At a recent conference, John Piper and Kevin DeYoung (KDY) were asked about infant baptism.[1] KDY, the host, allowed Dr. Piper to respond first. Anticipating the go-to verse for covenant-pedobaptism, Piper cited Colossians 2:12, emphasizing that it teaches credobaptism. “What happens in baptism is that we die and rise again through faith, my faith, not the pastor’s faith, not my parents’ faith, but my faith.” Colossians 2:11-12’s baptism is believers’ baptism.
KDY then succinctly presented the traditional covenant baptism interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12, one he felt so confident in, he posted it on X.[2] His fellow pedobaptists praised it as an exemplary articulation of covenant baptism. Let’s examine it.
First, KDY asserts, “Paul is comparing the spiritual import of circumcision with the spiritual import of baptism.” However, Colossians 2:11 does not mention physical circumcision. It states, “in him you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands . . . in the circumcision of Christ.”[3] N. T. Wright, a pedobaptist, notes that this refers to “metaphorical” circumcision consistent with such OT passages as Leviticus 26:41, Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, etc.[4] That Paul is referring to that metaphorical circumcision in Col. 2:11 is evident by describing it as “made without hands” and “of Christ.” It speaks of a new heart, thus of regeneration. Since Colossians 2:11 does not describe physical circumcision, it cannot be used to establish any relationship between it and baptism or to describe “the spiritual import of circumcision.” Contrary to the oft-repeated claim, Col. 2:11-12 does not draw a parallel between circumcision and baptism.
Wright argues that Paul’s fore-fronting of “the circumcision of Christ” is targeted at Judaizers.[5] That being the case, if Paul believed in covenant baptism, the easiest way to rebuke Judaizers would have been to insist that physical circumcision is unnecessary, as it has been replaced by baptism. But Paul does not do this. He, rather, points to regeneration as the fulfillment of circumcision.
It is true, as Wright notes, “‘Christian circumcision’” is “the point of entry into the community of Christ’s people” just “as physical circumcision was the point of entry into the community of Israel.”[6] But what Wright calls “Christian circumcision” is not baptism; it is regeneration. The OT itself shows that circumcision is a type of regeneration, rather than a type of baptism. Regeneration is the antitype, not baptism. We enter “the community of Christ’s people” by being born again (John 3:3).
Regeneration is, therefore, the sign of the new covenant. “Be baptized” is directed toward those who have received that sign, specifically to “disciples” in the Lord Jesus’ mandate to baptize (Mt 28:19). Baptism follows regeneration (the anti-type of circumcision). Baptism is, then, a sign of the sign of the covenant. That is, God makes a covenant with the elect; He regenerates them in due time, thereby granting them the sign of His covenant, which they then signify by being baptized. Thus, we Baptists, in addition to presenting alternative covenant theologies, should also simply insist that baptism is not comparable to circumcision. It is not a covenant sign.
Nevertheless, KDY proceeds to the second step. He claims, “Romans 4:11 says circumcision signified” everything that baptism signifies. Thus, by the principle of transfer, Romans 4:11 describes baptism (even though it doesn’t mention it). Hence, after (incorrectly) asserting that Colossians 2:11 describes the “spiritual import of circumcision,” he then says Romans 4:11 describes that “spiritual import” in a manner that is similar, if not identical, to the description of baptism. But this, too, is untrue. Circumcision is described as a “sign of the covenant” and a “seal of the righteousness that he had by faith” (Rom. 4:11). Despite the also oft-repeated claims otherwise, scripture never refers to baptism like that. A doctrine as fundamental as a sign of the covenant cannot be left up to being deduced by subjective “good and necessary consequences.”
Colossians 2:11-12 mentions baptism following a series of descriptions of believers. “In him” — actually in Greek “in whom” referring back to “Christ” in 2:8 — “you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands.” You were regenerated by God’s sovereign work (John 1:13) “in the stripping off of the body of the flesh.” This phrase is enigmatic. It may refer to the crucifying of the flesh in Christ (Galatians 2:24). Wright suggests that it could also pertain to removing “family solidarity,” how being identified with Christ transcends other identifiers like ethnicity or family ties.[7] If so, it would be ironic that this verse is employed, along with what KDY calls “the family principle,” to argue for the baptism of infants because of their family identity.
The “stripping” or removal of “the body of the flesh” occurs in “the circumcision of Christ,” i.e., in regeneration. This is not a second experience. It is one aspect of metaphorical circumcision.
Then, in Colossians 2:12, Paul begins with an aorist, passive participle, a divine passive implying God as the subject acting upon the believer. “Having been buried.” A key question: does this describe the cause of the “circumcision of Christ”? That is, is Paul suggesting that baptism caused “Christian circumcision” (regeneration) or is he providing a series of descriptions with no causal relationship between them? The participle may indicate that Paul is returning to the “you are” (2:10), which began “you are made complete in him,” also a participle. This could be interpreted as saying (in rough English to reflect the Greek), “You are having been made complete . . . you also were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands . . . ; [you are] having been buried with him in baptism…”. Even if this is incorrect, and Paul is revealing that baptism causes the “circumcision of Christ” (i.e., the causal interpretation), it could, then, be interpreted to support baptismal regeneration (of believers), but not covenant baptism. The Reformed tradition does not believe in baptismal regeneration.[8]
Further, Paul writes that we have been “buried” and “raised” with Christ in baptism, which suggests the mode of baptism: immersion (the literal definition of the Greek word “baptism”).
Finally, KDY’s additional points regarding “whether that sign can be applied before the known exercise of faith” and whether “the family principle is no longer operative” are moot. KDY has not demonstrated that baptism is a sign of the covenant. Circumcision could be applied before faith because it was a sign of the covenant, but baptism is “through faith,” as Piper observed. Regarding the “family principle,” the very first public teaching in the NT, John the Baptist’s, rejects it. “God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham” (Mt 3:9).
Speaking of “the family principle,” this issue is an intra-family debate. Pastor DeYoung has made many valuable contributions to nurturing and defending the faith, even if his handling of Col. 2:11 may not be one of them. He’s an able communicator. I even like to say, with a wry smile, that Dr. DeYoung is such a talented writer that he actually won second place in the 2000 Acton Essay Contest![9] (Look it up to get the joke.) We pray for God’s continued blessings on him.
John B. Carpenter, Ph.D., is pastor of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church, in Danville, VA. and the author of Seven Pillars of a Biblical Church (Wipf and Stock, 2022) and the Covenant Caswell substack.
[1] Coram Deo Pastors Workshop, February 13, 2025.
[2] Kevin DeYoung, X, April 9, 2025, https://x.com/RevKevDeYoung/status/1910003655207444901.
[3] NT Wright, Colossians and Philippians: Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1986), 109.
[4] Wright, 109.
[5] Wright, 109.
[6] Wright, 109.
[7] Wright, 111.
[8] John B. Carpenter, “The Catholicity of Regenerate Church Membership,” Themelios (50,2, 2025).
[9] https://www.acton.org/press/release/2001/acton-institute-announces-essay-contest-winners.
