside of us but in us so that we benefit from what was done outside of us.

He uses two pictures: one is circumcision and the other is resurrection. Verse 13 focuses mainly on our resurrection:

When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.

So you see what he does in us: we were spiritually dead, and he made us alive. This is the miracle of the new birth. You were saved because God spoke a life-giving, resurrecting word into your heart (2 Corinthians 4:6).

The other picture of what God does in us is the picture of circumcision. Verse 11:

In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.

Now this is harder to understand because the ideas are more foreign to us. Paul compares the saving work of God in us with the practice of circumcision. He says it's like that, only this is a circumcision made "without hands" : it's a spiritual thing he is talking about, not a physical one. And he says that what is being cut away is not the male foreskin, but the "body of the flesh." In Paul's language that's probably a reference to sin-dominated, ego-dominated use of the body. What is cut away in this spiritual circumcision "without hands" is the old unbelieving, blind, rebellious self and its use of the body for sin. And that way, Paul is saying, God makes a person his very own.

So we have seen two pictures of what God does for us, objectively, historically, outside ourselves to save us: he defeats the enemy of sin and the enemy of Satan. And we have seen two pictures of what God does in us to make us part of that salvation: he raises us from the dead spiritually and he circumcises our hearts and strips away the old rebellious self and makes us new.

*Baptism and Circumcision*

Now, in that forest of glorious good news, here's the question about the tree of baptism: is water baptism the Christian counterpart to Old Testament circumcision? Is the continuity such that, just as circumcision was given to the children of God's covenant people then, baptism should now be given to the children of God's covenant people?

The key verses are verses 11-12. Notice the linking of the two ideas of circumcision and baptism:

. . .in Him [Christ] you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

It's clear there's a link here between baptism and circumcision. But it isn't, I think, what many infant baptizers think it is. Notice what sort of circumcision is spoken of in verse 11: it is precisely a circumcision "without hands." That means Paul is talking about a spiritual counterpart of the Old Testament physical ritual. Then baptism is linked in verse 12 to that spiritual counterpart to the Old Testament circumcision. This is extremely important. Try to get it.

What is the New Testament counterpart or parallel to the Old Testament rite of circumcision? Answer: it is not the New Testament rite of baptism; it is the New Testament spiritual event of the circumcision of Christ cutting away "the [old sinful] body of the flesh." then, baptism is brought in as the external expression of that spiritual reality. That is precisely what the link between verses 11 and 12 says. Christ does a circumcision without hands : that is the New Testament, spiritual fulfillment of Old Testament circumcision. Then verse 12 draws the parallel between that spiritual fulfillment and the external rite of baptism.

Notice what verse 11 stresses about the new work of Christ in circumcising: it is a circumcision "without hands." But water baptism is emphatically a ritual done "with hands." If we simply say that this New Testament ordinance of baptism done with hands corresponds to the Old Testament ritual of circumcision done with hands, then we miss the most important truth: something new is happening in the creation of people of God called the church of Christ. They are being created by a "circumcision without hands" by God. They are being raised from the dead by God. And baptism is a sign of that, not a repetition of the Old Testament sign. There is a new sign of the covenant because the covenant people are being constituted in a new way : by spiritual birth, not physical birth.

*"Through Faith"*

And one of the clearest evidences for this is the little phrase "through faith" in verse 12. Watch this carefully. This is what held me back from paedobaptism through years of struggle, until I saw more and more reasons not to join up. Verse 12 links the New Testament spiritual circumcision "without hands" in verse 11 with baptism, and then links baptism with faith:

Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

If baptism were merely a parallel of the Old Testament rite of circumcision it would not have to happen "through faith" since infants did not take on circumcision "through faith." The reason the New Testament ordinance of baptism must be "through faith" is that it represents not the Old Testament external ritual, but the New Testament, internal, spiritual experience of circumcision "without hands."

Those two words : "through faith" : in verse 12 are the decisive, defining explanation of how we were buried with Christ in baptism and how we were raised with him in baptism: it was "through faith." And this is not something infants experience. Faith is a conscious experience of the heart yielding to the work of God. Infants are not capable of this, and therefore infants are not fit subjects of baptism, which is "through faith."

So I urge those of you who have not yet come to faith in Christ to consider the rainforest of good news in these verses: that Christ died and rose again to cancel our debt with God and to triumph over Satan; and that he raises spiritually dead people from the grave and circumcises sinful hearts : he does all this through faith. He brings us to trust him, by showing us how true and beautiful he is. Look to him and believe. And then he bids us to express that faith in baptism.

[Edited on 4-12-2006 by Peters]


----------



## bradofshaw (Apr 12, 2006)

Don't like the idea of stepping into a mess here, but three things:

1. I am surprised to hear that circumcision did not require or signify faith in the old testament.

2. He seems to have missed the point that both circumcision and baptism signify outwardly what must be done inwardly. Why does he assume that circumcision was simply an outward act with no reference to the inward man? Abraham's faith preceeded his circumcision, and was the basis for the circumcision of his household. 




> Those two words : "through faith" : in verse 12 are the decisive, defining explanation of how we were buried with Christ in baptism and how we were raised with him in baptism: it was "through faith." And this is not something infants experience. Faith is a conscious experience of the heart yielding to the work of God. Infants are not capable of this, and therefore infants are not fit subjects of baptism, which is "through faith."




3. I'm guessing he doesn't mean to say this, but by this reasoning no infant or mentally retarded person could be saved.


----------



## gwine (Apr 12, 2006)

That Abraham had faith is not in dispute but did everyone in his household believe?



> Genesis chapter 17
> 
> 8And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" 19God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac.[f] I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year."



My understanding of this and what follows with Ishmael is that he was not a believer, yet he was circumcised along with the other men in the household.



> 22When he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham. 23Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all those born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.





> Genesis chapter 21
> 9 But Sarah saw that *the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking*, 10 and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."
> 
> 11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring [a] will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring."


----------



## Peters (Apr 13, 2006)

> 1. I am surprised to hear that circumcision did not require or signify faith in the old testament.
> 
> 2. He seems to have missed the point that both circumcision and baptism signify outwardly what must be done inwardly. Why does he assume that circumcision was simply an outward act with no reference to the inward man? Abraham's faith preceded his circumcision, and was the basis for the circumcision of his household.



Brad,

Because circumcision was not _only_ a sign of saving faith, otherwise every physical descendent of Abraham had saving faith, since they all received circumcision. Circumcision _also_ functioned under the covenant made with Abraham typologically, anticipating a covenant people where all have circumcised _hearts_. A circumcised heart is the full revelation of the purpose of circumcision.

[Edited on 4-13-2006 by Peters]


----------



## bradofshaw (Apr 13, 2006)

Romans 2:25-29



> 25For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.



We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this. 

But I think the above passage demonstrates that the original sign of circumcision was always meant to signify a true inward circumcision. The Jews were supposed to be not just an ethnically distinct religious sect. They were supposed to be an inwardly changed covenant people. The issue here and probably in colossians is, are we saved by how we keep the law, or are we saved by faith. 

Since Romans 2 goes about destroying the possibility that we can keep the law, we must conclude that the Jews of the old testament, the same as us today, could only be saved by faith in Christ. I don't think Paul is meaning to distinguish circumcision as the opposite of Baptism, rather he is comparing the attitude that what saves us is mearly the outward keeping of circumcision (the works of the law), with the salvation that comes by faith in the Gospel. Circumcision and Baptism still corresond one to one, but wrong keeping of circumcision and right keeping of Baptism do not. I think the collosions passage goes much further in comparing the two than distinguishing them. 




> Because circumcision was not only a sign of saving faith, otherwise every physical descendent of Abraham had saving faith, since they all received circumcision.



This argument can easily be turned around, in the fact that you cannot guarantee me that every person who is baptised upon confession is inwardly baptised. Can you demonstrate that Baptism is only a sign of saving faith? What of those whom we know were Baptised but were not saved? 

True, circumcision was also a sign of inclusion in God's covenant community. The burden of proof is on the New Testament then, to take away the right of the children of believers to be included in the covenant community as they were in the Old Testament.


----------



## Peters (Apr 13, 2006)

> But I think the above passage demonstrates that the original sign of circumcision was always meant to signify a true inward circumcision. The Jews were supposed to be not just an ethnically distinct religious sect. They were supposed to be an inwardly changed covenant people.



I agree with this. I just don´t think we can deny that circumcision also marked people out as Abraham´s descendents distinctly. The _identity_ of the people of God is part of the covenant through circumcision. 

_But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be *cut off from his people*; he has broken My covenant_ (Genesis 17:14)

It´s also the first thing that Paul appeals to establish his Jewishness.

_If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee_ (Philippians 3:4-5)

The Colossians 2 passage makes the typological link and it´s not to baptism. In this way circumcision pointed to a time when the people of God in the New Covenant would all have circumcised hearts. 



> This argument can easily be turned around, in the fact that you cannot guarantee me that every person who is baptised upon confession is inwardly baptised. Can you demonstrate that Baptism is only a sign of saving faith?



I don´t see why a Baptist needs to. Baptism is no _infallible_ sign and it´s not the fulfillment of circumcision in the New Covenant. It is applied to people who seem to be united to the Seed through faith, thus picturing being buried with Christ and raised up with Him through faith. 



> What of those whom we know were Baptised but were not saved?



We were deceived, they got wet and were disciplined out of the Church. 



> True, circumcision was also a sign of inclusion in God's covenant community. The burden of proof is on the New Testament then, to take away the right of the children of believers to be included in the covenant community as they were in the Old Testament.



The sign was extended to the temporal seed of Abraham anticipating the eternal Seed (Galatians 3:16) and the descendents of faith. It has zero to do with blood, only faith. The New Testament makes that abundantly clear and herein lies the discontinuity. The New Covenant is not the Abrahamic Covenant. Practically, when a child seems to be united to Christ through faith, then by all means go ahead and baptize those little vipers in diapers!


----------



## bradofshaw (Apr 13, 2006)

Hoping to tie up some loose ends here... 



> I don´t see why a Baptist needs to. Baptism is no infallible sign and it´s not the fulfillment of circumcision in the New Covenant. It is applied to people who seem to be united to the Seed through faith, thus picturing being buried with Christ and raised up with Him through faith.



What I am trying to get across is that the basis on which Abraham was circumcised was his faith, which Piper clearly claims was not the basis. The fact that some who were circumcised outwardly were not circumcised inwardly does not change that. If it did, than we could also say that baptism is not given based on true faith, because some who were baptised, even based on a profession, have proven to be unfaithful. 

The very thing Paul is arguing against was the Jewish Christians who wanted circumcision to be a work of the law that would contribute to their salvation, and not a sign of true saving faith (nevermind the fact that Baptism had been instituted in its place). I might also be so bold as to say that the Jeremiah 31 passage regarding the new covenant is speaking of the abolishment of the Mosaic law as a basis for the righteousness of God's people. I don't see how it can be construed as an abolishment of the covenant given to Abraham. 

Galations 3



> 15To give a human example, brothers:[e] even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. 17This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.



The beauty of this passage is that it demonstrates that the promise of circumcision was that Christ would fulfill its covenant obligations for us. It pointed forward to Christ. The law of Moses, was not given to nullify the original intention of circumcision, but that is how the jews misconstrued it.

Romans 4:



> 9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11He 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, 12and 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.



I think this picture of circumcision fits quite beautifully with baptism. There is much more continuity than discontiuity in what they symbolize. They are both based on a faith in Christ, and not on the act. The fact is, circumcision was never given based on a keeping of the law by the one circumcised, and this is what Paul is trying to tell us. Circumcision was ALWAYS to be given based on an inward circumcision. The major discontinuity is that circumcision points forward to our justifyer, and baptism points back to our justifyer. 

Piper says:



> What is the New Testament counterpart or parallel to the Old Testament rite of circumcision? Answer: it is not the New Testament rite of baptism; it is the New Testament spiritual event of the circumcision of Christ cutting away "the [old sinful] body of the flesh." then, baptism is brought in as the external expression of that spiritual reality. That is precisely what the link between verses 11 and 12 says. Christ does a circumcision without hands : that is the New Testament, spiritual fulfillment of Old Testament circumcision. Then verse 12 draws the parallel between that spiritual fulfillment and the external rite of baptism.



I could just as easily say that the circumcision given to Abraham was the outward expression of the spiritual reality of Abraham's heart already being circumcised. Colossians so strongly links the two as to use Baptism as the sign of inward circumcision instead of outward circumcision.


P.S. I don't often get into discussions that are this lengthy. I hope I'm not butchering my position.  I wonder does anyone with more wisdom than I have anything to add?


----------



## youthevang (Apr 13, 2006)

I just want to post a comment I made before with regards to Acts 2:37-39.



> The other thing about the Acts passage is that we have to think about what would have being going though the minds of the listeners when they heard Peter´s sermon. The language is very Jewish and the people present are Jewish. (In our exegesis of any passage, we must ascertain the audience.) So, of course they would have thought covenantally to Peter´s sermon that this promise is "œfor your children." Peter repeating this covenantal formula from Genesis is key (in my humble opinion).



Peters you said, 


> The New Covenant is not the Abrahamic Covenant



If the New Covenant is not the Abrahamic Covenant, was the Abrahamic Covenant fulfilled?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 13, 2006)

I'll just respond to a few things in Piper's original article.

1) I didn't think Piper approached the passage in a very good way, that is back-to-front. He sets up his treatment of verses 11 & 12 starting with verse 14 & 15, then going back to 13, then to 11 & 12. But of course, Paul's own thought is moving in the other direction. What he states in 11 & 12 (first) gets developed or expanded on or is supported by what follows (second).

Since _Paul's_ thought progression isn't developed for us, I fail to see truly decisive proof for Piper's conclusions. Using his backward methodology, we are presented with two objective lessons, and two subjective lessons about Christ's work. But Paul begins with the personal benefit of completeness in him (v.10), and in explaining that transitions outward from the individual to the collective victory in Jesus. In going backwards all evidence of development of thought is lost. The lessons are presented not organically, but in series.

2) Piper tells us what his sense of the meaning of the passage is, and then offers an interpretation of the passage that will support that. Verse 13 is important, in that the progress of Paul's thought (progress not explained by Piper, beginning-to-end, as I mentioned) functions as a transition from verses 11-12 to 14-15. In 13 he uses the expression "uncircumcision" to describe the former spiritual reality, even as he develops the second "en w" (v.12) dealing with spiritual resurrection. There he is unmistakably describing regeneration--made alive.

Then Paul describes the results of what God has accomplished in regeneration, justification (v.14). Satan's defeat (v.15) is not _properly_ something that completes us (v.10) in terms of sanctification, but it is certainly relevant to us in that Christ's victory is our victory. So, verse 15 serves as a kind of culminating addendum to that which perfects us, and turns our eyes full on the Savior, and his triumph. All this begins with a spiritual circumcision, v.11, and everything gets worked out from there

I realize this is a sermon, not a treatise. Piper is "working backwards" to get to the verse he wants to concentrate on, v.11. So he sets up the context in a way. But he does not do this by presenting a synopsis of the previous thought, but by focusing on the pericope ahead. And I think it loses something. He gets to the place where he wants to deal with the main question, and he treats it like a "tree" in the dense wood. Like these four lessons he presents stand isolated from one another.

I see this sermon as being popular, confirming, and declaratory, but not meant to convince or convict. He is "preaching to the choir" so to speak--this is what he believes, what he preaches, what the listeners by-and-large already agree with; and not exactly a presentation of the details that settled his mind. I suppose it "preached well," but I would not preach the passage this way.

3) I see no grammatical analysis. The two "in whom's" (or him, or which; Gk.=en w), vv 11 & 12 are grammatically identical, and practically in parallel, so something of a "macro-picture" begins to be developed there. How does Piper relate the participle (having been buried) to the main verb of the sentence, "were circumcised." It is tied to the main verbal idea _somehow,_ right? If this is not explained, all his justification is left up in the air. I have seen Barcellos' explanation--I disagree with it and have explained why elsewhere, but he at least recognizes that this must be addressed.

Certainly a permissible and quite "natural" reading of the passage (subordinating the prepositional phrase/indirect object to the main clause, correlating the verbal ideas) is as follows: "you were also circumcised ... having been buried with Him in baptism." Baptism and circumcision are related together _somehow_ in this sentence. Its our job to plug back in all the subordinate information in the sentence, and put on our theological thinking-caps to make sense of it. Both Baptists and Presbyterians have the same challenge--to try to let the text "speak" with as little improper pre-interpretive bias as possible. But if we don't acknowledge our "grid", we are in greater danger.

Again, I realize that this is not a journal article but a sermon; so it isn't fair to assume that Piper has not done the requisite "homework". But that shows the limitation of using a presentation like this as a studied defense of Baptist practice. It is a Baptist's sermon to his Baptist church.

4) Why does Piper correlate NT "spiritual" circumcision and OT "physical" circumcision? "Spiritual circumcision" is an OT concept explicated _no later than_ Deuteronomy 10:16. What is more obvious than: *NT spiritual circumcision is correlated to OT spiritual circumcision*? For Piper to claim that the "spiritual" in the New is being correlated to "physical" in the Old solely on the basis of the phrase "without hands" is gratuitous, given the OT's own internal/external representation of the sacrament.

In the wider context of chapter 2, Paul is warning these Colossians not to be taken in by ritualists or philosophers of any kind. The contrast (such as can be discerned) is between physical _circumcision_ and spiritual _circumcision._ The people he is writing to in Colosse are not, in the main, Jews in the first place. But they are surrounded by pagans, taught from the OT Scriptures, and they are being tempted by Judaisers and others to come into bondage to various rituals, including circumcision. Paul is reminding them they have already been circumcised of Christ, and the Spirit that baptised them is the agency of the union the now enjoy with Christ.

Space will not permit a discourse into the full, rich, _spiritual significance_ of OT circumcision, but suffice this much: the bloody cutting away of the flesh (upon the organ of life!) was itself symbolic of death. Thus, it is fitting that in this spiritual circumcision, we being united to Christ, are united to his death verbally represented v.12 by "burial", which is itself a product of the Spirit's baptism. So genuine, spiritual OT covenantal union with God, effected through heart-circumcision, Paul is *equating* to the same uniting work of the same Spirit under the New Covenant, which the Colossian believers are already familiar with as real (heart) baptism.

Now, if you are put to death and buried united to Christ, what is more natural than that your union with him also results in your resurrection with him. Piper also attempts a contast here (NT "spiritual"--OT "physical") by taking the words "through faith" and setting them against the OT. In so doing Piper is engaged in an imporation to the text.

A careful reading of what he says: "Then verse 12 draws the parallel between that spiritual fulfillment and the external rite of baptism," "ordinance of baptism done with hands ," "baptism is a sign," reveals that he is reading baptism in verse 12 not in terms of the spiritual reality behind the sign, but as the rite itself. Piper's whole argument rests on his pre-determination to read baptism here as fundamentally the physical rite, and only then to correlate the meaning behind it to the OT "circumcision without hands."

This, to me, is an astonishing, colossal blunder. For it takes the passage (again!) in reverse. Spiritual circumcision has been effected by baptism; therefore Paul HAS TO be talking fundamentally about spiritual baptism, of which the outward sign is but a token. I'm sure the Colossians were baptized, and in conjunction with that act they were indoctrinated with the meaning of what it represents!

But Piper's logic at this point is viciously circular. For he is a man already committed to credo-baptism, exclusively. Therefore, the "through faith" he attaches to the physical (!) baptism which he reads up above. But he has no more leg to stand on if the baptism in view is fundamentally spiritual. For then, the common-ground he spoke of in the earlier section, re. "Everybody agrees that the only adults that should be baptized are believing adults," is back in play. For this is a first-generation context. And there is no dispute about the role faith plays in baptism.

As for infants, their capacity for faith or the kind of faith they may have, none of that is basic to the issue of whether they are to be baptized or not. That they can be regenerated and united to Christ in utero is an undeniable fact demonstrable from Scripture, and a form of the gift of faith is part and parcel of that endowment. So there is no argument from their supposed "inherent unfitness". The fact is that this text is not speaking of externals, but of internals all the way through it. And faith, in every case, is the individual and subjective saving instrument--whether infant or adult.

5) The OT Covenant-people were not "constituted" in a purely physical way. Can you read the book of Deuteronomy, and not realize that the Covenant with Israel was first and foremost a "spiritual" covenant, and only secondarily betaken of an "external" and "outward" administration?


----------



## Peters (Apr 14, 2006)

> What I am trying to get across is that the basis on which Abraham was circumcised was his faith, which Piper clearly claims was not the basis. The fact that some who were circumcised outwardly were not circumcised inwardly does not change that.



I agree that this was the case for Abraham, but then what was the significance for giving it to others who did not have the faith of Abraham? As you have already said, circumcision had another purpose, namely to mark out the people of God. Since this covenant is a darker covenant in terms of what it reveals about redemption and the Redeemer, what does this particular function (marking out the people of God) of circumcision point to? Where is the fulfillment of this? 



> If it did, than we could also say that baptism is not given based on true faith, because some who were baptised, even based on a profession, have proven to be unfaithful.



This is not the issue, since baptism is not circumcision´s parallel. 



> The very thing Paul is arguing against was the Jewish Christians who wanted circumcision to be a work of the law that would contribute to their salvation, and not a sign of true saving faith (nevermind the fact that Baptism had been instituted in its place). I might also be so bold as to say that the Jeremiah 31 passage regarding the new covenant is speaking of the abolishment of the Mosaic law as a basis for the righteousness of God's people. I don't see how it can be construed as an abolishment of the covenant given to Abraham.



I don´t see it as the abolishment of anything - it´s the fulfillment. And with fulfillment, necessarily, comes a clearer revelation of things past that were hidden. How are you getting abolishment? 



> _9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11He 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, 12and 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._
> 
> I think this picture of circumcision fits quite beautifully with baptism. There is much more continuity than discontiuity in what they symbolize. They are both based on a faith in Christ, and not on the act. The fact is, circumcision was never given based on a keeping of the law by the one circumcised, and this is what Paul is trying to tell us. Circumcision was ALWAYS to be given based on an inward circumcision. The major discontinuity is that circumcision points forward to our justifyer, and baptism points back to our justifyer.



Brother, baptism is nowhere to be found in this whole passage. You´ve just imported a whole theology into it that´s just not there. Circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith, no dispute there. But, again, what of those who did not have the righteousness that comes by faith? How could it be a sign for them? What was the purpose in giving it to them?



> P.S. I don't often get into discussions that are this lengthy. I hope I'm not butchering my position.



I appreciate your time, brother.


----------



## Peters (Apr 14, 2006)

> If the New Covenant is not the Abrahamic Covenant, was the Abrahamic Covenant fulfilled?



Hello there Joshua,

Yes. For something to be the fulfillment of something else you don´t have to equate them in identity. Jesus is not a bronze serpent in the wilderness, but he is the fulfillment of the bronze serpent in the wilderness, the true bronze serpent in the wilderness.


----------



## bradofshaw (Apr 14, 2006)

> I agree that this was the case for Abraham, but then what was the significance for giving it to others who did not have the faith of Abraham? As you have already said, circumcision had another purpose, namely to mark out the people of God. Since this covenant is a darker covenant in terms of what it reveals about redemption and the Redeemer, what does this particular function (marking out the people of God) of circumcision point to? Where is the fulfillment of this?



The people of God, in all times and places, are placed in a special covenant relation to God. We are set apart now as we were in the Old Testament. The promise is to "you and your children." However, one thing that you are already assuming as a conclusion in this discussion, is that baptism signifies only a profession of true faith, and that circumcision signifies faith plus the physical distinction of being an Israelite. Then you want to say, that because baptism solely signifies faith, there is no longer any good reason to baptise infants, whose faith we cannot judge. 

What I am saying is that both are given as a sign of true faith, and that just as in the old testament, this means that those who have faith and their children are commanded to be baptised and then brought into covenant body of God via the church. This patern was never revoked, and it continues in practice, in the manner that entire households were baptised in the NT.



> But, again, what of those who did not have the righteousness that comes by faith? How could it be a sign for them? What was the purpose in giving it to them?



They were covenant breakers. They drank the cup of wrath that Christ drank on our behalf. We know that there are those who have been baptised under the new covenant (even with a profession) who have also not had true faith. How can it be a sign for them?

I think your basic question is, "what is accomplished in infant baptism." First, I'm trying not to get to that bridge from this discussion, which doesn't deal precisely with that issue. I'm sure in the dozens of other threads, or in resources on a Puritan's Mind you can find a better synopsis of the benefits of baptism for infants than what I am qualified to give. 



> This is not the issue, since baptism is not circumcision´s parallel.



Again, precisely what we are discussing is whether or not baptism is circumcision's parallel. Let's figure out what circumcision was about before we make that conclusion. I think Piper is mischaracterizing circumcision as not being based on true faith, and thus coming to a faulty conclusion that the two are not parallel.



> Brother, baptism is nowhere to be found in this whole passage.



No, the word baptism is not. But we have a definition of circumcison here. What I am saying, is that you could replace the word circumcision with baptism, and it would be consistent with our understanding of baptism. Yet the sign was given to his children. Somehow we have to show that the NT takes this right away from believer's children, and not by just stating that baptism and circumcision are not parallel!



> I don´t see it as the abolishment of anything - it´s the fulfillment. And with fulfillment, necessarily, comes a clearer revelation of things past that were hidden. How are you getting abolishment?



You are right. Abolishment is a bad word. I like fulfillment much better. The Law was meant as a tutor to bring us to Christ, and it's requirements have been fulfilled in Christ. I just don't think this passage demonstrates discontinuity, because I don't think it is talking about doing away with the covenant with Abraham and his Seed (Christ). I believe this is the only covenant by which men can be saved. Fulfilled in Christ and thus turned around looking back instead of forward, but nonetheless the only covenant for salvation. Or how else is Abraham the father of all who believe? 

This has been an enjoyable discussion. Thanks!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 14, 2006)

Pastor Buchanan, THANK YOU for your excellent response above. You highlight some real problems in Piper's thinking.



I appreciate you taking the time to make that good and lengthy post!


----------



## johnrsorrell (Apr 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Pastor Buchanan, THANK YOU for your excellent response above. You highlight some real problems in Piper's thinking.
> 
> 
> ...



Thank the Lord for John Piper! "Problems in Piper's thinking"? Are you kidding? No offense, but his response in no way rebutted anything stated by Piper. It was merely a subjective attempt to validate his own belief system.


----------



## Peters (Apr 18, 2006)

> 1) I didn't think Piper approached the passage in a very good way, that is back-to-front. He sets up his treatment of verses 11 & 12 starting with verse 14 & 15, then going back to 13, then to 11 & 12. But of course, Paul's own thought is moving in the other direction. What he states in 11 & 12 (first) gets developed or expanded on or is supported by what follows (second).



There´s no point in disagreeing with Piper here. Piper is a responsible exegete and has proved to be so for many years. If you wouldn´t approach a passage this way then fair enough, but there is no reason to begin your critique this way. 



> Since Paul's thought progression isn't developed for us, I fail to see truly decisive proof for Piper's conclusions.



Do you mean to say that Paul´s thought progression isn´t developed for us *by Piper*? 



> Using his backward methodology, we are presented with two objective lessons, and two subjective lessons about Christ's work. But Paul begins with the personal benefit of completeness in him (v.10), and in explaining that transitions outward from the individual to the collective victory in Jesus. In going backwards all evidence of development of thought is lost. The lessons are presented not organically, but in series.



What development is lost, Bruce?



> 2) Piper tells us what his sense of the meaning of the passage is, and then offers an interpretation of the passage that will support that.



In other words, you disagree with him.



> Verse 13 is important, in that the progress of Paul's thought (progress not explained by Piper, beginning-to-end, as I mentioned) functions as a transition from verses 11-12 to 14-15.



So, v. 13 comes after v. 12 and before v.14. 



> In 13 he uses the expression "uncircumcision" to describe the former spiritual reality, even as he develops the second "en w" (v.12) dealing with spiritual resurrection. There he is unmistakably describing regeneration--made alive.



I just don´t understand what your point is.



> Then Paul describes the results of what God has accomplished in regeneration, justification (v.14). Satan's defeat (v.15) is not properly something that completes us (v.10) in terms of sanctification, but it is certainly relevant to us in that Christ's victory is our victory. So, verse 15 serves as a kind of culminating addendum to that which perfects us, and turns our eyes full on the Savior, and his triumph. All this begins with a spiritual circumcision, v.11, and everything gets worked out from there



Yes, sanctification is what results from regeneration and justification. Again, not seeing the point of mentioning this.



> I realize this is a sermon, not a treatise. Piper is "working backwards" to get to the verse he wants to concentrate on, v.11. So he sets up the context in a way. But he does not do this by presenting a synopsis of the previous thought, but by focusing on the pericope ahead.



Maybe this should have been point 1 in your critique? 



> And I think it loses something. He gets to the place where he wants to deal with the main question, and he treats it like a "tree" in the dense wood. Like these four lessons he presents stand isolated from one another.



Bruce, aren´t these just assertions based on "œI don´t think he approached the passage the way I would have"?



> I see this sermon as being popular, confirming, and declaratory, but not meant to convince or convict. He is "preaching to the choir" so to speak--this is what he believes, what he preaches, what the listeners by-and-large already agree with; and not exactly a presentation of the details that settled his mind. I suppose it "preached well," but I would not preach the passage this way.



Brother, this is so condescending and a blatant judgment of his motives. I don´t see how Piper, a faithful doctor of theology and pastor for almost two decades has given any evidence for you to speak this way about this feeding of his flock. "œNot meant to convince or convict"? What kind of shepherd does that make him? "œPreached well"? What is that, a reference to the audible delivery of the sermon? I fail to see how this has anything to do with the content of this sermon. 



> 3) I see no grammatical analysis. The two "in whom's" (or him, or which; Gk.=en w), vv 11 & 12 are grammatically identical, and practically in parallel, so something of a "macro-picture" begins to be developed there. How does Piper relate the participle (having been buried) to the main verb of the sentence, "were circumcised." It is tied to the main verbal idea somehow, right? If this is not explained, all his justification is left up in the air. I have seen Barcellos' explanation--I disagree with it and have explained why elsewhere, but he at least recognizes that this must be addressed.



It´s a sermon. If you doubt Piper´s capability with the biblical languages, I recommend his _The Justification of God_



> Again, I realize that this is not a journal article but a sermon; so it isn't fair to assume that Piper has not done the requisite "homework". But that shows the limitation of using a presentation like this as a studied defense of Baptist practice. It is a Baptist's sermon to his Baptist church.



Brother, what is the point in making this kind of comment? You´re just saying "œI understand why he´s doing this and it´s legitimate" but then following up a critique of why he´s doing this. I really don´t get it. 



> 4) Why does Piper correlate NT "spiritual" circumcision and OT "physical" circumcision? "Spiritual circumcision" is an OT concept explicated no later than Deuteronomy 10:16. What is more obvious than: NT spiritual circumcision is correlated to OT spiritual circumcision? For Piper to claim that the "spiritual" in the New is being correlated to "physical" in the Old solely on the basis of the phrase "without hands" is gratuitous, given the OT's own internal/external representation of the sacrament.



This looks like you have just, _in the first place_, connected physical circumcision to spiritual circumcision not baptism. 



> In the wider context of chapter 2, Paul is warning these Colossians not to be taken in by ritualists or philosophers of any kind. The contrast (such as can be discerned) is between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision. The people he is writing to in Colosse are not, in the main, Jews in the first place. But they are surrounded by pagans, taught from the OT Scriptures, and they are being tempted by Judaisers and others to come into bondage to various rituals, including circumcision. Paul is reminding them they have already been circumcised of Christ, and the Spirit that baptised them is the agency of the union the now enjoy with Christ.






> Space will not permit a discourse into the full, rich, spiritual significance of OT circumcision, but suffice this much: the bloody cutting away of the flesh (upon the organ of life!) was itself symbolic of death. Thus, it is fitting that in this spiritual circumcision, we being united to Christ, are united to his death verbally represented v.12 by "burial", which is itself a product of the Spirit's baptism. So genuine, spiritual OT covenantal union with God, effected through heart-circumcision, Paul is equating to the same uniting work of the same Spirit under the New Covenant, which the Colossian believers are already familiar with as real (heart) baptism.



So baptism in Colossians 2 is spiritual "œ(heart)" baptism, not water baptism? 



> Now, if you are put to death and buried united to Christ, what is more natural than that your union with him also results in your resurrection with him. Piper also attempts a contrast here (NT "spiritual"--OT "physical") by taking the words "through faith" and setting them against the OT. In so doing Piper is engaged in an imporation to the text.
> 
> A careful reading of what he says: "Then verse 12 draws the parallel between that spiritual fulfillment and the external rite of baptism," "ordinance of baptism done with hands ," "baptism is a sign," reveals that he is reading baptism in verse 12 not in terms of the spiritual reality behind the sign, but as the rite itself. Piper's whole argument rests on his pre-determination to read baptism here as fundamentally the physical rite, and only then to correlate the meaning behind it to the OT "circumcision without hands."
> 
> This, to me, is an astonishing, colossal blunder. For it takes the passage (again!) in reverse. Spiritual circumcision has been effected by baptism; therefore Paul HAS TO be talking fundamentally about spiritual baptism, of which the outward sign is but a token. I'm sure the Colossians were baptized, and in conjunction with that act they were indoctrinated with the meaning of what it represents!



_Notice what verse 11 stresses about the new work of Christ in circumcising: it is a circumcision "without hands." But water baptism is emphatically a ritual done "with hands." If we simply say that this New Testament ordinance of baptism done with hands corresponds to the Old Testament ritual of circumcision done with hands, then we miss the most important truth: *something new is happening in the creation of people of God* called the church of Christ. They are being created by a *"circumcision without hands"* by God. They are being raised from the dead by God. And baptism is a sign of that, not a repetition of the Old Testament sign. There is a new sign of the covenant because the *covenant people are being constituted in a new way: by spiritual birth, not physical birth.*_ 

Bruce, can´t you see that it is "œhow" the people of God are formed and "œwhat" marks them out that is the issue. Under the covenant made with Abraham there was a physical sign which applied to both the true people of God AND those who were not (physical circumcision), but now under the New Covenant the sign that marks out the people of God is a spiritually circumcised heart, that to which the old sign (only physical) always pointed. You could be part of the people of God under the covenant made with Abraham by receiving physical circumcision, but under the New Covenant you are marked out as the people of God by a new heart. The covenantal category of believer and unbeliever constituting the people of God has passed away, swallowed up in the full revelation of the New Covenant and its people. 



> 5) The OT Covenant-people were not "constituted" in a purely physical way. Can you read the book of Deuteronomy, and not realize that the Covenant with Israel was first and foremost a "spiritual" covenant, and only secondarily betaken of an "external" and "outward" administration?



How can you deny that the formation of the people of God before the light of the New Covenant was physical! Circumcision has to be the most physical reality known to man! And it was a physical sign of the covenant people of God, yet was it was given to unbelievers also. 

Bruce, I respect you, but here I think you have complicated something that is very straight forward. I had to read this post over and over again, because I just couldn´t get through the language. For my sake at least, dumb it down a bit. I couldn't make head nor tail of your post. I'm probably just out of my depth. 

Thanks for your stuff though, brother.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 18, 2006)

Marcos,
You were "interested to see paedobaptists interact with Piper's arguments. Thanks in advance." So I interacted. I am very sorry that what I said was 1) not well understood, and 2) occasionally misunderstood. If I've been unnecessarily complicated, then that's on me. If I have not been "too simplistic" then maybe this post will be of some help.

I don't suppose I would ever interact directly with Piper, or bring up his sermon (ala James White) as an opportunity to debate someone's public expression. My most direct interaction is with you (your stated interest) and with the sermon _as an article presenting one Baptist presentation of this passage,_ not as a product of any particular man, no matter how impressive a person he is.

Now, I'm going to disagree with the man--or rather with you using this man's presentation. I'm guessing you thought well of it. Surely you expected a paedobaptist to disagree with it?


> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> > 1) I didn't think Piper approached the passage in a very good way...
> 
> 
> ...


Why not?
This is your presentation of what you think is a good *argument* for the Baptist position. So, if this were an argument, I would expect _methodology_ to be as much a part of the critique as anything else, and to begin with methodology. As I said elsewhere in my piece, I have to grant Piper permission to be himself and to do what it is he is actually doing--preaching a Baptist sermon to a Baptist audience.

But he is being put into service by *you* doing something different, and I have to treat the sermon as *you* are asking. In fairness to Piper, he didn't write his piece to stand up in a debate, but *you* chose it for that purpose. Piper's article put into that service doesn't get a "free pass" on methodology just because he's John Piper.

Now, perhaps my critique is not accurate. That's another question entirely, and if you want to question the validity of it, go ahead. But methodolgy is not "neutral". There are good and bad ways of doing a certain thing. Clearly I think the better way of arguing a point from this passage is to follow Paul's own argument. Piper may not be arguing, _*but you are.*_


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Do you mean to say that Paul´s thought progression isn´t developed for us *by Piper*?


Yes.


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> What development is lost, Bruce?


Just read what Piper says. He says in effect: "Isn't this a wonderful forest? Here's a tree, here's a tree, here's a tree, ..." Looked at the other way, front to back, its one organism, one tree, one series of interconnected outgrowths. The difference is between one and several. I think that's a big difference.


> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> > 2) Piper tells us what his sense of the meaning of the passage is, and then offers an interpretation of the passage that will support that.
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, it's just a fairly neutral descriptive statement. I do happen to disagree with him, but this sentence says nothing to that purpose.


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> I just don´t understand what your point is.


In an abbreviated form, I'm trying to do what the sermon does not do: show the organic development of Paul's thought. The reason he uses the term "uncircumcision" is materially related to the language of "circumcision" he just used. My point is: it's not part of the original article.


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Yes, sanctification is what results from regeneration and justification. Again, not seeing the point of mentioning this.


These are not "trees in a single forest;" they are one tree. This all functions as part of my explanation of why I disagree with *your* methodology (using Piper's sermon as argument).


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Maybe this should have been point 1 in your critique?


Maybe I should have just gotten someone else to write _my_ whole critique for me? Piper is not on trial here; he never was. This statement is present in my critique to make that clear.


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Bruce, aren´t these just assertions based on "œI don´t think he approached the passage the way I would have"?


I didn't write an article or a sermon. Just some critique. You wanted an interaction with the article. I've explained what I didn't like, and why. I've offered a few things that I thought should have come out that didn't. What were you expecting?


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Brother, this is so condescending and a blatant judgment of his motives. I don´t see how Piper, a faithful doctor of theology and pastor for almost two decades has given any evidence for you to speak this way about this feeding of his flock. "œNot meant to convince or convict"? What kind of shepherd does that make him? "œPreached well"? What is that, a reference to the audible delivery of the sermon? I fail to see how this has anything to do with the content of this sermon.


Again, I wasn't being asked to evaluate the sermon as a sermon, *but as an argument for credopractice from this text*. I'm sorry you missed the fact that I'm not really addressing Piper at all, but your own appropriation of him. I am defending Piper's right to preach this passage in his own way, while acknowledging that it is "popular, confirming, and declaratory." When I say it's "not meant to convince or convict," I mean it must be recognized that the sermon was never preached as a sermon to challenge the paedobaptist mind, nor was it carefully crafted to defend the baptist position against a paedobaptist critique. If it had been, there would have been other material, a different presentation, alternate methodology, etc. Hence I said: "not exactly a presentation of the details that settled his mind." 

When I say "it preached well," in his own pulpit, I mean every word of it. It also resonated very well with you too, obviously, even by reading it. And when I say "I wouldn't preach it his way," I mean that too. I also wouldn't _argue_ the passage his sermonic way, and I don't think he would have either. And that's my point to you. Moving on...


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> It´s a sermon. If you doubt Piper´s capability with the biblical languages, I recommend his _The Justification of God_....
> Brother, what is the point in making this kind of comment? You´re just saying "œI understand why he´s doing this and it´s legitimate" but then following up a critique of why he´s doing this. I really don´t get it.


Marcos says: "Interact with this!"
Interact with what? His style? His rhetoric? His presentation? I _KNOW_ (or am sure of) his preparation, etc., but this is a spoken sermon. And *you* are offering it as a studied defense! When I say "I see no grammatical analysis," I am pointing out the obvious. There is _nothing_ grammatical to interact with! So if I offer grammatical objections to the "content" of the sermon, who is to say that my grammatical points are germane? I'll say it again: Marcos, on these points, I am critiquing you offering up Piper's sermon as a brilliant defense. I have to defend Piper's own right to his own material at the same time. So if you don't "get it", I'm sorry. I have to critique *his* material as presented by *you*.


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> This looks like you have just, in the first place, connected physical circumcision to spiritual circumcision not baptism.


Did I connect it, or did MOSES?


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> So baptism in Colossians 2 is spiritual "œ(heart)" baptism, not water baptism?


Fundamentally. Who "really" baptizes a person? Man? Or the Holy Spirit? Does baptism outwardly picture baptism inwardly?


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Bruce, can´t you see that it is "œhow" the people of God are formed and "œwhat" marks them out that is the issue. Under the covenant made with Abraham there was a physical sign which applied to both the true people of God AND those who were not (physical circumcision), but now under the New Covenant the sign that marks out the people of God is a spiritually circumcised heart, that to which the old sign (only physical) always pointed. You could be part of the people of God under the covenant made with Abraham by receiving physical circumcision, but under the New Covenant you are marked out as the people of God by a new heart. The covenantal category of believer and unbeliever constituting the people of God has passed away, swallowed up in the full revelation of the New Covenant and its people.


I agree with the words "the sign that marks out the people of God is a spiritually circumcised heart, that to which the old sign (only physical) *always* pointed." It didn't just point ahead to the New Covenant. It ALWAYS was designed to point to an inward reality of a circumcised heart, the Covenant of Grace, a covenant that predates Moses, the Old Covenant, and the nation of Israel. It was that sign to Abraham, to Isaac, to Ishmael, to Jacob, to Esau, to the 12 sons, to Moses, to all the children of Israel... When it was not accompanied by faith, it was merely a sign of judgment upon a rebel. Our human problem is that we can't read hearts, and never could. All we have is outward identification. Born into the Old Testament covenant community, no one could read the heart of a little one either.

You could be a part of the _external administration_ of the people of God under the Old Covenant, but not the reality. There never was any "covenantal category of believer and unbeliever constituting the people of God." This is a Jewish myth, a reality that all the OT prophets, including John the Baptist, warned the people against.


> _Originally posted by Peters_
> How can you deny that the formation of the people of God before the light of the New Covenant was physical! Circumcision has to be the most physical reality known to man! And it was a physical sign of the covenant people of God, yet was it was given to unbelievers also.


I deny it on the testimony of Scripture. I've already quote Moses, Deut. 10:16. Romans chapter 4 is clear that salvation has never been by any other way than by faith. And you can't be a part of God's true people unless you have saving faith. And never could.

Circumcision was never _intentionally_ given to an unbeliever. Never. But it inevitably was given to them, if they were born into the community, and also if they were insincere in their conversion and attachment. That even happens today with baptism, doesn't it?


Well despite the fact that this too is no studied defense or argument (even less than the previous post), I do hope it clarifies.


----------



## Peters (Apr 18, 2006)

Bruce, let me just say that i meant no disrespect in anything i posted. I read you posts and learn; i've downloaded your sermons and have been blessed. Without any false flattery, I reckon you a godly man. I apologise for any poor attitude against you, misunderstanding or disrespect towards you. 

I want to interact with the substance of your post once this has been acknowledged by you, brother.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 18, 2006)

Marcos,
No offense taken. My brother, for my part I hope that you don't think that I am being at all condescending in my attitude toward you. Shame on me, in that case. I just try to be direct without being unfair or unkind. Its easy to import our perceptions into what we read in these exchanges. As for Piper, the scholar and minister, I have a generous respect for him. I very much doubt he would ever have reason to see any disagreement we have as a challenge worthy of response.

I don't have the comparable privilege of being as familar with any studies you have done as you are of mine. That is my misfortune. Thank you for your charity.


----------

