Episode 13 - Colossians 2:11-12 - Baptism pt. 2

To follow along with this click here!

Introduction

What’s up, guys!

This is Josh with Shepherd’s Cast and I want to welcome you to the podcast where I talk to you about the things that I find important. My content is meant to inform, educate, puzzle, or be funny. If it does something other than what I’ve just said, then Soli Deo Gloria, we will just call it providence. All of what I say is read from blog posts that I have written and can be found on my website with the link in the show notes.

So, anyway, yeah, here we go…

The Text

Without further pause, let’s get into a controversial text from the apostle Paul.

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, having 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. Colossians 2:11-12

Upon posting my podcast that referenced Baptism, a Lutheran posted on my Instagram that he wanted me to interact with a few different verses. As you may know, if you have been following my podcast for any length of time, I often like to focus passage-by-passage unless I am doing an entire topic of discussion, for instance, my headcovering episode, or the one where I was joined by Lee, with Reformed Meditations, and we touched on the topic of the misconceptions of Calvinism. So, if you’ll be patient with me, I hope to walk through a couple of these different verses starting specifically with the top of his list in this and possibly a few following episodes. However, before I dive in I want to make sure to mention a couple of things.

The first thing I want to mention is simply about our interpretive differences. I have a Lutheran in my small-group and we often bounce things off of one another. We have very clear differences and it often goes back to how we interpret Scripture, however, these differences do not lead to us anathematizing one-another. He would say, and has before, that Lutheran’s tend to take a more wooden, almost mystical approach, to the sacraments while those in the Reformed camp, like myself, would take a more logical approach. But we have come to this knowledge about one another in a brotherly understanding.

Secondly, and really, lastly, we, as brothers, have a very deep connection with one serious point. And that point, brothers and sisters, is we affirm against the papacy. If our differences start getting heated, we just talk about how the office of Pope is antichrist. Disagreement ended.

With that being said, let’s get to actually discussing the text at hand.

I believe it’s important to take this text all in one gulp. So, to reiterate, let’s take a look at the entire text one more time. “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, having 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.”

So, to begin with, we see that we are talking about a Spiritual circumcision. Now - we must remember that baptism, itself, is not a recognition of the dispensation of the covenant of grace in two different ways, as some would have you believe. Rather, baptism is a sign of the covenant that was looked ahead unto by the old covenant, with its sign being circumcision. So, when we see the word circumcision, we must remember that it is the sign that was given to Abraham and the covenant people of Israel to show that they were in covenant with God - but baptism, being outwardly expressed, is not a sign that you wear upon your chest, or elsewhere, to show that you are in covenant with God. Rather, the seal of the covenant, the lasting effect of such, is the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 1:22). There was never any confusion in the time of Abraham as to regeneration - this regeneration was not complete upon circumcision. Circumcision was a sign of who you were in relation to God - and to disobey in getting circumcision was to say that you were not of God.

But now, we see that this circumcision is spiritual, or, “not with hands” and this is done by the putting off of the flesh with the circumcision of Christ. It goes on to define this circumcision as baptism. This verse is often used by paedobaptists, or those who baptize infants, in order to argue their case. They do so on the basis of “Why would less things be included in the new covenant than in the Old when it is more often seen in Scripture the inclusion of more rather than less?” And to that, as a Baptist, I would say that we are not less inclusive - we are more inclusive by suggesting that women can take the sign of the covenant, so we would argue that it’s a strawman to use that argument.

To be quite honest, as a credobaptist, before I knew this verse appealed to the argument of infant baptism I wouldn’t have even seen it as a connection to baptismal regeneration. But the claim remains, from our Lutheran friends, that this verse appeals to such. “...having been buried with Him in baptism…” is clear language to me of the connection that was made between the believer and our Savior in baptism - not in a regenerative sense, but as a show of our being raised from death to life. He connected with the symbolic aspect of such, as there was never any need of Him needing to be regenerated, thus we are connected with the same - the symbol of our dying with Him, being buried, and raised again.

Continuing on, “... in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” This is where we would really drive it home. We are saved by grace through faith, as Ephesians 2:8 tells us, and this is not of ourselves. This verse sounds very similar in the sense that it is, again, through faith in which we were raised from death to life. The waters of baptism connect us with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the sign of the new covenant. It is a sign of the circumcision of the flesh that is “made without hands.”

For anyone who may not have heard what the 1689 says about baptism I want to reiterate that once more. Chapter 29, paragraph 1 of the confession says: “Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.”

I do not believe that this verse is a good argument for infant baptism, as infants are not mentioned. It is a discussion about circumcision and its connection with the new testament sign of Baptism. I also do not see this as being a good argument for baptismal regeneration as it continues to highlight faith as the salvific factor with baptism being the sign of the covenant. If Baptism were the salvific aspect of the New Covenant connection with Christ, we must consider the thief on the cross as truly in hell. Contrarily, if we are to suggest that he was saved due to his old covenant inclusion, then we must be true to the logic of the text and suggest that Nicodemus, in John 3:5, which is another text that I was asked to interact with, would have no clue what Jesus was talking about. And this, contextually, would not make much sense due in fact that Jesus was surprised that Nicodemus, a teacher of Judaism, did not understand a new covenant topic that Jesus was in the process of instituting.

I want to be clear, however, that it is not at all fair to lump our infant baptist friends in the same group as our baptismal regeneration friends. Although they often appeal to the same texts, as they both baptize their babies, it is imperative that we differentiate between the two. It would be a vast mischaracterization to think that Presbyterians believe that baptized infants are, thus, regenerate. It would be more accurate, rather, to say that they, those who baptize infants in a non-regenerative sense, believe the kingdom of God, or the church, consists of both wheat and tares. But, I can absolutely promise you, they would also not like, nor agree, with that description.

This is where we must be gracious with the text and remember the concept that I explained in the beginning. I might jokingly call my Lutheran brothers mystics because of their acceptance of certain text “Just Because” while they claim we are inconsistent for our holding fast to logic.

As someone in the Reformed camp we would claim that it would be illogical to look at texts such as Ezekiel 36:25 where, in talking about the New Covenant, our Lord is recorded as saying “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.” and think that our own actions of baptism are what saves us. For instance, Titus 3:5 says “he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit…” and we know that regeneration, or the washing thereof, is of God alone, Ephesians 2:1-7, and not of ourselves, Ephesians 2:8. The pouring out of the Spirit upon us in regeneration, or, as it says in Ephesians 1:13, “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit…” should not be confused by the outward expression, connection, and appeal that is made by us in the physical act of baptism.

The argument from our Lutheran brethren would, first and foremost, be that they do not put things into a systematic order like we do, however, they would suggest that the waters of baptism, imbued with the power of God through our faith, is what saves us, claiming that it is still not of us in this sense, even though it is our actions in the waters of baptism. But, out of the other side of their mouths, they would also say that someone incapable of baptism prior to death could still come to a saving faith, which is completely inconsistent, in my opinion.

I think, however, where we would both stop and agree, is simply to say that if you come to a saving faith, and not want to get baptized, there's probably a deeper issue going on than baptism. While we have our theological differences, and, trust me, they can be vast, it wouldn’t be profitable for us to treat the other as if they’re not saved. As a Particular Baptist, I believe I would unite with a chorus of voices to say that Martin Luther was an instrumental figure in the beliefs that we hold even today. As I’ve jokingly said before, we, the particular baptists, simply kept reforming where others stopped.

In the list proposed to me I did not see one of the more troubling texts that I was approached with. I remember discussing with my Lutheran friend about regeneration preceding faith, to which I was given the knowledge that they don’t like to systemize theology. However, he proceeded to tell others in the group that baptism causes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, specifically citing Acts 19:2-3, which says “And he said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ And they said, ‘No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.’ And he said, 'Into what then were you baptized?’ They said, ‘Into John's baptism.’”

In interacting with this text, however, it is clear that this is a passage set in what I would refer to as the inter-covenantal period, or, the time of covenantal transition. Thus, their belief in the promise was not a belief in the fulfilled promise. They were looking toward a future fulfillment that had already taken place, and thus, had not believed unto Christ. We clear this passage up with other recorded instances such as Ephesians 1:13 in which we read “when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.” Concluding, then, that we receive the Holy Spirit upon belief, and thus showing us another example of how the book of Acts, is a book of descriptors rather than prescriptors.

I pray you continue with me as I continue to press through these texts. While this is the end of this particular episode, I do intend to continue interacting with the texts proposed to me by my Lutheran commenter.

As the Reformers of old would say, ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbi dei, or, as we would say in English, Reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God.”

Final Word of the Day

I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to this podcast. It is always a pleasure to bring the word of God to those who are seeking to know more about Him.

The final word of the day comes to us from Maddie with Grassfed & Grace-Led.

*Listen to my podcast for this!*

A special thanks to Jesus Wannabeez for allowing me to use their newest track, Ephesians 6, in my intro and outro music. You can find a link to their Spotify in the show notes.

And, as always, may the light of the holy God shine upon you.

Amen.