My Retraction

To anyone who has ever read any of my blogs, you will know that I have posted several blogs on the Presbyterian view of baptism. I know and understand the covenantal argument for paedobaptism as seen in my posts. But recently, after giving this doctrine a lot of thought, I have come to the conclusion that infant baptism, as a whole, is not biblical. That's right, I am now a Reformed Baptist. What dealt the decisive blow in my "conversion" was the simple exegesis of the commonly known paedobaptist texts (Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3; Col. 2:11-12; etc). The specific text was Colossians 2:11-12. In context, verses 8-15 read-

8See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Colossians 2:11-12 has been the number 1 verse given to show the continuity of circumcision and baptism within the covenant of grace. The argument is simply this: "The sign of the covenant of grace in the O.T. was circumcision/ baptism has replaced circumcision in the N.T. as the sign of the C.o.G./ infants were circumcised in the O.T./ therefore, baptize you infants as infants in the O.T. were circumcised."

The problem with using colossians 2:11-12 as an argument stating that baptism has replaced circumcision is that it neglects and misreads the context of col. 2:11-12. Notice how vs. 9 & 10 transition from describing Christ to our being in Christ. Then, a plain reading of v. 11 will show that those who are in Christ have been circumcised with a circumcision without hands. These verses will now show us how we, who are in union with Christ, participated in the DEATH, BURIAL, and RESURRECTION of Christ.

"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ..."
Our body of flesh (old man) was cut off by the Spirit as Christ was cut off from the Father in His sacrifice (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me).

"having been buried with him in baptism..."
As Christ was buried in the tomb, so we are symbolically buried in the act of baptism (immersion: as we go down into the water)

"in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead..."
Our coming up out of the water portrays our having been raised with Him as well. Paul, in using the phrase "raised with him through faith," directs us back to the fact that this is all by grace alone through faith alone for this is "the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

But Paul does not stop there...

"13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him."
If anything confirms what Paul is saying in vs. 11 & 12, it's vs. 13-15. We were dead in the "uncircumcision of your flesh" (look at v. 11) and now we are "made alive together with him," we are "forgiven" of "all our trespasses," and Christ has cancelled "the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands" by NAILING IT TO THE CROSS.

If Colossians 2:11-15 is showing us anything, it is showing us that REGENERATION, not Baptism, is the fulfilment of circumcision. Just because these verses mention circumcision and baptism in the same sentence, does not mean that they are therefore linked together in a manner that justifies infant baptism.

In conclusion, if the fulfilment of circumcision is regeneration (Union with Christ), and if baptism is a sign of our union with Christ (our old man has died, and we are raised with Christ as a new man), then it follows that Baptism is to only be administered to those that are regenerated. Now I know that some will object at this point saying "how do you know if a person is truly regenerate? Can you see the heart?" That is why baptism is given on a profession of faith. Even the apostles could not see into the heart and yet gave the sign to an unregenerate, yet professing person (Simon the Sorcerer-Acts 8). Plus, it's a giant leap in logic to try to justify infant baptism saying "we can't see into the heart and we baptize anyway, therefore, baptize infants." Hence, I stand by my claim that infant baptism is not biblical.