Is Infant Baptism the new Infant Circumcision?

Hello and welcome. In this article, we will look at New Testament baptism as it relates to Old Testament circumcision and the argument for continuity between these two practices regarding infants. We will examine the supposed strength, clarity, and validity of the inference to connect these two practices. Before reading this article, we recommend you read our introduction to baptismal theology article here. 

FRAMING THE ISSUE WITH QUOTES FROM PAEDOBAPTISTS 

“Hence we may conclude, that everything applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony…Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.” - John Calvin, Institutes 4.16.4 

"Baptism occupies the place of circumcision in the New Testament, and has the same use that circumcision had in the Old Testament.” - Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 367 

“Having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, he established in its place the sacrament of baptism...Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, that baptism is for our children” - The Belgic Confession, Article 34 

“Thus baptism and circumcision are equated, each within its own covenant…As circumcision operated; so baptism operates.” - The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, p. 62 

“Yes. Infants as well as adults are included in God’s covenant and people, and they, no less than adults, are promised deliverance from sin through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit who produces faith. Therefore, by baptism, the sign of the covenant, they too should be incorporated into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, which was replaced in the New Testament by baptism.” - Heidelberg Catechism, Question 74, Should infants also be baptized?  

“This clear connection between the two covenant signs of circumcision and baptism creates a difficult problem for the opponents of infant baptism, for any argument against infant baptism is necessarily an argument against infant circumcision.” - Randy Booth, Children of the Promise, p. 109  

“The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.” - B.B. Warfield, The Polemics of Infant Baptism, p. 408

“The New Testament establishes no essential difference between circumcision and baptism; such differences as there are are only formal. Baptism has taken the place of circumcision.” - Pierre Marcel, The Biblical doctrine of infant baptism: Sacrament of the covenant of grace, p. 210 

“In the fullest possible sense, baptism under the new covenant accomplishes all that was represented in circumcision under the old.” - O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, p. 166  

“Those who subscribe to covenantal infant baptism maintain that baptism has now replaced circumcision as the mark of covenant membership, and that baptism's meaning and application are essentially the same as circumcision's in the Old Testament period.'' - Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 137-138 

“I conclude that baptism and circumcision have the same meaning. Both signify and seal that by faith we are cleansed from our sins, and that we have been consecrated to God to be his own. Therefore, the claim that baptism has replaced circumcision stands upon firm ground.” - Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 149

 “As circumcision was the covenant sign and seal applied to all members of God’s people in the Old Testament, so baptism is the covenant sign and seal applied to all members of God’s people in the New Testament.” - Covenant Grace Church, Baptism: The Promise is for you & for your children

“Old Testament children received the sign of this inclusion, circumcision, therefore children are to receive the sign of this inclusion in the New Testament dispensation, baptism. Circumcision and baptism are the rights of initiation for their respective dispensations.” - Gospel Reformation Network, The Controversy about Infant Baptism 

“Another significant part of coming to this biblical conviction is seeing that the Bible teaches baptism is really a replacement for circumcision.” - Ryan Broadhurst, Why I am Presbyterian Now Pt. 2, Para. 1 

“Furthermore, this can be seen with circumcision. St. Paul clarifies that baptism has replaced circumcision as the “circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2-11-12). In the Old Testament, men who wanted to be under the Abrahamic covenant had to be circumcised. In the New Testament, they are baptized into the new covenant. So it is with paedobaptism. Infants were circumcised into the covenant and now are baptized into the new covenant.” - Trey Soto, Do Christians have to believe in Paedobaptism?  

These quotes from Paedobaptists through the centuries demonstrate an inference made for infant baptism by appealing to infant circumcision. If it could be simply summarized, it would be that infants were circumcised in the Old Testament so they should be baptized in the New Testament since baptism is the new circumcision and has the same function. Some Paedobaptists might split hairs over whether words like fulfillment, replacement, or continuation are more appropriate. We're maintaining neutrality with our article title to encompass various preferences. Needless to say, the connection between circumcision and baptism cannot be neglected. It is affirmed to some degree by seemingly all Paedobaptists regardless of tradition. But it must be pointed out that this inference is not necessarily critical to the Paedobaptist case. Infant baptism can certainly be argued for from other angles. 

While this issue is certainly related to the nature of the covenants, we will avoid going down that rabbit trail in this article. Our focus is examining the strength, clarity, and validity of the inference between circumcision and baptism.

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM

1. Male Exclusivity 

The first difference that often comes to mind is the fact that circumcision was only given to males. 

Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

On the other hand, we know baptism is also given to females. 

Act 16:14-15 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

If baptism is truly the replacement/fulfillment/continuation of circumcision, one would think that baptism should be restricted to males. When it comes to infants, if this practice carries over and has expanded to infant girls, where is the positive command in the New Testament for the church to baptize their infant girls in addition to their infant boys? 

2. Jewish Citizenship 

Old Testament circumcision marked citizenship in the commonwealth of Israel. We also know most Israelites didn't possess faith. However, this did not nullify their citizenship. Unbelieving circumcised Israelites remained children of Abraham and citizens of Israel their whole lives irrespective of if they had faith. 

On the contrary, if New Testament baptism admits unbelieving infants into God's new covenant people, do unbelieving infants remain part of God's people without faith? This question poses more problems for some Paedobaptist traditions than others depending on how they understand the issue of infant faith. Arguably, the Lutheran tradition has the strongest and most prominent emphasis on infant faith. For Paedobaptists who don't have a prominent emphasis on infant faith, it would generally be affirmed that the infant would be required to believe as they mature if they desired to remain in the covenant. However, this condition for covenant membership didn't apply to each circumcised infant in the Old Testament. 

3. Unbelieving Adults 

In addition to infant males, we also know circumcision was given to all males irrespective of if they believed. 

Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Gen 17:27 And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

It would be presumptuous to assume that all non-infant circumcision was preceded by personal faith in the Old Testament.  

Heb 3:17-19 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

In fact, we know that many adult Israelites died in the wilderness due to unbelief. It would also seem presumptuous to assume that all of the males who died in unbelief were "born in the house" when they were circumcised as Genesis 17:27 says. Regardless, there is no clear pattern in the Old Testament of faith being a required prerequisite for adult circumcision. 

Gen 16:11-12 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

Gen 17:20-21 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 

Gen 17:25 And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. 

Gen 21:9-10 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. 

We should also be aware of Ishmael's circumcision. Scripture testifies that he was outside of the covenantal promise and wasn't a child of the promise even before his circumcision. There's no clear indication that Ishmael ever exercised faith in the Lord. 

On the contrary, we know Paedobaptists emphasize faith as a prerequisite for adult baptism. It's a well-known fact that Paedobaptists don't baptize unbelieving adults. The question for Paedobaptists then is if we are to assume that unbelieving adolescent and teenage children of new Christians are too old to be baptized and who decides what age is the cutoff point. Paedobaptists unanimously agree that adults must have a profession of faith before they can be baptized. But what of those who are neither infants nor fully grown adults? Is a profession of faith required for their baptism? Are they baptized just because of their parents' conversion irrespective of their own faith? 

4. Children of Unbelievers 

Another aspect of Old Testament circumcision was that it was not only given to the first generation of children. It was also given to successive generations. 

Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Seeing that infant circumcision was carried out well beyond the first generation of children; If the Christian church is meant to transfer the practice of infant circumcision to infant baptism, what is limiting the administration of baptism to only the first generation of believing parents? 

If baptism fulfills/continues/replaces circumcision, why not baptize infants based upon the faith of their grandparents or great-grandparents according to the pattern of circumcision? 

5. The Eighth Day 

A further contrast between circumcision and baptism for infants is the issue of timing. 

Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

Lev 12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 

In the Old Testament, newborn infant males were to be circumcised on the eighth day. 

“There is, nonetheless, an obligation on parents not to delay the baptism of a newborn unduly. In the same section mentioned above, the document notes clearly, “An infant should be baptized within the first weeks after birth” (No. 8.3). This teaching is also captured in canon law: “Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks” (Canon 867).” - Simply Catholic, How Soon Should Your Child Be Baptized?, Para. 3  

However, for the most part, the eighth-day principle isn't practiced among contemporary Paedobaptist traditions. Rather than the eighth day, it's "within the first weeks after birth" when an infant is supposed to be baptized. 

6. Difference in Regenerative Effect 

This point is only relevant for Paedobaptists who affirm that water baptism regenerates the recipient. Unless one wants to say circumcision regenerated the recipient in the Old Testament, a clear point of discontinuity arises. To our knowledge, the affirmation of regenerative circumcision isn't a stance most Paedobaptists are willing to take. Therefore, we won't spend much time on this point. We will see later in this article that circumcision of the flesh did not truly equal the thing signified in the lives of God's people. The Paedobaptists who acknowledge a regenerative difference between circumcision and water baptism have created further reasons to doubt the quotes we cited earlier. 

7. Not Identical in Meaning 

This is a point that many Paedobaptists will readily concede. This is especially true of those who affirm that baptism carries regeneration with it. Circumcision primarily had a national and typological significance that represented ethnic, national, and physical attachment to Israelite affiliation. Contrarily, New Testament baptism doesn't represent ethnic, national, or physical attachment. 

Paedobaptists might be quick to point out that circumcision wasn't purely a national and racial sign. It also pointed to spiritual realities. This is a moot point and doesn't change the fact that circumcision also represented ethnic, national, and physical attachment in addition to whatever spiritual realities you want to include. Our concern is that Paedobaptists are sometimes prone to reduce circumcision to its mere spiritual signification and not carefully parse through the continuity and discontinuity between each sign and ordinance. 

Recall now some of the statements we cited from Paedobaptists. According to their statements, everything applicable to circumcision applies to baptism; Baptism has the same use that circumcision had; Baptism and circumcision are equated; and there is no essential difference between circumcision and baptism. From our perspective, this seems to be an overly simplistic and flattened-out understanding of circumcision and baptism given what the Bible says about each of these practices. 

EXAMINING ARGUMENTS FOR SAMENESS 

In response to what we just went over, some Paedobaptists will say that the differences are just in how each sign is administered but both circumcision and baptism have the same theological meaning or function. To make this point, they try to form various connections and collect a critical mass of similarities between circumcision and baptism to conclude that they have the same use, have no essential difference, and the application is the same. This argument is often seen in meme/graphic format. To see three examples of this, see here, here, and lastly here. In this section, we will engage with ten supposed connections between circumcision and baptism made in the examples we gave and see if they are valid and clear. Most of our comments will be related to the circumcision side of the baptism and circumcision equation.  

Supposed Connection #1 (source): Circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant of grace (Gen 17:9-14, Deut 30:6, Rom 4:11) and baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant of grace now (Rom 4:11, Col 2:11-12) 

Response: The problem with this supposed connection is that it presupposes the idea of a singular covenant in redemptive history called "the covenant of grace". This presupposition is then used to argue for Paedobaptism. There are many issues with this presupposition that we've already covered at great lengths in our article here examining the covenantal unity argument for Paedobaptism. 

Supposed Connection #2 (source): Circumcision entailed union with Christ (Gen 17:9-14, Jer 4:4) and baptism now entails union with Christ (Col 2:11-13, Gal 3:27, Eph 2:11-12) 

Response: One problem with this supposed connection is that it conflates circumcision of the flesh with circumcision of the heart. These two are not the same. Jeremiah 4:4 is cited, but this verse is not talking about the practice of infant male circumcision. It's talking about heart circumcision. We will cover this in more depth later on. 

Supposed Connection #3 (source): Circumcision is connected to the remission of sins (Deut 30:6, Col 2:13) and baptism is connected to the remission of sins (Col 2:13, Mark 1:4) 

Response: This supposed connection has the same problem as the previous one. Deuteronomy 30:6 is cited, but this verse is not talking about the practice of infant male circumcision. This is about heart circumcision. 

Supposed Connection #4 (source): Circumcision was given to entire households (Gen 17:10) and baptism is given to entire households (Acts 16:15, 16:33) 

Response: This supposed connection is a massive oversimplification. Circumcision was not given to entire households. It was a specific demographic of people within households who were circumcised (males). 

Supposed Connection #5 (source): Mere outward reception of the sign of circumcision is of no benefit (Jer 9:25, Rom 4:11-12) and mere outward reception of the sign of baptism is of no benefit (Heb 6:4-8, 10:29) 

Response: One problem with this supposed connection is that it misses fundamental details from one of the very passages that have already been used multiple times to argue for various connections (Genesis 17). In Genesis 17:14, we're told that the result of not receiving circumcision is being cut off. We see this come up in Exodus 4:24-26 where Moses' son was not yet circumcised. As a result, Moses' own life was in danger of being cut off until his son was circumcised. Just receiving circumcision at all resulted in not being cut off which seems to clearly be a "benefit". Even if an Israelite only "outwardly received" the sign of circumcision and didn't yet believe, they were still in a position of benefit. They received various benefits as part of the corporate Israel and were near the truth of God's word and God's prophets. They'd certainly be in a more beneficial and favorable circumstance than being someone who wasn't close in proximity to the truth. We find it ironic that Jeremiah 9:25 is cited for this because the next verse in Jeremiah 9:26 demonstrates a distinction between the status of being circumcised in the flesh and being circumcised in the heart. This is something that multiple prior points have conflated and collapsed into the same category. We could agree with this connection if it said that mere outward reception of circumcision didn't save. Unfortunately, the language of there being "no benefit" is not the same and conveys something much more. 

Supposed Connection #6 (source): Circumcision was linked to faith (Deut 4:2) and baptism is linked to faith: (Mark 16:16, John 3:3-18) 

Response: We find this supposed connection a bit puzzling largely due to the prooftext given. Deuteronomy 4:2 doesn't speak directly about circumcision or faith. It's about keeping the commandments generally. In fact, as we've already touched on, the practice of circumcision was applied to unbelievers and their male children. In light of these facts, we find this supposed connection unconvincing. 

Supposed Connection #7 (source): Circumcision and baptism picture death to sin (Rom 6:3-7; Col 2:11-12) 

Response: One problem with this supposed connection is that, like many others, circumcision of the flesh is not being referred to in either of these passages. Yet, to make connections between circumcision and baptism that's exactly what needs to be referenced. The circumcision in Colossians 2 is not about fleshly circumcision. If neither of these texts are referring to and describing fleshly circumcision, what justification is there for saying both circumcision and baptism picture the same thing? 

Supposed Connection #8 (source): Circumcision and baptism represent repentance (Jer 4:4; 9:25; Lev 26:40-41; Acts 2:38)

Response: This supposed connection suffers the same shortcomings as many others. The texts that are supposed to be referring to the circumcision of the flesh are actually not. They are again referring to a distinct and different inward circumcision of the heart. This is not the circumcision that needs to be shown as connected to baptism to argue that there is a sameness between infant circumcision and baptism. 

Supposed Connection #9 (source): Circumcision and baptism represent regeneration (Rom 2:28-29; Titus 3:5)

Response: Again, this supposed connection conflates fleshly circumcision with heart circumcision. Romans 2:28-29 is about an inward heart circumcision, but the prior verses of 25-27 show a distinction and difference between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart. It's circumcision of the flesh which goes back to Genesis 17 that needs to be shown as connected to baptism.

Supposed Connection #10 (source): Circumcision and baptism represent a clean heart (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Isa 52:1; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5-7

Response: Finally, this last supposed connection has the same problem. None of the texts cited on the circumcision side of the connection are about fleshly circumcision. They're about an inward heart circumcision that isn't physical. 

Summary: In the attempt to assemble a critical mass of similarities between infant circumcision and infant baptism, Paedobaptists commit many errors, oversimplifications, and false equivocations. We will dig further into this aspect later on, but many of these connections falsely equate inward heart circumcision with the circumcision of the flesh and use heart circumcision as the stand-in or representative for fleshly circumcision. Because of this, many of the arguments for circumcision and baptism having the same theological meaning and function fail. 

One question we have for Paedobaptists on this issue is, how many points of dissimilarity would be required to conclude that one thing is not the same in significance as another? 

THE NARROWING OF THE ORDINANCE 

Paedobaptists argue that with baptism being the fulfillment/replacement/continuation of circumcision it therefore has become more broad and inclusive concerning the scope of admission. Let's look at a few citations of Paedobaptists touching on this point. 

“Is there any reason to believe that the later ordinance of admission [baptism] had not according to  the mind of Christ the same breadth and fullness of meaning and application as the earlier one [circumcision]?” - Douglas Bannerman, The scripture doctrine of the church, p. 232

“The design of the New Testament dispensation was to enlarge, and not straiten, the manifestations of divine grace; to make the door wider, and not to make it narrower.” - Matthew Henry, The Complete Works of Matthew Henry, Volume I, p. 514  

“It is unthinkable that in the fullness of the gospel era, the children of the New Testament church would have less in the covenant than children of Old Testament Israel.” - Joel Beeke, Bringing the gospel to covenant children, p. 6 

“One, the burden of proof rests on those who would deny children a sign they had received for thousands of years. If children were suddenly outside the covenant, and were disallowed from receiving any “sacramental” sign, surely such a massive change, and the controversy that would have ensued, would been recorded in the New Testament. Moreover, it would be strange for children to be excluded from the covenant, when everything else moves in the direction of more inclusion from the Old Covenant to the New.” - Kevin DeYoung, A brief defense of infant baptism, Para. 9 

“The blessings of the covenant of grace are not diminished in the New Testament era, nor is the sign and seal removed from any; rather, the blessings are increased and extended to the Gentile nations (Isaiah 52:15; Acts 2:39; Galatians 3:9, 14), and the sign extended to include believing women and their children: “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us” - S. J. Tanner, Infant Baptism 

Our concern with Paedobaptists on this inference point is an oversimplification and flattening of the ordinances. While Paedobaptists argue for infant baptism through the "expansion" and "enlargement" of the New Testament era, they actually narrow the ordinance in many ways. For example, Paedobaptists don't give baptism to unbelieving adults or children of unbelievers. Therefore, this argument seems inconsistent. Paedobaptists do not fully relay the inferences taken from circumcision to determine who should be baptized. Paedobaptists regularly argue that covenantal practices in the Old Testament remain valid unless explicitly forbidden in the New Testament. In light of this, we ask where in the New Testament are we explicitly told that eighth-day baptism is no longer the standard? Where in the New Testament are we explicitly told that infants need believing parents to receive baptism? With what we've covered previously in view, we argue that the admission of baptism is not as broad or inclusive as the scope of admission to circumcision in multiple areas. 

It's our position that the only scenario in which the Old Testament could have equal authority with the New Testament in pronouncing the proper recipients for baptism is if every single detail concerning baptism and circumcision were the same and identical without discrepancies. However, we know for certain that many aspects of circumcision are not the same for baptism. Therefore, the Old Testament cannot be equally authoritative with the New Testament regarding the ordinance of Christian baptism. One of the two must take priority in light of the discontinuity between them. 

Thus far, we see no strong indicator that infant baptism is the new infant circumcision as many Paedobaptists have claimed. 

WHAT IS THE ANTITYPE AND FULFILLMENT OF CIRCUMCISION 

ACCORDING TO THE OLD TESTAMENT?

If we want to understand if infant baptism is the new infant circumcision, we must also understand what the antitype and fulfillment of circumcision are. Because if circumcision does not find its fulfillment, end, and terminus in baptism, it seems less conceivable that baptism is the new circumcision. 

Gen 17:4-6 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Circumcision of the flesh marked the Israelites as a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and for service to God. It also physically designated them as the people through whom the promised seed of Genesis 3:15 would come. 

Deu 10:12-16 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good? Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deu 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. 

However, we see very quickly in the Old Testament that circumcision of the flesh did not truly equal the thing signified in the lives of God's people. As early as Deuteronomy, we see the Old Testament anticipating a different circumcision. Moses calls the Israelites in Deuteronomy 10 to undergo an internal action of heart circumcision despite many of them having already been circumcised in the flesh. Later in Deuteronomy 30, we're told that God will perform this inward heart circumcision of people himself. 

Jer 4:1-4 If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the LORD, return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove. And thou shalt swear, The LORD liveth, in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness; and the nations shall bless themselves in him, and in him shall they glory. For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

With the prophet Jeremiah, we see the Israelites are called to circumcise themselves to God. This is again an inward and hidden circumcision of the heart. 

Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. 

We also see a development in thought regarding the Abrahamic covenant with Jeremiah. In Genesis 22, Abraham is told that in his seed all the nations would be blessed. In Jeremiah 4, the prophet says the nations shall bless themselves and glory "in him"; meaning the Lord. This is connected to heart circumcision as part of how the nations will declare themselves blessed in the Lord. 

Jer 9:25-26 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

Later in Jeremiah, we're told of a future judgment that would come not because circumcision of the flesh is lacking, but rather because of uncircumcision in the heart. This shows a distinction between these two statuses. 

Jer 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Jeremiah, speaking of a new covenant says that it will include a change in the heart and inward parts for those who are members and they will all know the Lord. It seems fitting and in agreement with prior statements that Jeremiah has circumcision of the heart in mind when he speaks of these inward changes concerning the heart. 

Jer 32:36-40 And now therefore thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence; Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

Recall that circumcision of the flesh did not truly equal the thing signified in the lives of God's people. Concerning an everlasting covenant, we're told that people will be given "one heart" and the condition of their hearts will be changed so that they shall not depart from God. External circumcision under the Abrahamic covenant was a type that did not truly equal the thing signified. However, as far back as Deuteronomy there is anticipation of an antitype to this sign. The antitype being heart circumcision. Jeremiah is arguably the clearest prophet in the Old Testament who alludes to this connection. 

Ezk 11:17-20 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. And they shall come thither, and they shall take away all the detestable things thereof and all the abominations thereof from thence. And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Ezekiel continues this idea of people being given "one heart" and experiencing inward changes.  

Ezk 18:30-32 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Ezk 36:24-28 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Ezekiel 18 and 36 speak further to this idea of new hearts and inward changes. 

Ezk 44:6-9 And thou shalt say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations. And ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves. Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

Until Ezekiel 44, the relevant comments have centered around new hearts. But in Ezekiel 44, we see uncircumcised hearts mentioned again in a way that shows there isn't a 1:1 ratio between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision in the heart. 

In the Old Testament, we see an unfolding idea concerning an inward circumcision of the heart. As we move through the Old Testament, we see through the circumcision of people like Ishmael and rebellious unbelieving Israelites that circumcision of the flesh did not indicate devotion to God. The prophets of the Old Testament pointed out that circumcision is a type that points forward to a greater and more sure circumcision. It's this inward circumcision of the heart that actually brings about the things signified by the circumcision of the flesh. 

Based on what's said in the Old Testament, it would seem that circumcision of the flesh finds its antitype and fulfillment in the circumcision of the heart. This antitype was already functioning in the Old Testament among God's covenant people. Still, the prophets looked forward to a time with a new covenant where this antitype would be a reality for all who are part of this covenant. They shall all know the Lord and experience inward changes to their condition. 

We now come to two observations. First, if circumcision of the heart is the antitype and fulfillment of fleshly circumcision, it seems improbable that infant baptism is the new infant circumcision. Second, this idea seems increasingly improbable if the antitype of fleshly circumcision was already happening in the Old Testament before Christian baptism was instituted. 

GALATIANS & THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL ON CIRCUMCISION 

When we come to the New Testament, multiple points go against this idea of baptism being the new circumcision. This includes what we're told about circumcision by Paul in Galatians and by the conclusions at the Jerusalem council. Based on the context of Galatians, Acts 15, and the circumcision controversy therein, if it was understood by the apostles that circumcision found its fulfillment, antitype, and terminus in Christian baptism, it would seem to be an opportune and fitting time to make mention of it. We will now explore these passages to find out what was said about circumcision.

Gal 1:6-7 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal 2:3-4 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. 

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 

Gal 3:10-11 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 

Gal 5:1-4 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. 

Gal 6:12-13 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. 

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 

In Galatians, the topic of circumcision is one of the major themes. Based on the letter's contents, it seems improbable that Paul believes baptism is the new circumcision. If he did believe it, why didn't he point this out to the Galatians and the circumcision party? It would arguably be the most simple and effective argument for putting to bed the idea that Christians must be circumcised in the flesh. In all honesty, many Paedobaptists would use this argument if they were in a similar situation. 

Instead, what do we see as the basis for Paul's argument? It's entirely centered around how circumcision is part of the law and that Christians aren't justified by the law but instead by faith. He points out how fleshly circumcision doesn't avail anything. If Paul did have a clear understanding that baptism is the new circumcision, one would think this letter would be structured differently if not at least make mention of the connection to help aid Galatians' understanding of the issue. In this book, Paul is completely silent about any notion that circumcision is of no avail because it's found fulfillment or continuation in baptism. Paul could have also aided the circumcision party by telling them that converts do need to be circumcised, but that the visible ordinance has just changed and continued into a different visible sign with the same meaning. All of this is absent from Paul's writing to the Galatians. 

So what of the Jerusalem council in Acts? 

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 

Act 15:7-10 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 

We see much of the same in Acts 15. There is a party advocating that circumcision of the flesh is required for salvation. In response to this, the disciples don't make mention of how baptism is the new circumcision. But, if this were true, this would seem like an ideal time to mention it. Instead, we see something similar to what Paul says in Galatians. Peter focuses on faith and hearts being purified by it. Enforcing circumcision as a requirement for salvation would "put a yoke upon the neck". It would seem again, that the mindset in response to the circumcision party is that we are justified by faith, not by the law. 

While silence on an issue doesn't conclusively tell us whether or not baptism is the new circumcision, it is curious how if this idea were true, you'd think we'd see mention of it in the contexts where it would be most helpful and beneficial. Perhaps, the idea isn't mentioned simply because it wasn't in the mind of the disciples as something valid. 

PAUL'S THEOLOGY ON THE INWARD CIRCUMCISION

When Paul speaks of circumcision or uncircumcision, it's most often used to distinguish Jews and Gentiles. However, there are a handful of relevant texts when it comes to inward circumcision. Let's begin by looking at Paul's New Covenant language. 

Php 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

Php 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 

Php 4:2 I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. 

It's our view that Paul's background for these statements in Philippians is none other than the New Covenant passages in the Old Testament which we've looked at previously. Recall the following: One heart and one way in Jeremiah 32:39. One heart and new spirit in Ezekiel 11:19. New heart and new spirit in Ezekiel 36:26. This understanding will help us when looking at the following verse in Philippians.

Php 3:2-3 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

In his letter to the Philippian Christians, Paul points to a specific circumcision that doesn't pertain to the flesh or physical cutting. In contrast to those attributes, this circumcision is about the spirit. This should bring our minds back to the many passages in the Old Testament that speak of heart circumcision and a new spirit in the context of a new covenant. We argue that this is what Paul is referring to when he says "We are the circumcision". This is the antitype of fleshly circumcision that we've covered previously. 

Rom 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Paul more clearly points out what this circumcision is in Romans. Paul speaks of an inward circumcision of the heart and in the spirit. This idea pulls from Old Testament passages that speak of these new covenant realities.  

We argue that Paul believed the experience of heart circumcision, which is the antitype to circumcision, is connected to and finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ's advent and redemptive work. And furthermore, this heart circumcision is a reality for God's new covenant people. 

THE CRUX OF THE PAEDOBAPTIST ARGUMENT: COLOSSIANS 2:11-12

Colossians 2:11-12 is arguably the single most pivotal and foundational verse used by Paedobaptists to argue that infant baptism is the new infant circumcision. Answering the question at hand would be incomplete without carefully treating these verses. To begin our examination of the text, let's put the text itself next to a few citations of Paedobaptist comments about it. 

Col 2:11-12 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

“At present, let it suffice to point out that baptism is described as ‘the circumcision of Christ’, and that this fact alone — however it must ultimately be understood — brings the Christian ordinance into direct contact with God’s ancient dealings with Abraham.” - The Anglican Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, p. 40 

“These children were also baptized, as Paul affirms in Colossians 2:11-12, where he calls baptism "the circumcision of Christ.”- Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 79

“Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ.” - The Belgic Confession, Article 34  

“Furthermore, this can be seen with circumcision. St. Paul clarifies that baptism has replaced circumcision as the “circumcision of Christ” (Col. 2-11-12)." - Trey Soto, Do Christians have to believe in Paedobaptism?  

“through the teaching of the Apostle Paul when he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” in Colossians 2.” - Covenant Grace Church, Baptism: The Promise is for you & for your children  

“Lastly, and most clearly, in Colossians 2:11-12 the Apostle Paul directly correlates the replacement of circumcision with baptism…What is the circumcision of Christ? Baptism.” - Ryan Broadhurst, Why I am Presbyterian Now Pt. 2, Para. 6   

"This is how Paul connects the coming of Christ to the promise and covenant of grace that God made with Abraham. All those in Christ are, therefore, the true children of Abraham [Galatians 3:7; Romans 4:16], who have believed the same gospel, who receive the same promises [because of grace alone though faith alone--Romans 4:16], and who now receive baptism as the replacement of circumcision [Colossians 2:11-12]." - Kim Riddlebarger, The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism, C.4

"Paul clearly argues that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision [Colossians 2:11 ff]." - Kim Riddlebarger, The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism, V.A

These Paedobaptist citations can be broken down into three summative points. First, we again see that water baptism is claimed to be the replacement/new circumcision. Second, baptism does the same thing that circumcision did in the Old Testament. Third, the circumcision of Christ is water baptism. We've been dealing with the first two points extensively in this article and have shown issues with them. So we won't be repeating ourselves in that regard. The third point, however, does require additional attention. 

OUR OBJECTIONS TO THE PAEDOBAPTIST ARGUMENT FROM COLOSSIANS 2:11-12

With these verses being so pivotal and critical to the Paedobaptist argument, one would hope that the Paedobaptist interpretation of them is rock solid and nigh to certain in the biblical context. However, we don't believe this is the case. We will begin by listing our primary objections before delving deeper into them.

Objection 1. There are grammatical reasons to doubt that Paul intends to make a 1:1 comparison or equation between circumcision and baptism in such a way that makes baptism the new circumcision.

Objection 2. Details are given about this circumcision in verse 11 which makes the interpretation of circumcision being baptism less plausible. 

Objection 3. The circumcision made without hands and the circumcision of Christ isn't water baptism. Rather, it's heart circumcision.

Objection 4. Details are given about this baptism in verse 12 which conveys that this is happening on a credo basis. 

These are our primary objections to the Paedobaptist interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12. Let's start unpacking them. 

Objection 1. 

Remember that the Paedobaptist view on Colossians 2:11-12 is that the circumcision in verse 11 is the baptism in verse 12. The Greek syntax in verses 11-12 might help us better understand if this was Paul's intention. 

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

In verse 11, "ye are circumcised" is the main finite verb. 

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

In verse 12, the first part of the verse "Buried with" is a participle. 

So what's the significance and relevance of this? To answer this question, we'll cite linguist Steven E. Runge since his work expounds on this aspect of Greek syntax in great detail.

“There might be a desire to think of the participial action is unimportant, but this is untrue. It is simply a matter of prioritization, with finite verbs being used for more central action or activity. Think about the English paragraph, how there will typically be one action that has more significance than the others in the paragraph. The Greek participle allowed the writer to explicitly mark this central action by using a finite verb, and using participles for the rest of the actions in the sentence that are less important. Not every action is equally important, and participles provided the grammatical means of explicitly marking this. The participles allowed the writer to make one finite verb (e.g. indicative or imperative) central to the entire complex by rendering the rest of the actions as participles.” - Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 194 

“The most important thing to understand about participles is the idea of prioritization of the action. The use of a participle to grammaticalize an action represents the choice not to use a finite verb form (e.g. indicative or imperative mood), whether connected through coordination or subordination. Participles are not finite verbs, and the choice to use one should be respected in our exegesis...From an exegetical standpoint, the key point to understand is the use of participles to prioritize the action within the complex. The finite action is the most prominent one, with participles playing a supporting role. Regardless of how we might translate participles into English, in Greek they function to explicitly prioritize the action.” - Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 195  

“In other words, the net result of choosing a participle over a finite verb is to have the main verbal action of the clause receive primary attention. Had two finite verbs been used, attention would have been split between the two. Judgments about the importance of one action relative to the other would be based on content and context.” - Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 198 

To summarize, authors render something as a participle to prioritize the finite verb in the complex. The participles support that which is supposed to receive primary attention. If an author means for two things to have equal attention and importance, two finite verbs are normally used. So how does this relate to how we interpret Colossians 2:11-12? Well, first remember how critically important it is for the Paedobaptist interpretation that the circumcision and baptism are for all intents and purposes the same thing. The circumcision is the baptism and they equate to one another. 

Where the syntax becomes relevant is when we realize that Paul doesn't render the circumcision and the baptism as finite verbs. Rather, between these two it's just the "ye were circumcised" that's the finite verb. "Buried with" is a participle. This means that circumcision is the action that's supposed to receive primary attention and importance. According to what Runge says on p. 198 when applied to Colossians 2:11-12, conveys that Paul does not intend for attention to be equally split between the circumcision in verse 11 and the baptism in verse 12. Yet, if as Paedobaptists argue, circumcision and baptism are essentially the same, equally split attention and importance between the two would be expected and proper. But Paul doesn't do this. It's undoubtedly true that the circumcision and baptism are related in some way. However, given the syntax, it would seem they're related in a way in which the baptism is a supporting idea and not the central action or activity. This should raise doubt as to the validity of the Paedobaptist interpretation which insists on a 1:1 congruence and equality between circumcision and baptism to conclude that baptism is the new circumcision. 

Objection 2. 

There are specific details that Paul gives concerning this circumcision in verse 11 which gives the impression that water baptism is not particularly in view as to what this circumcision is. 

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

In verse 11, Paul specifies that this circumcision is "made without hands". With this in mind, we must ask if hands are involved with water baptism. The answer is, of course. Hands are involved in holding the recipient as well as applying the baptismal water. So in what way is water baptism the circumcision made without hands when at face value there is such an obvious disconnect with these details? Some Paedobaptists could argue that the details about circumcision refer to the spiritual effects that baptism brings not necessarily baptism itself. However, this seems to undercut their own position. Recall again the quotes we provided earlier from Paedobaptists. They insist that the circumcision in verse 11 is the baptism in verse 12. The two are equated in their view. Therefore, relegating the details of verse 11 to be the results of baptism rather than baptism itself weakens the whole premise of the 1:1 connection between circumcision and baptism. With this in mind, we must figure out what "without hands" is referring to. 

Mrk 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, 

Act 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 

2Co 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 

Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 

There's a handful of verses that speak of "without hands" and "with hands". Being made "without hands" in the Bible usually refers to spiritual or heavenly things. It's something that isn't manufactured and doesn't involve human activity as the means of operation. Regarding circumcision, we get a good picture of this in Ephesians 2:11 where Paul talks about circumcision in the flesh which is "made by hands". This point of obvious incongruence with the circumcision "made without hands" in Colossians 2:11 further goes to show that equating baptism with circumcision is a hasty oversimplification. 

Objection 3. 

This leads us to our third objection. Rather than water baptism, we believe that circumcision without hands refers to heart circumcision. This is grounded in the antitype and fulfillment of circumcision in the Old Testament as well as Paul's theology on inward circumcision which we've already gone over. There isn't much to say here that hasn't already been said. To put things simply, we interpret the circumcision made without hands in Colossians 2:11 in congruence and in light of everything else that's said about circumcision of the same kind throughout the Bible. We just don't equate circumcision with baptism because they appear near each other one time. In previous sections, we've shown multiple passages that speak of an inward circumcision of the heart which doesn't require human hands. This is what we believe Paul is referring to. The "circumcision of Christ" is simply framing this heart circumcision with the incarnation and person of Christ in view which brings the antitype of circumcision to its ultimate fulfillment according to the Old Testament. Regarding Paedobaptists, outside of Colossians 2:11-12, what passages can they show that speaks of a circumcision that is Christian water baptism? We are presently unaware of any clear examples. This should bring further doubt to our minds when considering the Paedobaptist interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12. 

Objection 4.

This objection touches on aspects of Colossians 2:12 

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Our objection in verse 12 is more tertiary. We already know that Colossians 2:11-12 is a key text for Paedobaptism by connecting infant circumcision with infant baptism. Our issue here is that this passage seems to set this baptism as occurring on a credo basis. Meaning, it's "through the faith" that this is happening. Some Paedobaptist traditions have more difficulty with this than others. And this begins to get us into the issue of whose faith is in question. Different Paedobaptist traditions have their own unique views on that matter. We'll certainly dig into that in a separate article. For now, though, let's look at The Orthodox Presbyterian Church's comments on the verse. 

"To begin with, the premise of the verse is that of union with Christ by faith, as Paul notes, in the powerful working of God. And it is clear that this applies to those unbaptized who believe in Jesus. In that sense it does indeed support the credobaptist position (by the way, a paedobaptist supports credobaptism when the new believer has never been baptized as an infant!)." - OPC, Colossians 2:11-12 and Paedobaptism

We see a concession that there is support for the Credobaptist view in this verse. Conceding that Colossians 2:12 is focused on credo-centric baptism wouldn't be all that damaging for the Paedobaptist position if it wasn't for the fact that verse 12 is in a unit including verse 11, and verses 11-12 are used together as one of the foundational arguments for Paedobaptism. With this in mind, if verse 12 seems to focus on the baptism occurring on a credo basis through faith which brings willing converts to mind, what's the justification then for interpreting this baptism in coordination with verse 11 as proof for baptism on a paedo basis? Such an interpretation seems out of step with the overall flow of what Paul is saying. If Paul meant to prove Paedobaptism in verse 11 and the beginning of verse 12, why would he then switch to talking about Credobaptism in the second half of verse 12? This seems like another point of interpretive inconsistency. 

More could be said regarding our issues with the Paedobaptist interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12, but this will suffice. We have aimed to show that their interpretation isn't rock solid and not nigh to certain in the biblical context. 

SYNTHESIZING THE MEANING OF COLOSSIANS 2:11-12

We will now put forth a synthesis of Colossians 2:11-12 in alignment with the Credobaptist perspective. It must be stated that not all Credobaptists agree on how Colossians 2:11-12 should be interpreted. There are various perspectives. We aim to show one possible coherent interpretation. This interpretation touches on and takes into account much of what we've already said in this article. We will summarize it with the following points.

1. The focus of Colossians 2:11 is the fulfillment of Old Testament heart circumcision in light of the person and work of Jesus Christ who brings this to its ultimate fulfillment and reality. 

2. Colossians 2:11-12 does show a connection in some way between heart circumcision and water baptism. But this connection isn't that baptism is the new circumcision. 

3. This is because circumcision of the flesh doesn't point to water baptism as its fulfillment. Rather, circumcision points to the need for circumcision of the heart and it anticipated the promise of new and better covenant realities that are grounded in the person and work of Jesus Christ.  

4. Baptism's connection to heart circumcision is a supporting one. It's an external sign and testimony to the already received heart circumcision of the recipient. Baptism is supposed to be a witness to the presence of that which it supports; that being heart circumcision performed by the operation of the Spirit. This is unlike circumcision of the flesh which did not witness and testify that the recepient had undergone circumcision of the heart. This is why the baptism is set on a credo basis in verse 12. 

Our concern with Paedobaptists is that they might be under the false assumption that our interpretive options for Colossians 2:11-12 are that either there's a connection between circumcision and baptism in a 1:1 way or that there's no connection at all. Those are not our only two options. There's undoubtedly a connection in some way. But, the mere fact that there's a connection doesn't mean it must be in such a way that one is the other. That conclusion would have to be demonstrated both contextually and in alignment with the totality of the Bible.  

CONCLUSION  

In this article, we have endeavored to show the inference made for infant baptism by appealing to infant circumcision is false and invalid. Throughout this article, we have gone over: 

- A multitude of differences between circumcision and baptism 

- What the antitype and fulfillment of circumcision is

- How circumcision is spoken of in the New Testament 

- Paul's theology on inward circumcision 

- A comprehensive analysis of Colossians 2:11-12 

We will conclude by circling back to a quote we provided from John Calvin. 

“Hence we may conclude, that everything applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony…Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.” - John Calvin, Institutes 4.16.4 

We have demonstrated that statements like the one given above aren't true. It's a flattened-out oversimplification of the biblical data. There isn't a 1:1 ratio of application between circumcision and baptism. Baptism is not the new circumcision. As a result, arguing for infant baptism by appealing to infant circumcision is not a valid or sound argument. 

For the sake of argument, even if it was conceded that baptism is the new circumcision or replaces circumcision, that in and of itself would not prove that infant baptism is a valid inference from infant circumcision. The assumption that it is a valid inference rests on the idea that the covenant baptism functions under are the same covenant that circumcision functioned under with the same membership. This is a fundamental tenet of Covenant Theology and its core belief of covenantal unity and sameness. We'll cover that issue in its own article. 

A Credobaptist could say that baptism replaces or substitutes for circumcision but the covenant under which circumcision functions has also been replaced or substituted. We don't believe equating circumcision to baptism faithfully represents the overarching biblical testimony regardless of whether a Credo or Paedo view is in mind. However, this point goes to show that additional propositions would need to be biblically proven for the inference to stand. It's not enough to simply equate circumcision to baptism in some way. 

Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.