Here is my "complete" take on the matter. I don't have much hope that this will change the minds of any paedobaptists here. I just wanted to state my position and show why I believe what I do about paedobaptism.<br><br>First, it is almost impossible to build a case for paedobaptism on the Acts passeges. There's too much we don't know, too much Luke doesn't tell us. Were there infants in these households, or were they all adults? In Acts 16, after we are told the jailer's family was baptized (vs. 33) we are told they all believed (vs. 34). Did the events take place in this order? Could infants possibly be credited with "believing"? Or is it assumed they are "covered" by their parents in this matter?<br><br>As is patent, there are too many questions to build a solid doctrine either way. In Charismatic Chaos, John MacArthur cites Joseph Dillow as saying,<br><br>"We must not make the tragic mistake of teaching the experience of the apostles, but rather we must experience the teaching of the apostles. The experience of the apostles is found in the transitional book of Acts, while the teaching of the apostles is set forth clearly in the epistles, which are our guide for our Christian experience today."<br><br>Thus we come to Colossians 2:11-12. The whole issue falls on these two verses. Without them, every word about covanental continuity, or the replacement of circumcision with baptism, is all based upon dubious implication, conjecture, and/or logical deduction of questionable Scriptural value. The entire paedobaptist position rests upon these two verses and their interpretation.<br><br>I will quote them here for everyone's conveniece.<br><br>"11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." KJV<br><br>"11 in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been 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." WEB<br><br>We see Paul explaining that while the old circumcision put off actual flesh, as a symbol, the new circumcision, the circumcision of Christ, puts off the sins of the flesh- a spiritual, rather than a physical, process. How is this process effected? By two things: 1)Being buried with Christ in baptism, in which we are also 2)raised with him through faith in God.<br><br>We must be careful with these verses, for a customary and decontextualized reading could very easily justify the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. After all, Paul does say we were buried and then raised with Him, in baptism! Obviously what Paul is getting at is what is behind the symbols, the eternal truths they represent.<br><br>I see no link between circumcision and baptism in this passage. The context reveals that what Paul is speaking of is a spiritual putting off of the sinful nature, effected through salvation. That is what baptism symbolizes- being buried and raised with Christ. Paul is saying nothing about the physical symbol of baptism- i.e. the actual water, etc.- as relating to the physical symbol of circumcision. He is rather comparing physical circumcision- to be blunt, the removal of the foreskin- with Christ's circumcision, a spiritual process whereby our sinful nature is "cut off."<br><br>Of this, to be sure, baptism is the sign, but is is clear that nowhere does Paul, nor any other Biblical writer, indicate that baptism is to be administered under the same method as circumcision. We would never assert than something like even the Lord's Supper, which clearly comes from Passover, must follow the same rules as passover. Why, then, such a rigid continuity between these two other ordinances so much more dubiously linked?

(Latin phrase goes here.)