It is not uncommon to hear my esteemed Paedobaptist brethren attempt to discredit the Credobaptist position by asserting that Baptism is the new circumcision. While it is true that Baptism is correlated with circumcision, how does this assertion serve to nullify the Credobaptist position? As the Scriptures attest, circumcision is now of the heart, not of the flesh, and we circumcise our hearts through faith. This spiritual reality is indeed correlated with Baptism, which serves as the sign and seal of salvation, as well as an effectual means of grace.
Friend,
I would be greatly helped in understanding your argument and claim if you cited the Scripture you are talking about and explained clearly from the text what you are arguing. However, I presume you are speaking about Colossians 2, so I'll cite it below and explain briefly why the text is used as evidence for Covenantal Baptism.
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. -Colossians 2:11-14 ESV
First of all, the context of this text is important to note. Before this passage in the first and the beginning of the second chapter Paul is discussing the preeminence of Christ and some practical implications for Paul's ministry. However, most relevant for our purpose is the discussion throughout the book in which Paul is discussing the preeminence of Christ and the fulfillment or change of various aspects of the Old Testament whether it be the ceremonial law and it's fulfilment (v. 16-23), or even the Old Testament sacrament of circumcision as is discussed in the text above. Throughout the text Paul is clearing things up for the Christians at Colossae, who were presumably being captivated by certain philosophies which required asceticism or legalism according to the ceremonial law, by explaining how they find their fulfilment in Jesus Christ. No longer do you have to observe new moon festivals and abstain from eating certain foods, for those things were shadows, and Christ is the fulfilment. No longer do you have to observe special Sabbath festivals (the text does not teach the abrogation or entire fulfillment of the weekly Sabbath, but of special high days and festivals found in the ceremonial law), because Christ is the fulfilment. Having said that, when Paul enters into his discussion on Circumcision he is showing how Christ and the new dispensation brought about by Him in the Covenant of Grace has brought about a replacement of the Old Testament sacrament which was circumcision. Paul is clearly talking about the spiritual aspect of baptism and relating it to the spiritual aspect of circumcision. The two are not merely complimentary or similar, circumcision was a precursor for the sacrament of baptism in the New Testament. That is to say, baptism replaces circumcision as the entry sign and sacrament for the people of God, which is the Church. Paul is clearly speaking about the spiritual aspect of circumcision and how in the New Testament that reality is realized in baptism. (See the Westminster Confession 27.5)
As a Baptist presumably committed to the London Confession, I don't believe we have any disagreement yet. Both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists agree with this scheme. However, where we will diverge is over the continuity which paedobaptists believe is inherent in both sacraments. A Paedobaptist would look at this text and claim that it gives ample warrant to understand continuity in the way in which the sacrament is to be administered. That is to say, if the sacrament of Circumcision, directly replaced by baptism in the New Testament (remember Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians generally both agree on this), is to be given to infants in the Old Testament, there is no reason to not administer the sacrament to infants in the New Testament. In fact, there is abundant reason to administer the sacrament to infants if the two are related in the way in which this text demonstrates. If the substance of the Sacraments in the New Testament are the same as those of the Old Testament as the WCF states, you'll have a difficult time explaining why the infants of believers are all of the sudden (without any Scriptural mention) no longer privy to the sacrament, after a few thousand years of salvation history including them (James Bannerman uses this argument in a good book you should check out called
I Will Build My Church, published by Westminster Seminary Press
).
To wrap up my rambling, I would encourage you to rethink the idea that circumcision is
now of the heart. Brother, circumcision was always of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16), that's exactly what Paul is so beautifully explaining in this text. In Christ we have been circumcised of heart, cut off from the world and claimed by God. The same spiritual truth is true in both spiritual circumcision which occured in the Old Testament and spiritual baptism which occurs in the New. Your salvation is a freely given gift, just as the salvation of Abraham was. And God so cares for us and desires that we be reminded of His promise to save that He gave us a sacrament, just as He did Abraham. O brother, give thanks for the loving kindness of God in reminding you of His promise to save.
Your servant in our majestic Lord Jesus Christ,
Nick R.
)
