Essentially, is water baptism man's act of faith through which God spiritually circumcises, or is it merely a symbolic commemoration of spiritual circumcision. Thus far everything I've read in scripture points to the former, whereas the OP believes the latter.
Well, as you probably know, I vote with the symbolic group (which agrees with my Baptist upbringing)
per the following reasoning and Scripture:
Judaizers, Sabbatarians and Actsists
Paul warned Christians to beware of Judaizers, who revert to teaching justification by observing the law (Gal. 4:8-5:12). In Phil. 3:1-9 Paul said, “Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord!… Watch out for those… mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision [cf. Rom. 2:29]… If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:… in regard to the law, a Pharisee… as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ… I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ–that comes from God and is by faith.”
Jesus taught that his righteousness (Matt. 5:10&20) surpassed and superseded that of those who obeyed and taught the law (cf. Matt. 12:5-12, 19:3-9, Heb. 7:18-10:1). The law is represented by John the Baptist in Matt. 3:11a, “I baptize you with water [WB] for repentance” [forgiveness of sins indicated in the Torah, cf. Rom. 7:4-8:17], and Spirit baptism (SB) is indicated in Matt. 3:11b, “but after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
However, some people (“Actsists”) focus on events in Acts such as WB and glossolalia rather than on teachings in the epistles about faith/SB being what is essential (“Faithists”). The book of Acts does not teach foundational Christian doctrine but merely records what occurred during the early days of the church era as the revelation of GRFS transitioned from OT beliefs to the NT doctrine that is taught in the epistles, which never command WB or tongues as signs of SB or as essential for salvation.
The transition can be seen as occurring in Acts 16:31-34, where Paul told the jailer to believe in the Lord Jesus in order to be saved, NOT to believe and be WB in order to be saved. However, the jailer and others in his family who believed in God were WB. Then in Acts 17:30-34 Paul told the Athenians to repent, which some did, but whether they were WB is not mentioned. Then in Acts 19:1-6 Paul encountered some disciples of John who had been WB but had not been taught about SB, so they received SB when Paul placed his hands on them. Then in Acts 26:16-18, when Paul recounted his calling to King Agrippa, he quoted Jesus as saying, “I am sending you to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” WB was not mentioned, which continued to be the case in Paul’s epistles.
The foundation cited in 1Corinthisans 3:11 is Christ, referring to faith in Christ’s atonement (Rom. 3:12-5:1). Instructions about baptisms are mentioned in Hebrews 6:2, which logically, semantically, and mathematically had to be that WB is a sign or rite portraying a soul has been SB (Col. 2:12), since there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5) into one body (Eph. 4:4, 1Cor. 12:13). This understanding was held by Christians generally until RC perverted it by practicing infant sprinkling, which was corrected by the Anabaptists during the Protestant Reformation.
By the last of Paul’s epistles, WB came to be understood as a good but non-essential work or rite, like physical circumcision (PT), and the basis for believing folks are filled with the HS is reflecting God’s love for everyone (Matt. 22:37-40, 1John 4:7-21, John 13:35, Rom. 5:5, Gal. 5:6 & 22, etc.). We can see this indicated by Hebrews 8:13, which says the new covenant supersedes or makes obsolete the old covenant, including the ceremonial washings (baptisms).
Then, like now, the rite of WB is rightly performed as an apt or good way of portraying saving faith in the atonement of Christ, even though the work is not required, just as PT was not required for salvation either (per Paul in Romans 3:21-5:1). WB replaced PT in the NT church per Col. 2:11-12, which says, “In Christ you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a PT done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ (SB), having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” Surely Paul did not mean to suggest that WB done by the hands of men is salvific!
