baptism being "replaced" by circumcision

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Colossians 2:11-12
"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."

While discussing infant baptism, my apologetics concordance sheet lists this verse in support of infant baptism. I also checked the reference section but I'm still not sure I fully understand this enough to make a good case out of it.

The argument is that this passage speaks only of a "spiritual circumcision" and not of an actual snip, and that the "through faith" implies old enough to decide (I can take issue with that myself). However, admittedly I'm not enough of a Scripture buff to see how this passage is interpreted to be replacing circumcision with baptism because it doesn't seem to be talking about the actual Jewish practice of circumcision, but more of a spiritual circumcison (i.e., "of the heart" like Moses speaks of).

I'm missing the connection...

[StColette]

I've always thought that Paul was trying to present a parallel between circumcision and baptism.

So I guess it would be used in that case to show that since circumcisions were performed on babies so should baptisms.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='StColette' date='Jul 17 2005, 12:35 AM']So I guess it would be used in that case to show that since circumcisions were performed on babies so should baptisms.
[right][snapback]646122[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I tried that route. But they're insisting Paul is speaking about "spiritual circumcision" which would be beyond the scope of an infant.

[StColette]

I've always found that verse hard to use in debating Infant Baptism so I kinda avoid it lol I'll look around some more to see if I can find something to help you.

[StColette]

This might help

------------------------------------------------

In my one paper on the topic (a fictional dialogue), I made the following biblical arguments:

In Acts 16:15,33, 18:8 (cf. 11:14), and 1 Corinthians 1:16 it is stated that an individual and his whole household were baptized. It would be hard to say this involved no small children. Paul in Colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38, Romans 9:4). Circumcision, given to 8-day old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Galatians 3:14,29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Romans 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Genesis 17:7, Deuteronomy 29:10-12, cf. Matthew 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, 9:25, Romans 2:28-9, Philippians 3:3). Infants are wholly saved by God's grace just as adults are, only apart from their rational and willful consent. Their parents act in their behalf.

Actually, I drew most of my data for the above reasoning straight from a prominent 19th-century Presbyterian theologian, Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, abridged ed., edited by Edward N. Gross, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988, 484-90; chapter 20, §10). I don't see that he specifically uses the argument from Colossians there, yet it is undeniably a legitimate and orthodox Reformed argument, as it can be traced directly to John Calvin:

{From Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, tr. Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960}:

Paul . . . adds that the Colossians had been buried with Christ through baptism [Col 2:12]. By this he means that baptism is today for Christians what circumcision was for the ancients.

{Book IV, ch.14, sec. 24; v. 2, 1300}

But since before baptism was instituted God's people had circumcision instead, let us examine how these two signs differ from each other, and in what respects they are alike. From this will appear the anagogic relationship of one to the other.

[editor's note: "Calvin regards circumcision anagogically as the anticipation of baptism."]

{Book IV, ch. 16, sec. 3, entitled "Circumcision and Baptism," v. 2, 1325-1326; the editor cites the same comparison in St. Augustine, City of God, Book XVI, ch. 27, and in Protestant theologian Oscar Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament, ch. 4. Additionally, Lutheran theologian Philip Melanchthon makes the same argument in his Loci Communes (1555 ed.), ch. 21}

Now we can see without difficulty the similarity and difference of these two signs. The promise (in which we have shown the power of the signs to consist) is the same in both, namely, that of God's fatherly favor, of forgiveness of sins, and of eternal life. Then the thing represented is the same, namely, regeneration. In both there is one foundation upon which the fulfillment of these things rests. Therefore, there is no difference in the inner mystery, by which the whole force and character of the sacraments are to be weighed. What dissimilarity remains lies in the outward ceremony, which is a very slight factor, since the most weighty part depends upon the promise and the thing signified. We therefore conclude that, apart from the difference in the visible ceremony, whatever belongs to circumcision pertains likewise to baptism. To this anagogic relationship and comparison we are guided by the rule of the apostle, which bids us examine all Scriptural interepretation according to the proportion of faith [Rom. 12:3,6]. And the thing is so true we can almost touch it. For circumcision was for the Jews their first entry into the church, because it was a token to them to which they were assured of adoption as the people and household of God, and they in turn professed to enlist in God's service. In like manner, we are also consecrated to God through baptism, to be reckoned as his people, and in turn we swear fealty to him. By this it appears incontrovertible that baptism has taken the place of circumcision to fulfill the same office among us.

{Book IV, ch. 16, sec. 4 (complete), entitled "The Difference is in Externals Only," v. 2, 1327}

He [God] expressly declares that the circumcision of a tiny infant will be in lieu of a seal to certify the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant still remains firm and steadfast, it applies no less today to the children of Christians than under the Old Testament it pertained to the infants of the Jews . . . The objection that there was a stated day for circumcision is sheer evasion. We admit that we are not now bound to certain days like the Jews; but since the Lord, without fixing the day, yet declares that he is pleased to receive infants into his covenant with a solemn rite, what more do we require?

{Book IV, ch. 16, sec. 5, entitled "Infants are Participants in the Covenant," v. 2, 1328}

Now seeing that the Lord, immediately after making the covenant with Abraham, commanded it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament [Gen. 17:12], what excuse will Christians give for not testifying and sealing it in their children today? . . . After circumcision was abolished, the same reason for confirming his covenant (which we have in common with the Jews) still holds good . . . Only the manner of confirmation is different - what was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism.

{Book IV, ch. 16, sec. 6, entitled "Difference in the Mode of Confirmation Only," v. 2, 1329}

Clearly, if circumcision was a literal sign, we must estimate baptism to be the same. For the apostle, in the second chapter of Colossians, makes neither more spiritual than the other. For he says that we were circumcised in Christ not by a circumcision made with hands, when we laid aside the body of sin which dwelt in our flesh. This he calls the 'circumcision of Christ' [Col. 2:11]. Afterward, to explain this statement, he adds that in baptism we were 'buried in Christ' [Col 2:12]. What do these words mean, except that the fulfillment and truth of baptism are also the truth and fulfillment of circumcision, since they signify one and the same thing? For he is striving to demonstrate that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision previously was for the Jews.

{Book IV, ch. 16, sec. 11, entitled "The Promises Were Spiritual," v. 1, 1333}

Calvin continues on to make several more arguments for this analogy and for infant baptism in general.

In the same work, the editors cite Zwingli:

Circumcision among the ancients (so far as it was sacramental) was the same as baptism with us.

{McNeill / Battles, ibid., v. 2, 1326; from the primary source, Refutation of the Tricks of the Baptists}

Therefore, this view was held by the three major branches of the early Protestant movement: Calvinist, Lutheran, and Zwinglian. In all likelihood, such arguments could probably be found in Anglican and Methodist writings as well (since they, too, accept infant baptism). It would be denied, of course, by the Anabaptists (and the later Baptists), who espoused believer baptism for those persons attaining the age of reason only.

[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ328.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ328.HTM[/url]

[Cure of Ars]

Are you having this discussion on our board for the Crusade?

[Apotheoun]

It is not so much that there is a one to one relationship between baptism and circumcision; instead, there is a relationship between baptism and the life of Christ. By the sacrament of baptism a man is incorporated into Christ in such a way that all that Christ experienced and all that Christ did, is lived and experienced by the man who has been sacramentally incorporated into His Body, the Church.

Christ has fulfilled the Law by living it, and through his sacramental incorporation into Christ, a Christian has been identified with Christ to such a degree that he exists "in Christ," and conversely Christ exists "in him." As St. Paul said in Galatians, "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me." [Galatians 2:20] Therefore, all that Christ did in His earthly life and ministry has been sacramentally lived and experienced by anyone who has been incorporated into Him by baptism, and at the same time, all that a Christian now experiences is experienced by Christ, who mystically lives in him. That is why when a Christian suffers, it is Christ in him who suffers, because in a manner that transcends human understanding, the eternal Son of God continues the work of His passion in His Body the Church (cf. Acts 9:5; and Col. 1:24).

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jul 16 2005, 11:24 PM']Colossians 2:11-12
"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."

[right][snapback]646117[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Baptism, as the Church has always taught, is our birth into new life in Christ. It is a sacrament so there is a true spiritual reality taking place in the outward sacramental sign. Life in Christ , in Pauline terms, is a "putting off the body of flesh" (Paul does not use this word 'sarx' in a gnostic sense), as well as the death of the "old man" which is Adam (or the fallen state of which Adam is the representative). We die and are reborn in the "new man", Christ (this is humanity redeemed). The Church also teaches that in Baptism we receive the Holy Spirit. In the Pauline corpus circumcision is used in a rich typological way to describe the meaning and significance of Christian Baptism. It is something that is probably not fully appreciated by modern people, but to the Jews of that time this parallel would have been profoundly rich with meaning (as it still is technically). Circumcision was entrance into the covenant of Isreal, the chosen people of God and a new way of life in the Law of Moses. Baptism is entrance into Isreal fulfilled; the Body of Christ. We become a new creation and enter into the Life of the Spirit.

Paul's use of thesis and antithesis as well as type and antitype in explaining the plan of God is a beautiful achievement; but something that would take some time to elucidate, mostly because as non-ancient Israelites, we lack the appropriate context and background for appreciating the nuances. A protestant might read this verse with a false and anachronistic hermenteutic, and perhaps derive support for a doctrine utterly foreign to the first 1500+ years of Christian teaching (for example an argument against baptismal regeneration), but the historical Christian Tradition (The Catholic Tradition) would be a powerful counter-argument, as would a more sophisticated reading of St. Paul.

Regards.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Something else regarding the pericope you quoted is this:
"by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."

I see the putting off the body of flesh and burial in baptism as relating to the passion, death and burial of Our Lord. The subsequent words seem to relate to Christ's resurrection and ascension (other Pauline baptismal verses come to mind as well, for example: 'You have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God'). I see this as identifying the Christian life, which we enter by baptism and faith, as nothing less than participation in the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ (which is an infinitely rich reality).

This verse really gets at the heart of many things. I am constantly in awe of Paul's inexhaustible depth (he had the advantage of Divine Inspiration of course).

Cheers

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Jul 17 2005, 01:24 AM']Are you having this discussion on our board for the Crusade?
[right][snapback]646164[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I haven't looked at our crusade board for like a week. It came up on another message board AND my protestant friend was over and mentioning something about it the other day... so it's sort of a mix between the two.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 17 2005, 07:19 AM']Baptism, as the Church has always taught, is our birth into new life in Christ. It is a sacrament so there is a true spiritual reality taking place in the outward sacramental sign. Life in Christ , in Pauline terms, is a "putting off the body of flesh" (Paul does not use this word 'sarx' in a gnostic sense), as well as the death of the "old man" which is Adam (or the fallen state of which Adam is the representative). We die and are reborn in the "new man", Christ (this is humanity redeemed). The Church also teaches that in Baptism we receive the Holy Spirit. In the Pauline corpus circumcision is used in a rich typological way to describe the meaning and significance of Christian Baptism. It is something that is probably not fully appreciated by modern people, but to the Jews of that time this parallel would have been profoundly rich with meaning (as it still is technically). Circumcision was entrance into the covenant of Isreal, the chosen people of God and a new way of life in the Law of Moses. Baptism is entrance into Isreal fulfilled; the Body of Christ. We become a new creation and enter into the Life of the Spirit.

Paul's use of thesis and antithesis as well as type and antitype in explaining the plan of God is a beautiful achievement; but something that would take some time to elucidate, mostly because as non-ancient Israelites, we lack the appropriate context and background for appreciating the nuances. A protestant might read this verse with a false and anachronistic hermenteutic, and perhaps derive support for a doctrine utterly foreign to the first 1500+ years of Christian teaching (for example an argument against baptismal regeneration), but the historical Christian Tradition (The Catholic Tradition) would be a powerful counter-argument, as would a more sophisticated reading of St. Paul.

Regards.
[right][snapback]646305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is awesome. I think this might help... thanks!

everyone else too!

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jul 16 2005, 11:24 PM']Colossians 2:11-12
"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."
. . . .
The argument is that this passage speaks only of a "spiritual circumcision" and not of an actual snip, and that the "through faith" implies old enough to decide (I can take issue with that myself). However, admittedly I'm not enough of a Scripture buff to see how this passage is interpreted to be replacing circumcision with baptism because it doesn't seem to be talking about the actual Jewish practice of circumcision, but more of a spiritual circumcison (i.e., "of the heart" like Moses speaks of).[right][snapback]646117[/snapback][/right][/quote]
well, he's talking about baptism by referring to circumcision. the metaphor of a "spiritual circumcision" would mean nothing if he did not have the jewish practice in mind. what paul is doing here is combatting the notion that christians had to be circumcised. he's essentially saying, "no, we don't need your physical circumcision, for we have already been circumcised in the spirit."

also, a spiritual circumcision need not imply that the one who receives it is old enough to make a profession of faith. baptism parallels circumcision, among other reasons, b/c it is performed on infants. also, we can perform it on infants and still say that it is "through faith in the working of God" b/c it is through the faith of the parents that the infant is baptized.

from the catechism:[list][b]1253 [/b]Baptism is the sacrament of faith (cf. Mk 16:16). But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"
[/list]hopefully that answers any remaining questions you may have

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[StColette]

boy I do believe we've covered every angle of this question Wonderful jobs everyone

[Laudate_Dominum]

The idea of the necessity of circumcision (have your foreskin snipped), always reminds of star-bellied sneetches for some reason. hehe

[StColette]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 18 2005, 12:02 PM']The idea of the necessity of circumcision (have your foreskin snipped), always reminds of star-bellied sneetches for some reason. hehe
[right][snapback]648112[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


ROFL Sean you're crazy

[phatcatholic]

star-bellied sneetches?

[StColette]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 18 2005, 12:11 PM']star-bellied sneetches?
[right][snapback]648132[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0394800893.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/img]

you can read the book [url="http://members.tripod.com/subrecords/sneetches/"]Here[/url]

[phatcatholic]

what's the connection to circumcision?

(maybe i don't wanna know......)

[franciscanheart]

i was about to ask the same thing....

[StColette]

no comment lol