This is not intended to be a definitive statement on water baptism, but it raises some questions that must be addressed. Whether or not I agree with a doctrine, I dislike bad arguments.
* * *
Have you ever come across the observation (and a response to it) that circumcision did not end on the basis that it was supposedly replaced by water baptism, but on the basis that it has been fulfilled by Christ? It seems that this observation is definitely true. Paul himself argued that circumcision ended because of Christ, not because of water baptism. So if there were no Christian baptism, circumcision would still have ended, because it ended on another basis. Then, the question is how infant baptism can be maintained on the basis that circumcision has been replaced by water baptism, since whether or not God covenants with families has become irrelevant to the topic.
* * *
One of the key passages is Colossians 2:11-12. The interpretation that practically identifies baptism with circumcision (so that baptism replaces circumcision) would read it like this:
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ
= having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
However, what is the refutation, if an opponent complains that the verses are read this way only because the desired conclusion has been brought to the text by force?
Suppose the opponent claims that it is more natural to read the passage this way:
(1) In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature
(not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ),(2) having been buried with him in baptism and
(3) raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
What if the opponent claims that, instead of talking about one thing (circumcision = baptism), the passage is talking about three things (circumcision, baptism, resurrection/faith)? Or at least spiritual circumcision and physical baptism as two different things, two entirely distinct operations?
Now, (a) if the circumstantial evidence (such as those passages in Acts) are inconclusive, neither proving nor disproving the doctrine, (b) if the interpretation on Colossians 2 is discredited or at least rendered inconclusive so quickly, (c) and if circumcision did not end because it has been replaced by water baptism, but because of the coming of Christ, as Paul argued in Galatians and other places, then the arguments from the usual biblical passages lose their force. Moreover, all arguments based on the covenant would become irrelevant, because these points would mean that whether or not God covenants with families, he does not have to associate any physical sign with it.
* * *
Of course the continuity of the OT and NT should not be in dispute. However, if water baptism is a sign of the covenant, and if the sign of the covenant must be applied to all members of the family, and if it is a moral obligation (so that it would be sin to neglect or refuse it), then the burden on the Reformed would be to establish beyond doubt (1) that there should still be a physical sign to the covenant, (2) that Paul’s reasoning behind Galatians and other places does not nullify a physical sign, (3) but only cancels circumcision as a physical sign, (4) while the same reasoning somehow allows, even imposes, another physical sign, (5) but at the same time removes the significance that the Jews have placed upon a sign, (6) and establishes beyond doubt that this physical sign has become water baptism. It would be an amazing feat.
Are we convinced that the Reformed arguments have done this? Even if the Reformed arguments on baptism are strong enough to permit their doctrine, are they strong enough to be enforced? To impose an obligation upon the conscience of all believers? To declare that it is a sin to refuse? The Reformed wish to place their doctrine on this level, but if the arguments are circumstantial and inconclusive, and if the essential principles and assumptions are rendered irrelevant, then they are insufficient to produce this effect. This is the difficulty that they must overcome in order for their doctrine to define sin and command the conscience, as they want it to do.
* * *
The premise is that God covenants with families, and baptism is a sign of the covenant that applies to members of the families. Let us consider the sign first. (1) Has it been established that there is a physical sign of the covenant under Christ? (2) Has it been established that water baptism is a physical sign of the covenant? Now, if baptism is a sign of the covenant, and if it replaces circumcision so that baptism stays and circumcision goes, then why was Israel “baptized” in water under Moses when they had the sign of circumcision (1 Corinthians 10:2)?
As for the covenant itself, God never covenanted with families in the way some people assumed. Paul’s argument in Romans 9 is that God never promised to save families as such, but he only promised to save “faith” — the faith of individuals. And these individuals could be way outside of those who had the sign of circumcision. So more Gentiles than Jews were receiving salvation through Jesus Christ. He actually said that those in the “family” were “not all” Abraham’s children. Suppose I receive Jesus, and God says that his covenant now belongs to me and my children. According to Paul’s reasoning, although God promises to save my children, he might consider only two out of ten of them truly my children, because only two would have faith. This makes the concept of covenanting with families, in the context of this topic, totally meaningless.
So did circumcision ever mean anything like the Reformed think? If not, then even if baptism replaces circumcision, which they must establish, baptism still would not mean what the Reformed think.
* * *
The most important thing is the circumcision of the heart. This has been God’s emphasis since the beginning (Leviticus 26:41, Deuteronomy 36:10, Jeremiah 4:4, Jeremiah 9:25-26, Acts 7:51, Romans 2:28-29). Although it was important to obey God’s command on circumcision, the Jews used their emphasis on physical circumcision to excuse themselves from spiritual circumcision. Many who anathematize people on water baptism are in the same condition. Their entire religion is about getting wet the right way and at the right age. They have never been baptized or circumcised in their hearts, and they don’t want anyone to know it.
The Sabbath was important, but Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He said to find out what God meant when he said that he wanted mercy, not sacrifice. God is not making Christians just so he would have more people to baptize. If we are not receiving mercy and showing mercy by doing what he commands, like preaching about victory in all of life, praying with faith, healing the sick, casting out demons, and prophesying for insight and comfort, then what good is it, if we are baptized the right way? We would not be doing what God wants anyway.
This is why I have mostly contempt and suspicion toward those who are insanely zealous for physical signs and rituals. They seem to be driven by a strange spirit. There is something wrong with them that they want to hide, and they are trying to distract people, even themselves, from the real issue. And they wouldn’t even offer better arguments while doing it, which shows us even more about their spiritual and intellectual corruption.
From: email
Recommended
The Relative Unimportance of Baptism