Protestant Uses Paul Against Infant Baptism... Then This Happens

From Totus Catholica

Protestants Set a Circumcision Trap… It Backfired Spectacularly Protestants argue that Paul's attack on circumcision destroys Catholic sacramental theology. But when you actually read Paul, he doesn't abolish circumcision's logic - he says baptism is the circumcision of Christ. The very argument used against infant baptism is the argument that proves it. 📌 The Point: If infant initiation was legitimate for 2,000 years under the Old Covenant, why would it suddenly become illegitimate under the New Covenant - which is supposed to be better? A covenant that includes fewer people than its predecessor is not a greater covenant. 📖 Core Sources Colossians 2:11,12 - The Key Text: "In him you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands... having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him." Paul doesn't say circumcision was meaningless and baptism is different. He says baptism is the circumcision of Christ. Type (circumcision) fulfilled by antitype (baptism). The sign changed from cutting flesh to washing with water. The scope expanded from Jewish males to all people. But the pattern remained - infants included in the covenant before they could believe. Genesis 17 - God's Explicit Design: "He who is 8 days old among you shall be circumcised." God doesn't say wait until they believe. He doesn't say make sure they understand first. He says day 8, period. Genesis 17v7: "This covenant is everlasting and for Abraham's seed throughout their generations." If infant inclusion was part of an everlasting covenant, how could it be abolished in the New Covenant? Acts 2:39 - After Peter calls the crowd to repentance and baptism: "The promise is to you and to your children." Same covenantal language, same family inclusion structure - not just adults who can decide. Household Baptisms (Acts 16): The Philippian jailer - "He was baptized at once, he and all his family." All his family - not just those who could articulate a faith statement. ⛪ Early Church Evidence Origen (3rd century): "The church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism to little children" Council of Carthage (252 AD): Debated not whether to baptise infants but whether to do so before the 8th day - assuming infant baptism was already standard practice Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (c. 215 AD): "Baptise first the children and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" St. Augustine: "Baptism now occupies the place that circumcision held among the ancient people of God" St. Cyprian of Carthage: "If circumcision was given on the eighth day, we should not hesitate to baptise infants even earlier" CCC 1250: Infants should be baptised within the first weeks after birth - the urgency matches circumcision, the pattern is maintained. 🛡️ Objections Answered "Mark 16:16 says believe first, then be baptised"? This proves too much. Abraham couldn't wait for infant Isaac to believe before circumcising him - God commanded the eighth day. If conscious belief must always precede covenant initiation, then God violated that principle for 2,000 years. Protestants don't claim Abraham was wrong. Mark 16 addresses adults hearing the gospel for the first time - not children born into believing households (Acts 2:39). The Trap That Backfired: Ask any Protestant: "Was Abraham wrong to circumcise Isaac before Isaac believed?" Answer yes → contradicts Genesis and calls God's explicit command an error Answer no → proves infant initiation is biblically legitimate Either way, the Catholic position wins. 📺 Chapters 0:00 - The Trap: Paul on Circumcision Destroys Infant Baptism? 1:43 - The Real Question: Did the New Covenant Abolish Infant Initiation? 2:26 - Colossians 2:11,12: Baptism Is the Circumcision of Christ 3:22 - Genesis 17: God's Explicit Design - Day 8, No Waiting 4:47 - Early Church: Origen, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Augustine 7:38 - Objection: "Believe First, Then Be Baptised" (Mark 16:16) 9:50 - Conclusion: The Sign Changed, the Pattern Remains 🌐 Connect 📿 https://totuscatholica.org/rosary 🌍 https://totuscatholica.org/ ✉️ https://totuscatholica.org/contact 🔍 https://catholicexaminationofconscien... 💬 Question If Abraham was right to circumcise Isaac on day 8 before Isaac could believe - and Paul explicitly calls baptism "the circumcision of Christ" (Col 2:11,12) - why would infant baptism be wrong under the New Covenant, which is supposed to be greater?