Colossians 2:11-12 is taken out of context by PaedoBaptists

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
If I am correct in assuming that most paedo baptists take Colossians 2:11 to be a proof text for justifying New Covenant baptism as a "sign of the covenant", then I have some basic issues with this idea.

Looking at the context of the verse, I don't see how anyone can use this as a proof for anything, other than the condition of the hearts of Believers under the New Covenant and proof for the visual sign of Baptism being related to burial and resurrection with Christ (obviously by immersion, as the word literally means).

[quote:1023c476d5][b:1023c476d5]
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.[/b:1023c476d5][/quote:1023c476d5]

If you look closely, Paul says this is a circumcision "made without hands", obviously not referring to Old Covenant infant circumcision ... unless you want to end up with a lot of butchered babies! :no:

What do you guys think? :pilgrim:
 
I'll post a little more lengthy response later. But htis issue and this passage have been dealt with extensively. Please do a search on the topic and the passage in question and you should find the answers to your questions from both sides of the camp.
 
[quote:6593a9e2ee]Baptizo means immerse: Well, the greek word translated "supper" means "the principle meal taken in the evening." So, my question is, why don'timmersionists only take communion (i.e., the Lord's supper) at night time? [/quote:6593a9e2ee]

:lol: :thumbup:

Gabriel, again, what did circumcision signify in the OT? (And yes this is simple).
 
HINT HINT:

Deuteronomy 10:16 "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.

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

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth like fire, And burn so that no one can quench it, Because of the evil of your doings."

Any idea yet?
 
The love of Christ is really starting to shine through from your keyboard, Scott. I'm done here! :)

This is not a hill to die on, and it's definitely not an issue in which saying people who practice otherwise are playing into the hands of the devil. :no:
 
I love you so much gabriel, I will die on this hill so that you hear the truth.
The baby dedication takes the eyes off the sign and places it on the flesh of the parents; it is an act of satan.
 
I don't like parent/baby dedication any more than you do, and I would never do it in my church, but the worst I would call it is "unnecessary", not "of the devil"...
 
[quote:239497a91e]If I am correct in assuming that most paedo baptists take Colossians 2:11 to be a proof text for [i:239497a91e]justifying New Covenant baptism as a "sign of the covenant"[/i:239497a91e], then I have some basic issues with this idea. [/quote:239497a91e]
I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here...are you against baptism...or just against paedobaptism? I assumed Baptists see baptism as a sign of the new covenant, they only administer it to those professing faith.

If you simply mean it's not a proof text for paedo baptism...you're right. That passage is simply discussing the inward work of God's Salvation. Perhaps a search of the past discussions on this would be best...it has been discussed over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Which is about how many times a baptist would have me baptized! I was baptized as an infant....again as an adolescent because others were doing it...then I was converted and my Reformed Baptist pastor recommended I be baptized again...I just thought that was silly.
 
[quote:e693e58773="WrittenFromUtopia"]I don't like parent/baby dedication any more than you do, and I would never do it in my church, but the worst I would call it is "unnecessary", not "of the devil"...[/quote:e693e58773]

Gabriel,
Is that which is [i:e693e58773]unecessary[/i:e693e58773] biblical? What do you call something that is not biblical? Unbiblical? Are things that are unbiblical holy? No, they are of the dogs and sin.
 
[quote:865edad524="WrittenFromUtopia"]Agreed, but I would never break fellowship or question the spirituality of a person who attended a church that practiced such a thing.[/quote:865edad524]

I did'nt say I would either...........
 
If I understand correctly, which I may not, circumcision is putting something off, and in baptism we have a sign of putting something off - sin.

But does it prove that we should baptize babies?
 
:ditto: Sadly, this seems to be the pattern around here. And those in favor of paedobaptism are blamed for it.

And if I could just add my :wr50: ... I think far too many times the Colossians passage is dealt with in isolation of mountains of other biblical evidence to the paedobaptist position. Paedobaptism will never be disproven by those that are content to grab a handful of verses and offer counter exegesis. Paedobaptism is built upon a covenantal WORLDVIEW. All texts must be considered in the context of this worldview. Sure, you can probably exegete Colossians 2:11-12 in a vacuum and conclude that there isn't a hint of baby sprinkling in the passage. And you can do that with Acts 2:38-39 as well, and of course, all of the household baptism passages. But these passages didn't just fall out of heaven without a historical context or a worldview in which they are intelligible. When doing exegesis, you must always always always be mindful of the history of redemption. Thus, to understand Colossians 2:11-12, you need to do more than understand the immediate context of Colossians. You need to understand Genesis through Revelation.
 
So you're basing your Theology on a presupposition? How is that different from what credobaptists do when they develop a systematic theology?
 
I have yet to see anybody do theology without presuppositions. Have you? And to attempt to remove all presuppositions is to cease being able to think. All thought, whether theological in nature or not, must have a worldview to be intelligible.
 
Both the Credo and the Paedo utilize implicit texts that "determine" their points. One is consistent, the other is not based on presuppositions they cannot let go of.

There is NO text that says, "When an unconverted person is regenerated and saved by the Holy Spirit, and then professes faith before the congregation of the Church, then you are to take that person and baptize them, and them alone; never including those who cannot profess faith."

We just do not have a text like that. The difference in hermeneutics is that one progressively moves the Bible from Genesis onward and gathers information based on continuity unless otherwise instructed. Credos move through until they hit the NT, and then create a radical discontinuity (though we have no texts demonstrating that radical discontinuity (actually we have quite the opposite)) based on presuppositions that they have ALL the texts they will ever need that explain completely and entirely "Credo-baptism." (Unfortunately they forget they do not even have ONE text.)

This discontinuity among Credos is more or less. It simply depends on who you are talking to.

It is a relatively NEW invention in the church. There were no Credo churches until 1637 in England. Are we to assume that the Lord kept the church in darkness on the this issue for 1637 years after Christ until Credos decided to dissent and begin a faction in their own right and enlighten us all? I think not. That goes completely against the [i:6e8fa6efc5]regula fidei[/i:6e8fa6efc5] and [i:6e8fa6efc5]Sola Scriptura[/i:6e8fa6efc5].

I was a Credo for 15 years, as a Reformed Baptist (as if there was such a thing - and I know my baptist brothers hate it when I say that). But in any case, the hermeneutic as to HOW one interprets the OT texts are pivotal. Fred Malone wrote a book that even Ref. Baptists hate. He simply does theology backwards. That is the hallmark of every book I have read on Baptist Theology. For example, RBC Howeel wrote "The evils of Infant baptism." Terrible book. I read it both as a baptist and as a Covenant Theologian. His whole premise rests on the idea that we must have "positive insitutions" in the NT BY THE Christ OR BY THE APOSTLES that EXPLICITELY testify to anything the Chruch would do in the GOSPEL times. This is so far ludicrous that I can't belevie the man said it. but that is how baptists do theology (or at least those who wrote on it - including sprugeon, Shirreff, Dagg, Malone and others....)

The problem is that baptists keep asking the question, "Where do I find infant baptism in the NT????" :rolleyes:

That is the wrong question altogether. The Question is, "Are infants included in the Covenant of Grace?"
Now that is a horse of a different color. Infant baptism, or an explanation of the NT covenatn sign, is the last part of a 5 hour conversation on CT.

Because the hermeneutic is wrong (they are looking for something in the wrong way), they usually miss the mark until they throw away all they learned, and relearn theology again through covenant progression. If they exegete the Scriptures on this topic, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get away from such texts as Genesis 15, 17, Jeremiah 31-33, Hebrews 6, 10 (and all the warning passages to covenant breakers in the NT) etc.
 
I would also add the the presuppositions must also hold up under Scripture. We must be constantly refining them when we test them by further Bible study. To illustrate, I started out charasmatic, then a reformed charasmatic, then a reformed baptist, then an uncertian presbyterian, then finally a convinced Presbyterian with a deeper understanding of hermenuetics and CT (especially since joining this Board). Each progression got closer to the truth and required pruning and growing and reexaming. But the understanding grows deeper and deeper when the presuppositions are right. More dots are connected. Troublesome passages are not so troubling anymore. Like I said on another thread, it's like climbing a mountain, it's hard work but the view gets better the higher you climb.
 
Could it be that infant baptism wasnt directly spoken of like issues regarding salvation because it was allready a given - given are detail of the use and practice of circumcision in the OT and the pre baptism baptism of noah with the flood?

blade
 
Re: Colossians 2:11-12 is taken out of context by PaedoBapti

[quote:c520db1b7e="Paul manata"]

Baptizo [i:c520db1b7e]means[/i:c520db1b7e] immerse: Well, the greek word translated "supper" [i:c520db1b7e]means[/i:c520db1b7e] "the principle meal taken in the evening." So, my question is, why don'timmersionists only take communion (i.e., the Lord's [i:c520db1b7e]supper[/i:c520db1b7e]) at night time?

Paul[/quote:c520db1b7e]

Funnily enough, Paul, I know some baptists that do just that. Evening only.
 
Nobody's said it yet but baptizo does NOT mean immerse. Look at all the examples of its use. Look at examples of the word's usage in other early Greek texts. Also follow the OT examples of ritual washings into the New Testament. :wr50:
 
[quote:5cc835db92="Ianterrell"]Nobody's said it yet but baptizo does NOT mean immerse. Look at all the examples of its use. Look at examples of the word's usage in other early Greek texts. Also follow the OT examples of ritual washings into the New Testament. [/quote:5cc835db92]

Thanks, Ian, I was JUST about to write exactly what you put down so concisely. So, I'll just elaborate a bit by means of a couple of quick points:

1) Were the Israelites baptized in the Red Sea, if baptizo means immerse?

2) Were entire dining couches immersed in order to be baptized (ceremonially washed?) See Mark 7. Does it make sense for 30 gallon barrels to be immersed? (see john 2) ... yet they were purified according the jewish Law (i.e. baptized, as Mark 7 and Hebrews 6:2 and 9:10 would have indicated)

3) Luke 11:38 - Christ had not BAPTIZED before dinner. Comparison with Mark 7 makes this rather conclusive - it has to do with this act of washing, not the MODE.

Baptizo indeed can properly be translated immerse, but can also mean dip, cover with water by pouring, and, indeed, sprinkle. It is a WASHING verb.... it need not mean dunking, in fact many authorities would argue that in Koine greek, immersion is the least probable translation.

Yours in Christ,

Todd
 
Look at the usage in Mark 7:4-8, and in Heb 6:2, 9:10.

1)Mark 7:4-8. The [i:cb8f323355]washing[/i:cb8f323355] of cups and pots is describe.

2)Heb 6:2. The author describes the elementary doctrines of the faith. One such doctrine is the doctrine of Baptisms. Note the plural form used here?

3)Finally, Hebrews 9:10 describes the various baptisms and washings that took place in the OT. What did those baptisms look like?.....

Heb 9:13, 19, 21:

9:13
For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, [b:cb8f323355]sprinkling[/b:cb8f323355] the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,

9:19
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and [b:cb8f323355]sprinkled[/b:cb8f323355] both the book itself and all the people,

9:21
Then likewise he [b:cb8f323355]sprinkled[/b:cb8f323355] with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.

Either the author of Hebrews misspoke or the word [i:cb8f323355]baptizo[/i:cb8f323355] does not refer exclusively to immersion.


[/b]
 
[quote:07387a01dc="Paul manata"]yes but there is a distinction that needs to be made. When Baptists say that the word *means* immerse what they are saying is that that is the lexical definition of the word. The surface answers above do not take into account the distictions between sense and referent, or connotation and denotation. Stipulative vs. lexical definitions, etc.

So, when I say "dog" *means* a canid; especially a highly variable domestic mammal (Canis familiaris) closely related to the common wolf (Canis lupus) and, a male dog; also a male usually carnivorous mammal--I am using the lexical definition in the common way. But if I said that someone was a dog you wouldn't think I meant the above. Likewise, when Baptists say that the word means immerse they are using it in the above way.

Our argument is that *just because* it may have the common, lexical definition of immerse it is not a slam dunk argument to say that that was the way the Apostles used the word. Now as far as I know, the common way to define baptizo is "immerse." Even John Calvin agrees. But that does not mean that that was the way the apostles intended that word to be used. This is why I mirror the argument with the one from the Lords supper. It is actually a better counter to their argument; if you understand their argument.[/quote:07387a01dc]

Paul,

I agree and understand the Baptist's problem. I think we are all arguing against the same thing from legitimate angles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Colossians 2:11, 12
Replies
7
Views
3K
MW
M
D
  • Locked
How about Colosians 2:11-12?
3 4 5
Replies
132
Views
10K
Dachaser
D
T
  • Locked
Paedobaptists. Is this Orthodox Reformed thinking?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Scott Bushey
Scott Bushey
M
  • Locked
Questions for paedobaptists
Replies
13
Views
3K
openairboy
O
P
  • Locked
A short paper from Piper on Colossians 2:8-15
Replies
17
Views
5K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
Back
Top