TBP,
This doctrine of baptismal remission ... sins being put away ... as happening at baptism ... is seriously flawed ...
First, believing this is to say that a work activates our salvation ... or a works-based salvation .... we are baptized because of salvation not to cause it ... If you disobey his any his commands in this faith walk ... including baptism ... it constitutes unbelief.
and you are adovocating that our initial faith and subsequent repentance did not wipe away our sins ..... only the baptism does it ....
If that's the case ... let's baptize folks and call it a day ....
Let's examine your prooftext.
Col. 2:11-15: (NKJV)
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried 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.
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having 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. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
Paul in
Col. 2 is clearly relating the “circumcision” of Christians to the “circumcision” of Jews at two levels:
(1) The spiritual reality to which the physical ordinance signifies, or symbolizes but not what it causes ...
(2) The corresponding distinctive of the physical ordinance as a means of identifying the Covenant People of God. The question he is addressing is the validity of the Gentile Church’s claim to be members of God’s Covenant people. Note that he says (vs. 11) that you were “also” circumcised, in other words that the Colossians’ claim to Covenant people status is of the same nature as those who have been physically circumcised.
This is a general restatement of Paul’s teaching that “in Him there is no Jew or Greek....”, a position to which this passage, in context is building toward (
Col. 3:11). This equality of Christians and Jews in covenant status is a major issue with Paul and may in fact be a factor in virtually everything he writes. Note the emphasis that he gives it in
Romans 10:12, 1 Cor. 12:13,
Gal. 3:28,29 et al.
So, in addressing the question of any equivalence in baptism and circumcision in
Col. 2:11-15 at all we must first understand this background to Paul’s teaching.
Paul clearly understood and here clearly teaches, that neither baptism nor circumcision ever “put off the body of the sins of the flesh.”
The OT is replete with references where God makes mention that the “true circumcision” is a “circumcision of the heart” (
Deut. 10:16,
Deut. 30. 6,
Jer. 4:4) and Paul specifically details this point in
Romans 2:29. In this last passage, Paul’s point is that a true Jew is one whose external circumcision has been fulfilled in the internal circumcision which places his heart in right relation to God. Certainly we understand that this reordering of one’s life (circumcision of the heart) to such a right relation with God is a description of regeneration
Now, in the days of the early church, most Gentile converts were adults and were baptized as adults. This would correspond to a Gentile being admitted into the Jewish race by undergoing adult circumcision. Paul’s language addresses that common situation by referring to the manner in which these Colossians had been admitted into the visible kingdom of God, through baptism.
But his point, explicitly made, is that the baptism in which they were “buried” was the “circumcision of Christ.” Now if the spiritual reality of OT circumcision was “circumcision of the heart” then there can be no doubt that the spiritual reality of NT baptism is here stated as “circumcision of Christ.”
It seems irrefutable that Jesus’ admonition to Nicodemus, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things” (
John 3:10) is entirely justified on the very basis that spiritual regeneration through the self-evident work of the Holy Spirit is the only means by which a person can enter into the Kingdom of God.
If Nicodemus ought to have known this, then certainly all of his OT predecessors ought to have know it also.
Thus, baptism is clearly taught as being the physical equivalent of circumcision because it corresponds to the same external / internal relation to spiritual regeneration that existed in the OT Covenant administration.
To argue against this one has to assume that in the OT “salvation” was in some essential manner, accomplished differently, or maybe better, than in the NT and that the Kingdom of God did not exist prior to Christ’s incarnation and therefore could not be “entered into” in the manner now possible. This argument reduces down to arguing that salvation in the OT was not of faith in the same manner as it is in the NT.
If in the OT salvation was not by faith or by a differing content of faith, through God’s spiritual regeneration of the individual, giving them a new heart and accomplishing in them an enlightened mind which was able to comprehend God through Christ in essentially the same manner as NT believers, then the argument that baptism is not equivalent to circumcision is entirely valid.
If this is argued then there is no correlation between OT and NT saints. God deals with them in different ways and justifies them according to different standards.
If you believe that Paul is suggesting that works like baptism and circumcision 'activate' a putting away of our sins please keep in mind;
• Paul himself teaches that Abraham was saved by faith prior to circumcision (Romans 4:9-12). Certainly, since his entire argument rests upon a correspondence between the present faith of the Romans with that of Abraham then there cannot be any essential difference in Abraham’s faith and NT believers' with regard to object or manifestation.
• It is the faith of OT saints which is held up for NT saints’ emulation in
Heb. 11. Certainly their example of faith would not be appropriate for New Testament believers if the object and practice of their faith were essentially different.
• In the OT faith in “the Christ” was the object of the sacrificial system though understood darkly (
Heb. 8:3-5) and was the fulfillment of the law. If such is the case then any spiritual significance of circumcision was tied to the exact same “salvation by Grace through Faith” truth which is signified, or symbolized, in baptism.
Linear Mode
