Now, with this in mind, we see circumcision as a calling within the baptized race. It is just like the calling of the priests within Israel. A Venn diagram would just show concentric circles, the circumcised within the baptized, the priests within the circumcised.

The NT passages associate Christian baptism with the Flood, only now not only washing away but also glorification.

We can say that baptism circumcises us, but only in the same sense that it makes us priests. We stand in union with Jesus Christ as the New Firmament between God and the world, interceding for the world in the weekly liturgy.

I do think it’s illegitimate to call baptism “Christian circumcision.” Not because baptism doesn’t have any connection at all to the rite of old world circumcision, but because it doesn’t do justice to either circumcision or Christian baptism to talk like that.

I agree with this if that is all we’re talking about. There are likely enough ‘Baptistic’ Presbyterians (or perhaps I should have Presbyterians in quotes here?) running around thinking just this sort of thing about baptism. In that sense, I certainly agree.

I have found that both circumcision and baptism carry with them similar connotations that all center around the Christ event and our salvation. The best thing one can do to rid himself of this sort of limited view of baptism is to read more of the likes of Oscar Cullman and others who do not limit their perspectives to the myopic concerns of overly agitated men in the PCA and elsewhere who must minimize our understanding of the sacraments merely to preserve their limited propositional system in the name of defending the faith.

I believe it is difficult to use Colossians 2:11-12 without directly linking both circumcision and baptism together whether you reference Romans 4:11 or not. I don’t have a problem calling baptism “Christian circumcision” per se, but if that is *all* that one means by what we understand as baptism then we are likely on the same page in criticizing such a narrow view of it.

Rather, I see the apostle Paul being selective about how he explains the relationship between the two. In Colossians he wants them to understand that Christ’s death and resurrection is the fulfillment of circumcision and that by faith we understand that baptism plugs us into what Christ has accomplished.

Because the church is called the new Israel and Paul can say to the Philippians “we are the circumcision,” there is a connection between the two. I didn’t intend to deny that. What I say is that we should not call baptism “Christian circumcision” because the two are not identical and, maybe more importantly, circumcision is definitively fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Simply equating the two is not helpful. I mostly agree with the way Joshua has articulated this.

Then, too, in my original post I’m more interested in understanding what Paul says in Colossians 2 about circumcision, Christ’s work, and baptism. Bringing in other passages too quickly often obscures what Paul is saying in this passage.

But beyond that it is likely that Meyers needs to deal with the implications of Romans 4:11 which clearly identify circumcision as a sign and seal of the reality of justification by faith–which is one of the things that baptism signifies as well in the New Covenant (cf. Romans 6). To me, attacking one of the common understandings of Colossians 2 without dealing with Romans 4:11 and the implications we can draw from it is just attacking the wrong passage to prove a point which once again makes me ask really, so what?

One of the shortcomings of Meyers’ approach here could quite possibly be that we only see circumcision in one light as it relates to membership in the covenant whereas the text indicates a number of different ways for us to understand these things. Whether Meyers sees things so one-sided is perhaps for him to answer but I’m not sure we can’t see both Meyers original point that Baptism is fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ as well as the idea that there is a clear relationship to baptism from circumcision even if the passages are not always so direct as a rabid paedobaptist might like to make it appear with someone he’s arguing against.

I thought Jeff’s point was more broad than just the Colossians passage–it seemed he was saying that it was entirely illegitimate to call baptism “Christian circumcision.” I apologize for making this overly complicated: I was confused because I agreed with everything he said about circumcision, but it seemed that all those things (and more) could be said about baptism as well, so I wasn’t clear how the thesis followed from that argument.

I don’t think anyone is saying that you can’t make any connections between baptism and circumcision. (I would argue that there are connections made in the Pentateuch between circumcision and cleansings. Since the author of Hebrews [among others?] interprets baptism as a transformation of these Old Covenant sprinklings, there is a connection to be made in that way.)

Circumcision had to do with taking away the old flesh, but baptism has to do with putting on the new heavenly man. Circumcision didn’t quite do that, if for nothing else, he had not come yet.