[quote:c2998fc7e9][i:c2998fc7e9]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:c2998fc7e9]
[quote:c2998fc7e9][i:c2998fc7e9]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:c2998fc7e9]
St. Paul did:
Col 2:10-17
And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, [b:c2998fc7e9]in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, [/b:c2998fc7e9]wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
[And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.
[Edited on 3-22-2004 by Wintermute] [/quote:c2998fc7e9]
Barth has amassed this amazing amount of riddles and questions that are left unanswered by the Paedobaptist and hence weighs against interpreting this passage as connecting baptism to circumcision the way paedobaptist do here. Barth writes:
1) Is not the statement: "You are baptized in Him" (along with: You are dead and you are raised again in Him), without any parallel in the New Testament?
2) Even with the strongest concentration on its deeper sense, can baptism, which is in any case a human act performed with water, be described so simply as a work not done with human hands?
3) In what tolerable sense can the statement in v. 11: "You are baptized...," be set in juxtaposition with that in in. 12 the power which effects their resurrection is expressly said to be that of faith in the operation of God who raised Jesus from the dead, so that it cannot be described as baptism.
4) Finally, how odd it is if the whole attack on the rituals commended by the false teachers depends at the decisive point on the argument that they are not needed because in this respect Christians are best provided for in baptism!
5) Positively, when the clause in c. 12a, which undoubtedly refers to baptism, calls it a being buried with Christ, is it not point back to a preceding dying with Him? All these difficulties disappear if one assumes that the circumcision effected on Christians- described in an expression peculiar to Colossians but most appropriate to its thesis- there is denoted the crucifixion of Christ which took place for Christians and embraces them.
Barth continues to show how all of theses unanswerable questions when the Paedobaptist interpretation is allowed to stand can be answered upon the interpretation that Christ crucifixion was what the circumcision without hands refers to and can make sense out of the passage:
Christians receive a share in the fullness of the Godhead. This was the work done on them, not by human hands in the body of the flesh in which they existed was put off and set aside like an old garment. If v. 11 speaks of the death of Christ which embraces Christians, it relation to the parallel v. 12, which speaks of their resurrection with Christ, is meaningful; it is also one which is found elsewhere in Paul. The reference to Christ death is a clear and cogent argument against the false teachers by whose onset the Colossians community was threatened. To call the death of Christ which embraces Christians His circumcision, i.e, the circumcision effect by God in Him, is justifiable in a defense against Jewish-Gnostic ritualism, in which (cf. Col. 3:11) the demand for circumcision probably played a prominent part. It is also justifiable on the ground that herein- in accordance with the meaning of Old Testament circumcisions (cf. Tit 2:14)- God purified a people for His possession. On this view (but only on this view) one can also see why there is in v. 12a a resemblance of baptism as the burial of Christians with Christ. This resemblance is not an argument. As in Rom 6:2-4 it gives emphasis to the real argument. It is to this effect: Even in your own lives as Christian you being with the event in which you burial with Christ, and there with you liberation from all autonomous attempts at deification of salvation, was... confirmed and registered by that which yourseleves desired and received from the community. Hold fast to this! (The Doctrine of Reconciliation p. 119-120)
Colossians 2:11-13 does not teach an identity between the two rites men do. [/quote:c2998fc7e9]
You can't be serious here, can you? You're going to cite Barth?
uzzled:
The same Barth who is so out to lunch on Covenant theology that he is a practical universalist?
Sheesh.