Another glaring error of sacramentalism/paedobaptism is their failure to consider the overall Bibical design behind external divine rites. The pre-Abrahamic example clearly presents that design but it is also noted in other places.
Hebrews 10:1 characterizes divine rites as a "shadow" which simply provides a visual form but does not contain the actual substance that casts the shadow. Colossians 2:17 in the context of circumcision, baptism and all external cermonial rites (Col. 2:12-16) explicitly characterize them all as a "shadow" whereas in contrast Christ is the actual substance that casts the shadow. Hence, these things are mere VISUAL FORMS that the writer of Hebrews says can "NEVER" take away sins.
Finally, the argument over the Greek "eis" or English word "for" in regard to such shadow rites is mute because shadows do visually convey remission of sins, regeneration, salvation or whatever substance they are designed to give visual expression. So the real question is not if baptism or circumcision saves, regenerates or remits sins but HOW it does. Romans 4:11 with Hebrews 11:1 and Colossians 2:17 all answer the how to be in VISUAL FORM only but "never" literally (Heb. 11:4). So Peter expresses it correctly when he says "the like FIGURE whereunto baptism doth also now save us. The FIGURE is the visual form of the resurrection "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21) while Peter carefully denies it literally saves which would involve the literal removal of the moral fith of the fleshly nature. Instead, like circumcision in Romans 4:11 it is the answer/response of a conscience already been cleasned and serves merely as an outward testimony of that previous cleansing due to justification by faith.
The serious error of sacramentalism is not merely that it perverts the scriptures and perverts the ordinances but in all practicality it transforms what the scriptures characterize as a "shadow" into the
visible means to receive the embodiment of the substance of salvation and thus the immediate object of faith instead of the
invisible Person and finished work of Jesus Christ. Hence, for all practicality it becomes the visible REPLACEMENT of Jesus Christ and His finished work and thus an IDOL and submission IDOLATRY!
Instead, the scriptures treat it as a "shadow" that does not convey the substance but merely resembles the VISIBLE FORM of the substance and thus a symbol of the substance.
For example, look at your own shadow and you will see it is completely empty of substance except VISIBLE FORM! A car can run over your shadow and it has no effect upon you. Divine visible rites are mere "shadows" that by design confer only the VISIBLE FORM but never convey the literal substance that casts the shadow. Sacramentalism is replacing the substance with the shadow.
In keeping with a "shadow" we can say of our "shadow" that is me. Me as in visible form but not me as in substance. When we look at baptism we can say that is salvation and remission of sins. Salvation and remission of sins in VISIBLE FORM but not salvation and remission of sins in substance as a shadow ordinance can "NEVER" takes away sin or saves literally.
So again, we come to the primary point. I do not deny that baptism saves and remits sins. Hence, no need to argue over the langauge. That is not the issue as I admit that. The issue is HOW does baptism save and remit sins. The answer is that it does so only as a VISIBLE FORM - a "shadow" but "NEVER" literally.
Also, the Roman Catholic idea that baptism is both a "sign" (symbol) and a "seal" or a MEANS OF COMPLETION of salvation is false as Romans 4:11 clearly repudiates. It is a "sign" (Symbol) meaning it is a "seal" (VISIBLE FORM) as a "seal" is the visible form on a letter that provides a VISIBLE REPRESENTATION of the owner.
What will be TS response? He probably won't dare come back and make any objective response. HOwever, if he does I guarantee it will most likely be introduced with more hot but empty air followed by unfounded assertions and more erroneous arguments while steering clear of the contextual evidences I have repeatedly pointed out in my exposition of Romans 4:9-11.