Circumcision and Baptism

I have often heard those who defend infant baptism say that baptism under the New Covenant is what circumcision was under the Old Covenant.  I understand the logic in that.  Circumcision was a sign that marked baby males as being a part of Israel's community.  It did not guarantee their salvation per se (whatever that might have meant to an ancient Israelite), but it did give them the advantage of being part of the community where God dwelled (in the Temple), revealed Himself, and poured out His blessing.  Proponents of infant baptism say such baptism does the same for our children.  It marks them as part of the church family making them part of the people among whom God dwells to reveal Himself and bless. Like circumcision, baptism is not a guarantor of future salvation, but it does provide advantage to knowing and experiencing God.

In Romans 4, Paul finds a different approach to circumcision under the Old Covenant.  Looking at Abraham, he finds that circumcision came after Abraham was made righteous not before.  Paul is trying to show that salvation has nothing to do with our works.  We do not gain God's approval by obeying the Law.  Paul says Abraham is proof of this.  In Genesis, Abraham is circumcised after he is declared righteous.  Thus, it is clear that it is not works that save Abraham but faith.  "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to Him as righteousness" came long before Abraham's circumcision.  In the Old Testament, circumcision did not always come before faith.  In Abraham's case, it followed salvation as a sign of God's approval and blessing.

This understanding of circumcision fits well with baptistic principles.  We at FBC say that the Bible teaches that baptism is reserved for those old enough to have already made a choice to follow Christ.  Baptism is not a saving act but it is a sign of the regeneration that has already happened through faith.  In this way, baptism by immersion is also consistent with the understanding of Old Testament circumcision found in Abraham.  Baptism of adults follows their being made righteous by faith just as circumcision did for Abraham.

Certainly Abraham's experience is not the thing that demonstrates baptism of adults trumps baptism of infants.  I am not making that argument here.  I am just suggesting that Romans 4 shows us that there are different understandings of circumcision contained within the Old Covenant and thus the Old Testament practice of circumcision does not establish the practice of infant baptism.  Both approaches to baptism have some corollary in the rite of circumcision.  The argument needs to be settled on other ground (if indeed it needs to be settled at all).