A Study of Baptism in Scripture, Part 1
The investigation of historical evidence for believer’s baptism1 has been less profitable than one might wish. It did little to persuade my paedo-baptist friends to convert to credo-baptism. And the ensuing discussion made me a little concerned about whether they are still my friends. Before going forward with the last part of the discussion, let’s look at biblical evidence for infant and believer’s baptism.
Apostolic practice
First, what do the Scriptures say was done under the supervision of the apostles? The book of Acts tells of new believers who were baptized and welcomed into the church. The baptism of believing adults was part of the missionary endeavor of the church. Jesus commanded it in the Great Commission.
In Acts 8:36-38, Philip finishes explaining the gospel to an Ethiopian eunuch.
And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”2 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Baptists sometimes point to v. 37 as a clear statement about what it takes to be baptized: faith. But a closer look will show that it doesn’t logically exclude infant baptism. The eunuch asks, “What prevents me from baptism?” Peter answers: faith. “Me” in this question is an adult. What prevents an adult from being baptized? Faith. Reformed paedo-baptists would give the same answer today. Like Philip, they refuse to baptize an adult who does not give a credible profession of faith. But the eunuch only asked about himself. He didn’t ask about infants.
Household baptism
Paedo-baptists also believe that the oikos formula (“and his/her household”) indicates infant baptism.3 The book of Acts mentions several households that were baptized. Paedo-baptists argue that a “household” in this day was a large multi-generational group, which surely included infants. So, if households were baptized, we should assume that infants were baptized. Acts 16 offers an example:
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. (ESV, Acts 16:13-16)
But if the use of oikos for baptisms proves infant baptism, it must also prove other things, such as infants fearing God (Acts 10:2), infants rejoicing (Acts 16:34) and infants believing (Acts 18:8).
The answer of a good conscience
The foyer of my childhood Lutheran church had a small tract about infant baptism. As I remember, it read, “The Apostle says, ‘baptism now saves us.’” I thought, “Wow, that would seem to settle it—is that really in the Bible?” It was.
There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (NKJV, 1 Pet. 3:21)
Despite its use by my Lutheran church to defend baptismal regeneration, this passage may be read differently. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown describe the word “answer”:
answer—Greek, “interrogation”; referring to the questions asked of candidates for baptism; eliciting a confession of faith “toward God” and a renunciation of Satan ([AUGUSTINE, The Creed, 4.1]; [CYPRIAN, Epistles, 7, To Rogatianus]), which, when flowing from “a good conscience,” assure one of being “saved.” Literally, “a good conscience’s interrogation (including the satisfactory answer) toward God.”4
In other words, accepting baptism is the answer that comes from a person whose conscience has been made right—regenerated. The early church conflated baptism with regeneration in much the same way that some modern Baptists have conflated praying a sinner’s prayer with regeneration. Many modern Christians speak as though (and even believe) that praying a prayer saves us. We would not have prayed for salvation if we didn’t believe. For us, a prayer was the response of the regenerated sinner. For the first century Christian, baptism was the response. And it “saved them” in the same sense that the sinner’s prayer “saves.”
Others read this as “an appeal to God for a good conscience” (e.g., ESV). The appeal could include either a new believer asking God for forgiveness or perhaps parents appealing to God, by means of baptism, for the future regeneration of their child.
1 Corinthians 7:14 tells us that the children are made holy by believing parents. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether the rite of baptism is a means of that sanctification. There is a sense of expectant waiting in this verse regarding unbelieving spouses. Similarly, we should expectantly await the regeneration of our children. The question of whether to baptize them in anticipation of this or to wait for signs of faith is not addressed in this passage.
Buried with Him in baptism
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (ESV, Col. 2:11-12)
Both sides use this passage. It is possible that this refers primarily to spiritual baptism into Christ. It is said to be a circumcision “without hands.” And it does say, “through faith.” Paul is saying that the baptism he has in mind works through faith. There are objections from paedo-baptists: First, whose faith is in view? Some see the faith of the parents or of the church. Second, at what point in time does the faith work? Can faith follow the baptism, but still work through the knowledge of the event? Can baptism help us understand that we are in God’s family, even though it happened to us long before we were regenerated? After all, the old covenant believer was “cut off” from the world to God long before he was able to demonstrate faith. And circumcision was to remind him later in life that he was “cut off.” This brings up the question of the similarity of, or difference between, the covenants. This will be discussed in Part 2.
This study has not been exhaustive, but to my knowledge, there is no clear direct Scriptural evidence for or against either form of baptism. What one side holds as clearly supporting their view the other side simply views another way.
Notes
1 Baptism in Church History, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
2 There are textual challenges to the last half of verse 36. Trends towards baptismal regeneration and infant baptism would seem to incline editors to remove rather than to add this statement. If it was added, it is more likely to have been added by a believer in believer’s baptism.
3 For an extended discussion, see: Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, Joachim Jeremias, Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1960, pp. 76-78.
4 Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary on 1 Peter 3, available online: http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=7&con…. Square bracketed content original.
Dan Miller Bio
Dan Miller is an ophthalmologist in Cedar Falls, Iowa. He is a husband, father, and part-time student.
I realize this is just a “part 1” but even in these passages the evidence is not neutral on the question.
A huge factor in determining what constitutes clear evidence is what your starting point is when you look at the evidence. In this case, it’s better method to look at the nature of salvation first. With that as a theological foundation, we come to baptism texts with the understanding that the burden of proof lies on those who want to give baptism some effectual relationship to grace.
But I think there’s another historical area worth digging into as well: what was the Jewish view of baptism prior to Christian baptism or even the baptism of John? Since baptisms of one sort or another were already known, there would be insight there as to what the apostles mean. They would not need to state what was already assumed by their hearers/readers.
I don’t know what the answer to that is, but I suspect that baptizing infants was not routine. So we are really not coming to these texts on level ground. We’re coming from a history in which babies were not baptized. The result is that the texts would need to pretty explicitly specify that it’s for infants. Silence on that specific point doesn’t have equal significance for both options.
The old counterargument is that there is a connection to circumcision in the OT. But again, baptism is distinct from circumcision in John’s day as well as Jesus’ (people did both separately). We would need some very clear teaching to get the idea that the two are becoming one somehow.
The Col. 2 passage can be read as teaching circumcision->baptism, but certainly doesn’t have to be. And other options are at least equally good. (If you start with a sola fide understanding of salvation, other options are far better: i.e., the passage isn’t about water baptism. How did the Reformers manage to miss this? It has much to do with customs that had already developed in an environment in which sola fide was not in focus.) On that, see http://sharperiron.org/article/reformers-defense-of-infant-baptism] The Reformer’s Defense of Infant Baptism
A huge factor in determining what constitutes clear evidence is what your starting point is when you look at the evidence. In this case, it’s better method to look at the nature of salvation first. With that as a theological foundation, we come to baptism texts with the understanding that the burden of proof lies on those who want to give baptism some effectual relationship to grace.
But I think there’s another historical area worth digging into as well: what was the Jewish view of baptism prior to Christian baptism or even the baptism of John? Since baptisms of one sort or another were already known, there would be insight there as to what the apostles mean. They would not need to state what was already assumed by their hearers/readers.
I don’t know what the answer to that is, but I suspect that baptizing infants was not routine. So we are really not coming to these texts on level ground. We’re coming from a history in which babies were not baptized. The result is that the texts would need to pretty explicitly specify that it’s for infants. Silence on that specific point doesn’t have equal significance for both options.
The old counterargument is that there is a connection to circumcision in the OT. But again, baptism is distinct from circumcision in John’s day as well as Jesus’ (people did both separately). We would need some very clear teaching to get the idea that the two are becoming one somehow.
The Col. 2 passage can be read as teaching circumcision->baptism, but certainly doesn’t have to be. And other options are at least equally good. (If you start with a sola fide understanding of salvation, other options are far better: i.e., the passage isn’t about water baptism. How did the Reformers manage to miss this? It has much to do with customs that had already developed in an environment in which sola fide was not in focus.) On that, see http://sharperiron.org/article/reformers-defense-of-infant-baptism] The Reformer’s Defense of Infant Baptism
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think you mean Philip, not Peter.
Jesus said who was to be baptized: disciples.
End of story, paedo are sinning.
End of story, paedo are sinning.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
I have read not a few paedo-Baptist writings that concede that support for their practice is less directly given in the Biblical text - whether by command or example - than it is the product of covenant theology. Israel was the church of the Old Testament, it has been replaced by Christians. Circumcision was how infant Jews were initiated into the the covenant community in the Old Testament, so baptism is how infant Christians are initiated into the covenant community in the New Testament. The fact that not all infants baptized are believers is dealt with by A) pointing out that not all circumcised Jews were believers either and B) what many covenant theology advocates call “the ecclesiola within the ecclesia”, meaning the (hidden?) body of regenerate Christians within the visible (state) church. As the purpose of the state church was to provide political, economic and social unity and stability, it was in the interests of the state church to maximize its membership, and also make excommunication from the state church synonymous with banishment from - or at least marginalization within - the state, or at least the mainstream. So, it was not in their interests to require a public profession of faith because that would have radically lowered the membership of the church-state and the ability to use it for political, economic and social control. So, when the interests of the state contended against the interests of the gospel, the state won out. This went back to at least Augustine, who served as the propagandist of the Roman Empire when the empire used murderous force to prevent the Donatists from breaking away and start their own church. The Reformed church-states followed the Roman example in their own murderous persecution of the Anabaptists, and used Augustine’s writings to justify it. The Reformed church-states claim against the Anabaptists that believer’s baptism was a heresy worthy of death was totally ridiculous, impossible to justify using the Bible. But they were operating from the presuppositions of covenant theology and the Catholic doctrines that preceded it. Just as Augustine used “compel them to come in” of Luke 14:23 to justify compulsory membership in the state church (and did so specifically with respect to the Donatists) those with a prior commitment to paedobaptism because of covenant theology will use household baptisms and similar Bible texts to justify the conviction that baptism serves the same - or at least an analogous - purpose for the Christian church that circumcision did for Old Testament Israel.
So the real issue is not paedobaptism as much as it is covenant theology. However, an issue with directly challenging covenant theology itself is that it seems that the primary contemporary alternative to covenant theology is premillennial dispensationalism, and in particular Arminian (or to be honest, “Calmanian”, as few actual Remonstrants and Wesleyans exist outside of Methodism) premillennial dispensationalism. Perhaps the Reformed “New Covenant Theology” sorts would be the ones best suited to taking on the paedobaptism issue. The problem is that there is no single or normative “new covenant theology”, and also I am not aware if there has been a widely known scholarly - i.e. systematic theology - treatment of NCT.
So the real issue is not paedobaptism as much as it is covenant theology. However, an issue with directly challenging covenant theology itself is that it seems that the primary contemporary alternative to covenant theology is premillennial dispensationalism, and in particular Arminian (or to be honest, “Calmanian”, as few actual Remonstrants and Wesleyans exist outside of Methodism) premillennial dispensationalism. Perhaps the Reformed “New Covenant Theology” sorts would be the ones best suited to taking on the paedobaptism issue. The problem is that there is no single or normative “new covenant theology”, and also I am not aware if there has been a widely known scholarly - i.e. systematic theology - treatment of NCT.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
[DavidO] I think you mean Philip, not Peter.Yes. Typo there. I’m sure it was because somebody was using Micro$oft Word instead of Libre Office or Open Office!
Will fix shortly.
(Edit: OK fixed. In Acts 8:36-38,
[JamesK]This is where I switch sides and argue for paedo baptism! Not really, but I’m going to play advocate for the view because I think there is no long term advantage (and significant disadvantage) to understating their case.
The great commission
Jesus said who was to be baptized: disciples.
End of story, paedo are sinning.
As far as the Great Commission goes, there is a command there to do something to disciples but there is no command to refrain from doing something to their babies. So if we really were starting with a theological blank slate (kind of how Dan is approaching it in the article), the GC would offer nothing in support of exclusive baptism of disciples.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
For whatever it’s worth, I believe that Household Baptist is a better description of what Presbyterians believe, rather than Paedobaptist. No real Presbyterian believes that one should indiscriminately go around baptizing babies at the local Wal-Mart(and most, if not all, Credobaptists don’t say that they do, either.) The word(Paedobaptist) seems to lack the real meaning of what people like me believe about Baptism. The thrust of the argument is that the family follows the faith of the head of the family. IF they are of an age where they reject it, then they are not baptized. I think the biggest obstacle in believing the Presbyterian position is the individualistic thinking of our day. The believers in the First Century were much more of a Covenant mindset than we are today. I doubt very much that any church in that day would have the word “Independent” in their “Yellow Page” ad. Certainly, one could argue that it wasn’t necessary at the time and is now needed. That would be a good debate for another day.
My study of baptism started with pulling up every verse that had the word baptism in it, and ended with a study of Covenant Theology. In my study, CT had the best answers to I Corinthians 7:14 and John 15:6. I came to the place where I thought the preponderance of the evidence came down on the side of Household Baptisms. I am not 100% sure I’m right…probably closer to 65%. In my study, CT had the best answers to I Corinthians 7:14 and John 15:6.
A question for James K…what verse are you specifically referring to, please?
Thanks,
Bill
My study of baptism started with pulling up every verse that had the word baptism in it, and ended with a study of Covenant Theology. In my study, CT had the best answers to I Corinthians 7:14 and John 15:6. I came to the place where I thought the preponderance of the evidence came down on the side of Household Baptisms. I am not 100% sure I’m right…probably closer to 65%. In my study, CT had the best answers to I Corinthians 7:14 and John 15:6.
A question for James K…what verse are you specifically referring to, please?
Thanks,
Bill
[JobK] Perhaps the Reformed “New Covenant Theology” sorts would be the ones best suited to taking on the paedobaptism issue. The problem is that there is no single or normative “new covenant theology”, and also I am not aware if there has been a widely known scholarly - i.e. systematic theology - treatment of NCT.I was baptistic all my life, but not a convinced credobaptist until I read Fred Malone’s defense from the Reformed Baptist perspective. He argues for baptism of disciples alone based on the nature of the New Covenant in contradistinction to the Old Covenant: the New Covenant actually gives people new hearts, actually puts the law of God on their hearts, unlike the Old Covenant. Only those with a credible confession of faith should be considered New Covenant beneficiaries.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
I am not 100% sure I’m right…probably closer to 65%. In my study, CT had the best answers to I Corinthians 7:14 and John 15:6.I appreciate your openness about that. I’m about 88% sure you’re wrong. ;)
I think James K’s argument has some unstated premises. There are a couple that would make the argument work and several that fail.
One that fails…
1. Jesus commands us to baptize disciples
2. Everything Jesus commands to be done to one sort of person, He forbids to be done to another sort
3. So, the command to baptize disciples is a prohibition against baptizing anyone else
The second premise is clearly a problem.
One that might work a little better, but still not great… (2nd premise still pretty weak)
1. Jesus commanded us to baptize disciples
2. If He had wanted us to baptize anyone else He would have said so
3. So He doesn’t want us to baptize anyone else
I’d have to do more thinking than I have time for right now to make a strong argument from the Great Commission passage. It can only be done if you have a really strong second premise that you derive from one or more other passages and/or some historical context.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
M. Osborne said,
“the New Covenant actually gives people new hearts, actually puts the law of God on their hearts, unlike the Old Covenant”
Michael, are you saying that the law of God is not written on the hearts of the Gentiles, or hasn’t always been there? If so, do you get that from Jer 31:33? Also, what do you understand Romans 2:15 to teach in regards to the law of God being written on the hearts of unbelievers?
Thanks,
Bill
“the New Covenant actually gives people new hearts, actually puts the law of God on their hearts, unlike the Old Covenant”
Michael, are you saying that the law of God is not written on the hearts of the Gentiles, or hasn’t always been there? If so, do you get that from Jer 31:33? Also, what do you understand Romans 2:15 to teach in regards to the law of God being written on the hearts of unbelievers?
Thanks,
Bill
Aaron,
How does one know who the disciples are? I think we all can agree that everyone baptizes people that will not be in heaven. I know some Baptists who will baptize on just a profession(like 3000 in one day in Acts, or Philip and the eunuch by the water) and others who say that their must be fruit(some period of time to pass.)
As it applies to baptism, is it really our job to go around and determine who the disciples are and aren’t? It would seem more consistent that we consider the children of believers holy(I Cor 7:14) simply by virtue of their birth, until they prove themselves to be unholy(apostatize.) Holy obviously doesn’t mean “saved,” but it does mean set apart unto God. Like Israel was, but “not all Israel is Israel.”
Does that make sense?
BTW, I really am trying to continue to learn here so that I can bump my 65% up to 88% or down to 45%. I committed a long time ago to not run to my corner in these Baptism discussions and have an attitude of I’m right and I’ll show the world. I want to learn. I want to keep Reforming. God help me.
How does one know who the disciples are? I think we all can agree that everyone baptizes people that will not be in heaven. I know some Baptists who will baptize on just a profession(like 3000 in one day in Acts, or Philip and the eunuch by the water) and others who say that their must be fruit(some period of time to pass.)
As it applies to baptism, is it really our job to go around and determine who the disciples are and aren’t? It would seem more consistent that we consider the children of believers holy(I Cor 7:14) simply by virtue of their birth, until they prove themselves to be unholy(apostatize.) Holy obviously doesn’t mean “saved,” but it does mean set apart unto God. Like Israel was, but “not all Israel is Israel.”
Does that make sense?
BTW, I really am trying to continue to learn here so that I can bump my 65% up to 88% or down to 45%. I committed a long time ago to not run to my corner in these Baptism discussions and have an attitude of I’m right and I’ll show the world. I want to learn. I want to keep Reforming. God help me.
I’m on my way out my office door and I’d like to take a shot at your questions for Mike. Very quick, haphazard shot.
1. I think one key to the relat. of Gentiles to the NC is the grafted in language of Rom. 9-11
2. On Rom.2.15… when I studied through Romans for the 2nd or 3rd time recently, I came to the conclusion that much of what Paul says about “law” doesn’t make sense read as “The Law” (as in, the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant). It seems to me that what’s gong on 2.15 is P. is explaining that even unbelievers and non-Jews carry “law” within them in one sense: they have a conscience-based knowledge of some basics of right and wrong (which they go ahead and violate anyway…. just like religious people do). So the overall arg. there is that people who officially have law and people who officially do not have law, both really do.
But the Jer. New Covenant reference to law written in hearts has a different sense I believe. The context includes some comprehensive language about the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea (or it’s in some parallel prophecies if not Jer.). This is a true knowledge of God (as in, “Hey, I know you. We met at…” vs. “I read about you in….”).
But I look forward to see Mike’s answers.
On who the disciples are…
I have to make some assumptions here. Jesus does not seem to think the disciples He is speaking to there will have any trouble knowing who future disciples are, even though they will lack the ability to see their hearts.
So the fact that Jesus commands disc. to be baptized there indicates we are able to tell “well enough.” I suggest Acts 2 clarifies the standard: those who accepted the gospel there were considered disciples and baptized.
1. I think one key to the relat. of Gentiles to the NC is the grafted in language of Rom. 9-11
2. On Rom.2.15… when I studied through Romans for the 2nd or 3rd time recently, I came to the conclusion that much of what Paul says about “law” doesn’t make sense read as “The Law” (as in, the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant). It seems to me that what’s gong on 2.15 is P. is explaining that even unbelievers and non-Jews carry “law” within them in one sense: they have a conscience-based knowledge of some basics of right and wrong (which they go ahead and violate anyway…. just like religious people do). So the overall arg. there is that people who officially have law and people who officially do not have law, both really do.
But the Jer. New Covenant reference to law written in hearts has a different sense I believe. The context includes some comprehensive language about the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea (or it’s in some parallel prophecies if not Jer.). This is a true knowledge of God (as in, “Hey, I know you. We met at…” vs. “I read about you in….”).
But I look forward to see Mike’s answers.
On who the disciples are…
I have to make some assumptions here. Jesus does not seem to think the disciples He is speaking to there will have any trouble knowing who future disciples are, even though they will lack the ability to see their hearts.
So the fact that Jesus commands disc. to be baptized there indicates we are able to tell “well enough.” I suggest Acts 2 clarifies the standard: those who accepted the gospel there were considered disciples and baptized.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Bill Roach]I would say that Romans 2:15 and Jeremiah 31:33 address different issues.
Michael, are you saying that the law of God is not written on the hearts of the Gentiles, or hasn’t always been there? If so, do you get that from Jer 31:33? Also, what do you understand Romans 2:15 to teach in regards to the law of God being written on the hearts of unbelievers?
Yes, those without special revelation (specifically in Romans 2, Gentiles) have a God-given faculty that helps them know what’s right and wrong. In this sense they know the law, what God expects of them.
I think in the full context of the passages that describe the New Covenant, the law written on people’s hearts means that they are given the ability to obey, something that the law written on stone could never do. This covenant involves:
- The law written on hearts (Jer. 31:33)
- People actually knowing God relationally (Jer. 31:34)
- Full forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31:34)
- Spiritual cleansing (Ezek. 36:25)
- The Holy Spirit (Ezek. 36:27) who causes them to obey God (this is parallel to the internalization of the law)
- True repentance (Ezek. 36:31)
- The abolition of Old Covenant ceremonies (Heb. 10:15-18)
But when I studied the New Covenant, I realized that not treating children as part of the covenant is actually a step forward, because the New Covenant actually effects spiritual transformation. I agree with the paedobaptists that what circumcision was to the Old Covenant, baptism is to the New. Where I disagree with the paedobaptists is that you cannot call children of believers New Covenant beneficiaries until the New Covenant actually transforms their hearts.
Somehow thinking of this through a Dispensationalist grid never helped me. Thinking of the OT/NT transition as a transition from one people/institution (Israel) to another (the church) simply didn’t have explicit Scriptural support. But the transition that the NT authors did labor to explain is this transition from Old Covenant shadows to New Covenant realities. At this point in my studies, I’ve re-thought the whole future-of-Israel question, and while I think the NT does teach the ongoing and future salvation of physical Israelites, I also see that they will never approach God on an Old Covenant basis again.
Hopefully this makes sense…
Grace and peace,
Mike
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
Good discussion. I trust you will keep it going. I would like to point out that Fred Malone, who makes a very strong case for credobaptism, also espouses covenant theology, which comes out very clearly in his excellent book, referenced above, BAPTISM OF DICIPLES ALONE.
It is true that paedobaptism leans heavily upon some form of CT, and is difficult to sustain without CT, but it does not follow that everyone who espouses CT also espouses infant baptism. Historically, there has been a strong lineage of baptists who are calvinists and covenant theology, but emphatically not paedobaptists.
I would not want someone to get the impression from previous posts that covenant theology leads one to paedobaptism. It does not, or at least, it does not necessarily.
The previous post that references New Covanent Theology is helpful. As one who embraces many elements of CT, but also some elements of NCT, it appears to me that this is really no more or less than historic baptist theology, at least as it existed in the history of baptists in the United States.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
It is true that paedobaptism leans heavily upon some form of CT, and is difficult to sustain without CT, but it does not follow that everyone who espouses CT also espouses infant baptism. Historically, there has been a strong lineage of baptists who are calvinists and covenant theology, but emphatically not paedobaptists.
I would not want someone to get the impression from previous posts that covenant theology leads one to paedobaptism. It does not, or at least, it does not necessarily.
The previous post that references New Covanent Theology is helpful. As one who embraces many elements of CT, but also some elements of NCT, it appears to me that this is really no more or less than historic baptist theology, at least as it existed in the history of baptists in the United States.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
This has only become a complicated issue because we have allowed so much nuance and history to confuse the issue. Let us be clear about something: the Westminster confession would call nonpaedos sinners for NOT practicing it. This isn’t just some inhouse debate or a discussion about the color of curtains in the sanctuary. This is an issue that the paedos used to severely persecute believers.
Aaron, contrary to the point you are trying to make, that somehow the lack of an exclusion could somehow allow for it, one simply needs to reread it.
Matthew 28:18-20
18 “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.
The only command Jesus gave to baptize was this.
1. Make disciples
2. Baptize them
3. Teach them
In that passage, Jesus didn’t forbid baptizing dogs, bicycle tires, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or Florida Gator football memorabilia. You throw the Gator stuff in the trash.
Further, many covenantists love to point out how many times “all” refers to a fraction of something bigger. “All the city…” doesn’t really mean every person in the city came to see Jesus, etc. Yet with “households”, we are to pretend they are bigger than what they demand.
So the paedo is in the impossible position of:
1. Successfully convincing those not entrenched in covenantism that infants can be disciples.
2. Successfully arguing from silence.
3. Successfully proving that the household included infants. Even if it did, the statement does not demand that the infants were baptized.
No, what paedos really need is to be in charge of the government again to they can legislate credos out of practice again. Luther and Zwingli were both cowards on this point by giving in to secular powers over God’s word.
James
Aaron, contrary to the point you are trying to make, that somehow the lack of an exclusion could somehow allow for it, one simply needs to reread it.
Matthew 28:18-20
18 “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.
The only command Jesus gave to baptize was this.
1. Make disciples
2. Baptize them
3. Teach them
In that passage, Jesus didn’t forbid baptizing dogs, bicycle tires, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, or Florida Gator football memorabilia. You throw the Gator stuff in the trash.
Further, many covenantists love to point out how many times “all” refers to a fraction of something bigger. “All the city…” doesn’t really mean every person in the city came to see Jesus, etc. Yet with “households”, we are to pretend they are bigger than what they demand.
So the paedo is in the impossible position of:
1. Successfully convincing those not entrenched in covenantism that infants can be disciples.
2. Successfully arguing from silence.
3. Successfully proving that the household included infants. Even if it did, the statement does not demand that the infants were baptized.
No, what paedos really need is to be in charge of the government again to they can legislate credos out of practice again. Luther and Zwingli were both cowards on this point by giving in to secular powers over God’s word.
James
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Bill, you asked Mike:
“Also, what do you understand Romans 2:15 to teach in regards to the law of God being written on the hearts of unbelievers?”
If Rom 2:15 refers to the law of God, ie, the Torah, being written on the hearts of unbelievers, the promise of Jer 31 is moot and worthless. I hope that helps.
“Also, what do you understand Romans 2:15 to teach in regards to the law of God being written on the hearts of unbelievers?”
If Rom 2:15 refers to the law of God, ie, the Torah, being written on the hearts of unbelievers, the promise of Jer 31 is moot and worthless. I hope that helps.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
[G. N. Barkman] Good discussion. I trust you will keep it going. I would like to point out that Fred Malone, who makes a very strong case for credobaptism, also espouses covenant theology, which comes out very clearly in his excellent book, referenced above, BAPTISM OF DICIPLES ALONE.Yes…I’m always amused at those who think that if you believe XYZ from covenant theology, you have to be a paedobaptist. For myself, I went toward covenant theology and toward a firmer credobaptism at the same time, for the same reasons.
It is true that paedobaptism leans heavily upon some form of CT, and is difficult to sustain without CT, but it does not follow that everyone who espouses CT also espouses infant baptism. Historically, there has been a strong lineage of baptists who are calvinists and covenant theology, but emphatically not paedobaptists.
I’d love to call myself Reformed Baptist…but then guys like Charlie would tell me I don’t exist. :)
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
Michael, reformed baptist is what the reformation would have been if some of its major shakers weren’t chicken.
James
James
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Aaron, on the historical situation, all my research has suggested or asserted that Jewish proselyte baptism was in fact of the entire household. So, any presumed cultural connection between Christian and Jewish baptism would lend toward infant baptism. Also, it’s beyond dispute that Jews in general considered their children to be part of the covenant, with all the attached blessings. If the NT in fact excludes these children from the covenant community and attendent blessings, I would think there would have been a huge outcry and much explicit teaching. If we are to assign the burden of proof based on history, it all points toward inclusion of children. An explicit reference to this Jewish teaching is Matthew 19:14 / Luke 18:16.
Job, neither covenant theology nor the state church can explain pedobaptism. Infant baptism is universally accepted as theologically valid by the 3rd century, at the very latest. Constantine is 100 years later. Also, the Reformers didn’t accept infant baptism as a function of a state religion. They affirmed it through theological argumentation and with reference to the spiritual, not political, community. Their views of infant baptism do not depend on a prior theology of church-state relations. A cursory reading of their own writings will confirm this. (I suggest Willem Balke’s Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals as a good secondary source on Calvin.)
To several, on the issue of baptism and disciples, I think there is a misunderstanding. Covenantal pedobaptists do not do not say disciples AND children should be baptized. Rather, they affirm that children are disciples. The Bible teaches parents to raise them “in the Lord.” New Testament texts are addressed to children. So, we would affirm the order of baptize then disciple. Since our children are necessarily our disciples, they ought to be baptized.
Regarding the household (οικος), it is not analogous to a contemporary nuclear family. The point isn’t whether the specific households mentioned in the NT had infants in them. The point is that the conversion of the head of the household places everyone in the household into a new relation, regardless of who might be in those households. (This was true in the OT and intertestamental periods as well.) Most scholars will say that οικος has special reference to children in the family (Stauffer, Jeremias). The reference to 1 Cor. 7:14, the “holy children,” of course isn’t directly about baptism. But it makes sense only within a theological framework that acknowledges that the faith of one person (particularly a parent or “head” in some sense) can somehow affect the spiritual status of others in that person’s sphere.
On the Reformed Baptist question … whatever. I think Baptists who use covenant theology to support antipedobaptism should be heard. It’s a legitimate theological move. I found Malone to be very disappointing, and that when I was still Baptist. But there are others such as Jewett who do a better job.
Job, neither covenant theology nor the state church can explain pedobaptism. Infant baptism is universally accepted as theologically valid by the 3rd century, at the very latest. Constantine is 100 years later. Also, the Reformers didn’t accept infant baptism as a function of a state religion. They affirmed it through theological argumentation and with reference to the spiritual, not political, community. Their views of infant baptism do not depend on a prior theology of church-state relations. A cursory reading of their own writings will confirm this. (I suggest Willem Balke’s Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals as a good secondary source on Calvin.)
To several, on the issue of baptism and disciples, I think there is a misunderstanding. Covenantal pedobaptists do not do not say disciples AND children should be baptized. Rather, they affirm that children are disciples. The Bible teaches parents to raise them “in the Lord.” New Testament texts are addressed to children. So, we would affirm the order of baptize then disciple. Since our children are necessarily our disciples, they ought to be baptized.
Regarding the household (οικος), it is not analogous to a contemporary nuclear family. The point isn’t whether the specific households mentioned in the NT had infants in them. The point is that the conversion of the head of the household places everyone in the household into a new relation, regardless of who might be in those households. (This was true in the OT and intertestamental periods as well.) Most scholars will say that οικος has special reference to children in the family (Stauffer, Jeremias). The reference to 1 Cor. 7:14, the “holy children,” of course isn’t directly about baptism. But it makes sense only within a theological framework that acknowledges that the faith of one person (particularly a parent or “head” in some sense) can somehow affect the spiritual status of others in that person’s sphere.
On the Reformed Baptist question … whatever. I think Baptists who use covenant theology to support antipedobaptism should be heard. It’s a legitimate theological move. I found Malone to be very disappointing, and that when I was still Baptist. But there are others such as Jewett who do a better job.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Aaron, on the historical situation, all my research has suggested or asserted that Jewish proselyte baptism was in fact of the entire household.That would be because the Old Covenant was made with a nation. Everyone born into a Jewish home was part of that covenant. The New Covenant just doesn’t work that way by any biblical text.
If unbelieving Children are disciples, then Jesus’ command is pointless. Making disciples follows going into the world, ie, those outside the faith and seeing their conversion. The disciples to be baptized are disciples of Christ, not the parents.
It is entirely possible that by the 3rd century paedobaptism was valid. However, in the 1st century, it wasn’t.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
I think MOsborne has some solid points I’d like to here “household baptizers” answer.
On the other hand, Charlie’s claim that the early Christians would have assumed whole-household position in the covenant (new) because of the Jewish history and the norms of proselyte baptism—and that we should expect the NT to explicitly clear this up—can’t be dismissed out hand.
Maybe Mike’s CT anti-paedobaptist sources have an answer for that one?
Personally, I do see a marked shift in emphasis from OT to NT in the level of individuality. You have a couple of references to households in Acts but so much individual faith in both Acts and the gospels. …. like to say more about this but have to run.
There is a reason we do not allow today that kings or presidents can declare their entire nations converted and line them up to be sprinkled. The NC does not work that way.
I’d argue it doesn’t work that way for families either.
On the other hand, Charlie’s claim that the early Christians would have assumed whole-household position in the covenant (new) because of the Jewish history and the norms of proselyte baptism—and that we should expect the NT to explicitly clear this up—can’t be dismissed out hand.
Maybe Mike’s CT anti-paedobaptist sources have an answer for that one?
Personally, I do see a marked shift in emphasis from OT to NT in the level of individuality. You have a couple of references to households in Acts but so much individual faith in both Acts and the gospels. …. like to say more about this but have to run.
There is a reason we do not allow today that kings or presidents can declare their entire nations converted and line them up to be sprinkled. The NC does not work that way.
I’d argue it doesn’t work that way for families either.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[James K] Jesus said who was to be baptized: disciples.Uhm… yeah, this is the question I am eventually driving towards…
End of story, paedo are sinning.
–=-=-=-=-===-=-=-=-=–
Arguments based on the relationship of the covenants is the subject of Scripture in Baptism-Part 2. The question is who was intended to be in the covenant and should therefore receive its sign?
[Charlie] …Also, it’s beyond dispute that Jews in general considered their children to be part of the covenant, with all the attached blessings. If the NT in fact excludes these children from the covenant community and attendent blessings, I would think there would have been a huge outcry and much explicit teaching.1. I have to agree with Charlie on this aspect of burden of proof. The believing community (OT) was accustomed to treating their children as part of the covenant community. This would seem to place the burden of proof on believer-baptists.
Job, neither covenant theology nor the state church can explain pedobaptism. Infant baptism is universally accepted as theologically valid by the 3rd century, at the very latest. Constantine is 100 years later. Also, the Reformers didn’t accept infant baptism as a function of a state religion. They affirmed it through theological argumentation and with reference to the spiritual, not political, community. Their views of infant baptism do not depend on a prior theology of church-state relations. A cursory reading of their own writings will confirm this. (I suggest Willem Balke’s Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals as a good secondary source on Calvin.)
To several, on the issue of baptism and disciples, I think there is a misunderstanding. Covenantal pedobaptists do not do not say disciples AND children should be baptized. Rather, they affirm that children are disciples. The Bible teaches parents to raise them “in the Lord.” New Testament texts are addressed to children. So, we would affirm the order of baptize then disciple. Since our children are necessarily our disciples, they ought to be baptized.
Regarding the household (οικος), it is not analogous to a contemporary nuclear family. The point isn’t whether the specific households mentioned in the NT had infants in them. The point is that the conversion of the head of the household places everyone in the household into a new relation, regardless of who might be in those households. (This was true in the OT and intertestamental periods as well.) Most scholars will say that οικος has special reference to children in the family (Stauffer, Jeremias). …
2. It is very possible in Acts that entire households were actually converted in belief.
3. http://sharperiron.org/article/baptism-history-part-1] Aristides seems to describe a Christian community that did not consider it’s children or servants to be Christians, but in need of persuasion.
[charlie] …The reference to 1 Cor. 7:14, the “holy children,” of course isn’t directly about baptism. But it makes sense only within a theological framework that acknowledges that the faith of one person (particularly a parent or “head” in some sense) can somehow affect the spiritual status of others in that person’s sphere.Underline mine. Charlie, I think that your argument is valid, but I don’t think it helps with infant baptism. Credobaptists also trust their teaching and discipling will result in faith on the part of their children.
1 Corinthians 7 speaks of unbelieving spouses with the same language of children. We influence those around us with the Gospel and if we are genuine and let the gospel change our lives, those close to us will not be able to deny its power for long. Yet there is no call by anyone to baptize unbelieving spouses because we have an expectation that they will come to faith.
So it seems to me that both groups can expect their children to come to faith on the basis of 1 Corinthians 7, regardless of baptismal status. Therefore, the verse carries its meaning very well in both theological systems.
[Aaron Blumer] On the other hand, Charlie’s claim that the early Christians would have assumed whole-household position in the covenant (new) because of the Jewish history and the norms of proselyte baptism—and that we should expect the NT to explicitly clear this up—can’t be dismissed out hand.I agree with Charlie about the default assumption for early Christians, that if this was the default assumption, that it would require a big adjustment in perspective. Since I’m heading out to a men’s retreat later today, I probably won’t be able to collect some Scripture…but I find it chiefly in the passages that contrast outward and inward Jewishness: these passages both made me suspect the future of physical Israel as described by Dispensationalists, and also suspect the paedobaptist view that believers’ children are part of the covenant. I do think the apostles dealt with and corrected that assumption. Sorry for the lack of substance…my break time is only so long.
Maybe Mike’s CT anti-paedobaptist sources have an answer for that one?
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
When quoting Jesus in Matt. 28 concerning baptism in water it is automatically assumed that He meant us, as in today, now, and throughout the church age.
But is it also automatically assumed when He says, ‘do ALL I have commanded…’ such things as selling all and giving to the poor, own no more than one coat, and the many, many other commands he gave His apostles - those somehow have no bearing in 2011, or at least is not AS important than being dunked.
Eph 3 says there is ONE baptism. Which one? Water? Spirit? Moses? Fire? The Bible mentions at least 12 baptisms, more than 3 of those in the N.T.
I have seen words here like this: refusal to be baptized (in water) is a sign that one may not be a true believer. So baptism by water is the 11th commandment, but only in the Christian age?
My point is, water baptism has become the protestant, reformed, whatever, version of a Roman Catholic tradition, but has caused more spiritual bloodshed among believers than any R.C. tradition other than the popes. And you have only gotten started with part 1. Maybe that’s why the word was transliterated…
But is it also automatically assumed when He says, ‘do ALL I have commanded…’ such things as selling all and giving to the poor, own no more than one coat, and the many, many other commands he gave His apostles - those somehow have no bearing in 2011, or at least is not AS important than being dunked.
Eph 3 says there is ONE baptism. Which one? Water? Spirit? Moses? Fire? The Bible mentions at least 12 baptisms, more than 3 of those in the N.T.
I have seen words here like this: refusal to be baptized (in water) is a sign that one may not be a true believer. So baptism by water is the 11th commandment, but only in the Christian age?
My point is, water baptism has become the protestant, reformed, whatever, version of a Roman Catholic tradition, but has caused more spiritual bloodshed among believers than any R.C. tradition other than the popes. And you have only gotten started with part 1. Maybe that’s why the word was transliterated…
JT, the great commission text for baptism is between going into the world and teaching the baptized. If baptism isn’t for today, then why would the others?
Did Jesus command everyone to sell everything and give to the poor? Nope. Neither did the Apostles throughout Acts or in their letters.
Baptism isn’t a tradition, it is a command of Christ. The bloodshed by the way, was spilled on account of the paedos, not vice versa.
Did Jesus command everyone to sell everything and give to the poor? Nope. Neither did the Apostles throughout Acts or in their letters.
Baptism isn’t a tradition, it is a command of Christ. The bloodshed by the way, was spilled on account of the paedos, not vice versa.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
was spilled by the paedos. Outside of the aberration of Muenster, when have Baptists ever persecuted pedo-baptists? An American example of the persecution of Baptists is the case of Obediah Holmes in Massachusetts Bay Colony under John Cotton and Governor John Endicott.
[James K] SNIP
Baptism isn’t a tradition, it is a command of Christ. The bloodshed by the way, was spilled on account of the paedos, not vice versa.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
I do not understand your first statement, about ‘going between’ - would you explain further?
However, Jesus DID tell the young man of Matt. 19 to keep the commandments to obtain life. He lists 6 of The 10.
The young man says he has done all that, from his youth.
If (first class conditional) you want life, Jesus says, sell all you have and give to the poor.
I see this as a command of Christ.
~~~~~However…
There is no water in Eph. 4:5 or I Cor. 12:13. There is One God…and only one baptism. No water involved for infants or adults. It’s a tradition that not many agree upon as to its purpose or what it accomplishes. I submit that is because it belongs to the kingdom yet to come, and the apostles were told to look for and preach/teach about. Then came that unique Apostle Paul. He does not repeat a command to baptize or be baptized in water. Peter, for example, had to swallow hard (pun intended) the changes. The Messiah’s return would be delayed. God had a secret (Deu. 29:29).
Real Baptism is done at the moment of salvation whether a believer opts for it or not. Nothing to do, everything is done.
I admit getting rid of this water tradition would start a major conflict in most local churches, but if you are honest you will see water baptism is not for today, the church age.
Thanks for reading.
However, Jesus DID tell the young man of Matt. 19 to keep the commandments to obtain life. He lists 6 of The 10.
The young man says he has done all that, from his youth.
If (first class conditional) you want life, Jesus says, sell all you have and give to the poor.
I see this as a command of Christ.
~~~~~However…
There is no water in Eph. 4:5 or I Cor. 12:13. There is One God…and only one baptism. No water involved for infants or adults. It’s a tradition that not many agree upon as to its purpose or what it accomplishes. I submit that is because it belongs to the kingdom yet to come, and the apostles were told to look for and preach/teach about. Then came that unique Apostle Paul. He does not repeat a command to baptize or be baptized in water. Peter, for example, had to swallow hard (pun intended) the changes. The Messiah’s return would be delayed. God had a secret (Deu. 29:29).
Real Baptism is done at the moment of salvation whether a believer opts for it or not. Nothing to do, everything is done.
I admit getting rid of this water tradition would start a major conflict in most local churches, but if you are honest you will see water baptism is not for today, the church age.
Thanks for reading.
Hmmm.
Perhaps we can be excused for thinking that water baptism, as commanded by Christ, is for this age, when we notice that this is what the disciples of Christ practiced after Christ returned to heaven. Not just once or twice, but repeatedly and regularly throughout the recorded history of Acts. And to top it off, there are enough references to water baptism in the epistles to clarify and reinforce what we read in Acts.
How did we somehow miss the astonishing revelation that water baptism is not for this age?
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
Perhaps we can be excused for thinking that water baptism, as commanded by Christ, is for this age, when we notice that this is what the disciples of Christ practiced after Christ returned to heaven. Not just once or twice, but repeatedly and regularly throughout the recorded history of Acts. And to top it off, there are enough references to water baptism in the epistles to clarify and reinforce what we read in Acts.
How did we somehow miss the astonishing revelation that water baptism is not for this age?
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Greg,
I already answered your question - “How did we miss…?
Because it is a tradition of men.
How do YOU miss scripture that says there is ONE baptism? If Spirit baptism is the one, then all other practices are traditions.
The book of Acts is a transition. What references in the epistles refer to water baptism other than Paul being thankful he did NOT baptize many at Corinth?
I do not nor did I claim to have received revelation, astonishing or otherwise. I quoted scripture. I assume you are making fun of me with your sarcasm. You signed ‘sincerely’ but I doubt that. Your logic is that so many have been baptized it absolutely HAS to be the one baptism. You also point out the disciples did baptize, as they were told. Yes, and they had all things in common, had no more than one coat (unless they were disobedient to Christ) and taught others to sell their houses and land and pool their money (Acts 4:34, 35), to the end that Paul YEARS later urged congregations to send an offering to Jerusalem so they could buy food. Why do we (you) not follow these commands of Christ as they did? (Believe me, I am not advocating a social gospel, merely pointing out that if you argue the disciples were obeying the command to baptize, therefore we must also obey this command, you must also accept ALL He commanded them to do - Matt. 28:20.)
To your last point, however, it has been discussed here (SI) many times how the universal church ‘missed’ doctrine such as the Rapture, for many hundreds of years, because Israel did not exist or was spiritualized out of the picture - and possibly for other reasons. “How did we miss the astonishing revelation that” the rapture IS for this age?
Cheers,
jt
I already answered your question - “How did we miss…?
Because it is a tradition of men.
How do YOU miss scripture that says there is ONE baptism? If Spirit baptism is the one, then all other practices are traditions.
The book of Acts is a transition. What references in the epistles refer to water baptism other than Paul being thankful he did NOT baptize many at Corinth?
I do not nor did I claim to have received revelation, astonishing or otherwise. I quoted scripture. I assume you are making fun of me with your sarcasm. You signed ‘sincerely’ but I doubt that. Your logic is that so many have been baptized it absolutely HAS to be the one baptism. You also point out the disciples did baptize, as they were told. Yes, and they had all things in common, had no more than one coat (unless they were disobedient to Christ) and taught others to sell their houses and land and pool their money (Acts 4:34, 35), to the end that Paul YEARS later urged congregations to send an offering to Jerusalem so they could buy food. Why do we (you) not follow these commands of Christ as they did? (Believe me, I am not advocating a social gospel, merely pointing out that if you argue the disciples were obeying the command to baptize, therefore we must also obey this command, you must also accept ALL He commanded them to do - Matt. 28:20.)
To your last point, however, it has been discussed here (SI) many times how the universal church ‘missed’ doctrine such as the Rapture, for many hundreds of years, because Israel did not exist or was spiritualized out of the picture - and possibly for other reasons. “How did we miss the astonishing revelation that” the rapture IS for this age?
Cheers,
jt
Rob, I think I worded that wrong. I was saying that the blood spilled was the blood of baptists because of the persecution of the paedos.
JT, I do not disagree with the Scripture, I disagree with your hyperdispensationalist take on the the Scripture.
Eph 3 lists those things that unite us together. The baptism of the Spirit, which happens at conversion, unites all believers together in Christ. Water baptism is an answer to God of a good conscience because of the spiritual cleansing already performed. Water baptism does not provide actual cleansing, so in the sense Paul was referring to in THAT text, it isn’t baptism. However, it is still a church requirement as demonstrated by Paul’s other statements and the record of the church in Acts.
JT, I do not disagree with the Scripture, I disagree with your hyperdispensationalist take on the the Scripture.
Eph 3 lists those things that unite us together. The baptism of the Spirit, which happens at conversion, unites all believers together in Christ. Water baptism is an answer to God of a good conscience because of the spiritual cleansing already performed. Water baptism does not provide actual cleansing, so in the sense Paul was referring to in THAT text, it isn’t baptism. However, it is still a church requirement as demonstrated by Paul’s other statements and the record of the church in Acts.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
with the gist of your original statement. I changed the wording to clearly place the blame on the proper door step. (If the Irish couldn’t settle their front of the Thirty Years War until the Easter Accords, don’t expect me to have a shorter memory.)
[James K] Rob, I think I worded that wrong. I was saying that the blood spilled was the blood of baptists because of the persecution of the paedos.
SNIP
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
In my first post I said it was Eph 3, a slip of the typo. It’s Eph 4 and it still says one baptism. You can dismiss me with a label if you like, it still says one baptism. No where does scripture say “it is still a church requirement” and then undo the rest of the commandments He gave the Apostles that they practiced*. You are wanting so bad for scriptures to prove your point you have to chase a rabbit down many holes to reach your conclusion. I grant you water baptism is there, in the early Acts period, but when God through Paul narrowed it to one baptism you cannot find water in the context, the passage or for the church age. Water baptism, like tongues, ceased. Sure some continued to sprinkle, dunk once forward or three times backward, etc., but if you think it is so important there should be more detailed ritual instructions. Instead Paul emphasizes heavenly things, not earthly baptism in the river Jordan, or a bath tub. It becomes a stain glass window issue and divisive, as in Corinth. Even buildings are a tradition - shouldn’t we be meeting in homes or caves? The importance you place on it is the importance YOU place on it…not our Lord.
Paul took a Nazarite vow. When have you done that? Paul ritually fasted but then negated holy days, like feast days. You traditionally celebrate Easter and Christmas? So do I but I admit it is a tradition and is like every other day. ONE baptism and only one should unite us, and that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit plunging us into the body of Christ, making us brothers and sisters to each other. There are so many other traditions on water baptism you cannot agree here on what it means or why to do it. Some scriptures you allude to demands it as if required, and yet as time went on it was no longer the strong sign of belief that it once was, because the kingdom and Israel was gradually set on the shelf.
Timothy had his foreskin ritually removed…do you wait the 8 days for your male children? Why cut it at all? You cannot pick and choose. But you do, as you do not answer all my questions or rebut my statements, you simply give blanket answers that avoid specifics and add glittering generalities. Look up the work ‘one’ in a Bible dictionary. It means one, and in both contexts of I Cor. 12 and Eph, 4 there is no water anywhere near those passages. One means one in Greek, yet you want at least 2 but won’t take a stand on which 2, you assume maybe that Matt 28 is for all time because the words are in red letter in your Bible? So were the words “Owe no man anything.” You don’t answer why Christ tells you to obey ALL His commands in Matt. 28:29 but you only want to tell me that applies to water baptism. All means all. You can’t pick and choose.
*One thing that does puzzle me is they were told to ‘go’ into all the world yet years later they were still in Jerusalem. Probably waiting for the kingdom?
The single most problem with water baptism is the confusion between it and salvation. It is the churches’ fault, of course, but when asked to give a testimony so many I have heard start out saying, “I was baptized in 1989…” or whatever. The equation is there, rampant and could have eternally bad consequences. I’m sure you explain carefully the difference, but then someone might ask “Why immersion”? (and hopefully emmersion).
Yes, I am a dispensationalist and I have mentioned that before. Let’s talk about the Lord’s Supper and rightly dividing the Word of truth sometime…
Cheers,
jt
Paul took a Nazarite vow. When have you done that? Paul ritually fasted but then negated holy days, like feast days. You traditionally celebrate Easter and Christmas? So do I but I admit it is a tradition and is like every other day. ONE baptism and only one should unite us, and that is the baptism of the Holy Spirit plunging us into the body of Christ, making us brothers and sisters to each other. There are so many other traditions on water baptism you cannot agree here on what it means or why to do it. Some scriptures you allude to demands it as if required, and yet as time went on it was no longer the strong sign of belief that it once was, because the kingdom and Israel was gradually set on the shelf.
Timothy had his foreskin ritually removed…do you wait the 8 days for your male children? Why cut it at all? You cannot pick and choose. But you do, as you do not answer all my questions or rebut my statements, you simply give blanket answers that avoid specifics and add glittering generalities. Look up the work ‘one’ in a Bible dictionary. It means one, and in both contexts of I Cor. 12 and Eph, 4 there is no water anywhere near those passages. One means one in Greek, yet you want at least 2 but won’t take a stand on which 2, you assume maybe that Matt 28 is for all time because the words are in red letter in your Bible? So were the words “Owe no man anything.” You don’t answer why Christ tells you to obey ALL His commands in Matt. 28:29 but you only want to tell me that applies to water baptism. All means all. You can’t pick and choose.
*One thing that does puzzle me is they were told to ‘go’ into all the world yet years later they were still in Jerusalem. Probably waiting for the kingdom?
The single most problem with water baptism is the confusion between it and salvation. It is the churches’ fault, of course, but when asked to give a testimony so many I have heard start out saying, “I was baptized in 1989…” or whatever. The equation is there, rampant and could have eternally bad consequences. I’m sure you explain carefully the difference, but then someone might ask “Why immersion”? (and hopefully emmersion).
Yes, I am a dispensationalist and I have mentioned that before. Let’s talk about the Lord’s Supper and rightly dividing the Word of truth sometime…
Cheers,
jt
See H. A. Ironside (and others) on the approach to Scripture that results in views like denying that water baptism is for this age—or calling it a tradition of men. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that Christ’s command to baptize with water was for a limited time, how can anything Christ commanded be “a tradition of men”?
Recommend, as a starting point:
http://cnonline.net/~rkmiller/ultradispensationalism-ironside.htm#ch7
I hear C. Ryrie is pretty good on this issue also though I don’t have a link.
(As for Christ’s command to sell all you have and give to the poor, etc., as with anything else in Scripture, Jesus must be read in context. Something He says to one person to challenge him to examine his heart is quite different from what He teaches repeatedly over a 40 day period to all of His disciples!).
An excerpt from Ironside
Recommend, as a starting point:
http://cnonline.net/~rkmiller/ultradispensationalism-ironside.htm#ch7
I hear C. Ryrie is pretty good on this issue also though I don’t have a link.
(As for Christ’s command to sell all you have and give to the poor, etc., as with anything else in Scripture, Jesus must be read in context. Something He says to one person to challenge him to examine his heart is quite different from what He teaches repeatedly over a 40 day period to all of His disciples!).
An excerpt from Ironside
It has been said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit superseded water baptism, but Scripture teaches the very contrary. Cornelius and his household were baptized with the Holy Spirit when they believed the Word spoken by Peter. But the apostle, turning to his Jewish brethren, immediately asks: “Who can forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” And they were at once baptized by authority of the Lord Jesus, which is what the expression “in the name of” involves. This was not a meritorious act. It was a blessed and precious privilege granted to this Gentile household upon the evidence of their faith in Christ.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
With all due respect, being a layman of little education… And I hope I’m not missing something here - It’s hard to see the similarity between the cessation of circumcision and baptism, much as I can’t make the end of feasts/ceremonial calendars jive with an end to the Lord’s Supper.
If we miss the great importance of the centrality of the church and proper administration therein, we certainly can lose the value and validity of baptism (as well as the Supper).* This makes it all too easy to classify the sacraments/ordinances as ceased along with sign-gifts like healing and tongues. In fact one thing that stands out is that Christ didn’t tell the apostles, in the Great Commission to “baptize and heal” but just baptize. And so, healing as a sign-and-testament to the veracity of the preacher’s Gospel is gone.
Christ didn’t tell the apostles to administer the Holy Spirit. He told them to baptize disciples. This wasn’t even a revolutionary commandment since the practice had been in force in some form prior to Christ’s incarnation in the first place. Post-Acts lack of reference to water, whether sprinkling or immersion has no bearing in the discussion as it was normative to baptize. Baptism is assumed, if you will.
I’d like to refer to the two long-standing documents that helped me to most make sense of the lasting value and importance of baptism: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xvi.html Calvin’s Institutes “Of Baptism” and http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ Westminster Confession “Of Baptism” . These make much more of baptism (in accordance with what sure seems to be solid Scriptural reference) than the idea that it is a plain profession or hoop to jump in the process of becoming officially-socially Christian.
I’m a convinced paedo, but I’m not greatly interested in the can-o-worms that pops when we get into the fight over which is correct. Mode is even less worth treatment as an important controversy. But a suggestion that water baptism is nulled just can’t work. The argument using “one” baptism seems to miss the fact that God is working through an outward sign of an inward reality. Baptism = entry into the visible, known church (temporal) wherein Spirit Baptism is entry into the Spiritual Kingdom (eternal).
*Most importantly, though not keeping with topic, I find it very difficult to accept the claim here:
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
If we miss the great importance of the centrality of the church and proper administration therein, we certainly can lose the value and validity of baptism (as well as the Supper).* This makes it all too easy to classify the sacraments/ordinances as ceased along with sign-gifts like healing and tongues. In fact one thing that stands out is that Christ didn’t tell the apostles, in the Great Commission to “baptize and heal” but just baptize. And so, healing as a sign-and-testament to the veracity of the preacher’s Gospel is gone.
Christ didn’t tell the apostles to administer the Holy Spirit. He told them to baptize disciples. This wasn’t even a revolutionary commandment since the practice had been in force in some form prior to Christ’s incarnation in the first place. Post-Acts lack of reference to water, whether sprinkling or immersion has no bearing in the discussion as it was normative to baptize. Baptism is assumed, if you will.
I’d like to refer to the two long-standing documents that helped me to most make sense of the lasting value and importance of baptism: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.xvi.html Calvin’s Institutes “Of Baptism” and http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ Westminster Confession “Of Baptism” . These make much more of baptism (in accordance with what sure seems to be solid Scriptural reference) than the idea that it is a plain profession or hoop to jump in the process of becoming officially-socially Christian.
I’m a convinced paedo, but I’m not greatly interested in the can-o-worms that pops when we get into the fight over which is correct. Mode is even less worth treatment as an important controversy. But a suggestion that water baptism is nulled just can’t work. The argument using “one” baptism seems to miss the fact that God is working through an outward sign of an inward reality. Baptism = entry into the visible, known church (temporal) wherein Spirit Baptism is entry into the Spiritual Kingdom (eternal).
*Most importantly, though not keeping with topic, I find it very difficult to accept the claim here:
One thing that does puzzle me is they were told to ‘go’ into all the world yet years later they were still in Jerusalem. Probably waiting for the kingdom?Acts 8 and 10, the Samaritans were reached and then Cornelius, the good Centurion, the Gospel was brought to Samaria and to all the world in accordance with the Great Commission. What follows there is nothing less than a continuous Gospel cry that flowed from the first churches out to the rest of the world. In our era, right now, we are born into it - the Gospel is here, at the end of the earth.
Pooka www.lordandhearth.com
We’re pretty much debating hyperdispensationalism now… which is sort of off topic. (But maybe after close to 30 posts on topic that’s OK?)
But on that topic, I’ll add to Rob H’s observations that the reason the feasts/circumcision etc. end is that they are features of the Mosaic covenant that are obsolete with the coming (sort of) of the New Covenant.
Unless the hyperdisps are prepared to argue that there is yet another covenant that replaces the new one, it doesn’t seem there is any argument along the lines of “OT stuff that passed away” that can work in favor of ending baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
It’s also pretty hard to get past “show the Lord’s death til He comes” (!), though I’m sure the hyperdispies believe they have a way to do that.
As for Institutes and Westminster Confession: they do indeed make much of baptism. From my POV, too much (or the wrong kind of much)… in the sense that both baptism and Lord’s supper are understood in the context of a view of the relationship between sacraments and grace.
As a descendent of the “radical reformation”—at least in this respect—I do not view baptism or communion as being sacramental in any meaningful sense.
So there’s really two separate questions there:
1. paedo/household vs. credo/individual
2. the meaning and power of the rite in relation to grace
But on that topic, I’ll add to Rob H’s observations that the reason the feasts/circumcision etc. end is that they are features of the Mosaic covenant that are obsolete with the coming (sort of) of the New Covenant.
Unless the hyperdisps are prepared to argue that there is yet another covenant that replaces the new one, it doesn’t seem there is any argument along the lines of “OT stuff that passed away” that can work in favor of ending baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
It’s also pretty hard to get past “show the Lord’s death til He comes” (!), though I’m sure the hyperdispies believe they have a way to do that.
As for Institutes and Westminster Confession: they do indeed make much of baptism. From my POV, too much (or the wrong kind of much)… in the sense that both baptism and Lord’s supper are understood in the context of a view of the relationship between sacraments and grace.
As a descendent of the “radical reformation”—at least in this respect—I do not view baptism or communion as being sacramental in any meaningful sense.
So there’s really two separate questions there:
1. paedo/household vs. credo/individual
2. the meaning and power of the rite in relation to grace
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron,
Would you care to expand upon your comment that the New Covenant has “sort of” come? Or did I misunderstand what you said.
And thanks for the excellent Ironsides citation refuting hyper-dispensationalism.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
Would you care to expand upon your comment that the New Covenant has “sort of” come? Or did I misunderstand what you said.
And thanks for the excellent Ironsides citation refuting hyper-dispensationalism.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
So there’s really two separate questions there:Isn’t the view of what Baptism means the real question?
1. paedo/household vs. credo/individual
2. the meaning and power of the rite in relation to grace
If it’s simply public assertion that one believes then credo. If it’s crossing into the Christian Church, credo. And for those born within the Christian church, paedo (IOW Household).
1 Corinthians 7:14 tells us that the children are made holy by believing parents. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether the rite of baptism is a means of that sanctification. There is a sense of expectant waiting in this verse regarding unbelieving spouses. Similarly, we should expectantly await the regeneration of our children. The question of whether to baptize them in anticipation of this or to wait for signs of faith is not addressed in this passage.Baptism isn’t sanctification. We’re talking about two different flavors here. Kids born and raised in the church are “made holy” in that they are not raised outside the church and her Gospel. We should certainly await their response to the Gospel and fulfillment of what baptism signifies. Like the seeds sown in the soil, we plant, WATER and wait. Not all seeds come up - to God be the glory.
I’d at least like to recommend making sure the positions are squared. The legitimate disagreement between credopaedo and solocredo positions should be represented accurately.
Pooka www.lordandhearth.com
There’s just a label for everything, ain’t there? Ya’ll are quick to put things in a tidy box and smugly tuck it in the nonsense file, but only if you disagree.
Aaron, Ironside was never wrong, therefore we put him in the Pope file, correct?
C Ryrie dealt with it by fudging, he says there is one baptism: one real and one ritual. Love me some Ryrie, but that’s just making stuff up and bad math.
No one here has commented on Matt. 19:20, where the words of Christ in red ALSO says the disciples were to keep ALL that HE commanded, not just go forth, teach and baptize. However, I understand that those 3 things are all you want, so you pluck 19:19 out of the page and put it on your front sign, “this is what we do, BAPTIZE.” You put a traditional tub up above the pulpit in front and say, “this is what we do, BAPTIZE.”
I am not a hyper, ultra or whatever. I am an independent, and whereas I have quoted scripture it seems ya’ll do the baptist ‘pick ‘n choose’ method, as well as quote famous authors even if they disagree with scripture.
When Christ gave the Lord’s Supper, were the 12 looking for a church age that would last 2000 years, or His immediate return? When they stayed in Jerusalem were they obeying His command to GO to the ends of the Earth? No, they were waiting (in Jerusalem) for His immediate return. If you believe these two things are ‘sacraments’ of the church then ya’ll haven’t gone far enough out of the reformation.
I am not the only independent lay student that sees the unique apostleship of Paul and his ministry to the church. That is called a new dispensation that even Peter had a hard time understanding (he admitted it), so I understand why there might be a few here who do not get it as well.
One means one, and Paul states the words he wrote are the words of Christ. Paul’s writings should be in red, if that would help (so should much of scripture as well).
And if ONE person thinks they are bound for heaven due to their being dunked, they have been horribly duped. If one household thinks their child is saved because their child was sprinkled, they have been adding to the gospel of I Cor. 15 and are messing with one’s eternal salvation possibly.
Cheers,
jt
Aaron, Ironside was never wrong, therefore we put him in the Pope file, correct?
C Ryrie dealt with it by fudging, he says there is one baptism: one real and one ritual. Love me some Ryrie, but that’s just making stuff up and bad math.
No one here has commented on Matt. 19:20, where the words of Christ in red ALSO says the disciples were to keep ALL that HE commanded, not just go forth, teach and baptize. However, I understand that those 3 things are all you want, so you pluck 19:19 out of the page and put it on your front sign, “this is what we do, BAPTIZE.” You put a traditional tub up above the pulpit in front and say, “this is what we do, BAPTIZE.”
I am not a hyper, ultra or whatever. I am an independent, and whereas I have quoted scripture it seems ya’ll do the baptist ‘pick ‘n choose’ method, as well as quote famous authors even if they disagree with scripture.
When Christ gave the Lord’s Supper, were the 12 looking for a church age that would last 2000 years, or His immediate return? When they stayed in Jerusalem were they obeying His command to GO to the ends of the Earth? No, they were waiting (in Jerusalem) for His immediate return. If you believe these two things are ‘sacraments’ of the church then ya’ll haven’t gone far enough out of the reformation.
I am not the only independent lay student that sees the unique apostleship of Paul and his ministry to the church. That is called a new dispensation that even Peter had a hard time understanding (he admitted it), so I understand why there might be a few here who do not get it as well.
One means one, and Paul states the words he wrote are the words of Christ. Paul’s writings should be in red, if that would help (so should much of scripture as well).
And if ONE person thinks they are bound for heaven due to their being dunked, they have been horribly duped. If one household thinks their child is saved because their child was sprinkled, they have been adding to the gospel of I Cor. 15 and are messing with one’s eternal salvation possibly.
Cheers,
jt
JT, if it walks like a hyper, talks like a hyper, it is probably a hyper.
You believe the gospel has changed from age to age. You believe the gospel preached by Peter is different than what was preached by Paul. It is a waste of time to discuss baptism with you when you do not understand the gospel. If you understand the gospel, you would then be able to understand baptism. It isn’t a guarantee because Paedos still exist. So I am not ignoring you, but I would prioritize the discussion. This is a thread about baptism though.
You believe the gospel has changed from age to age. You believe the gospel preached by Peter is different than what was preached by Paul. It is a waste of time to discuss baptism with you when you do not understand the gospel. If you understand the gospel, you would then be able to understand baptism. It isn’t a guarantee because Paedos still exist. So I am not ignoring you, but I would prioritize the discussion. This is a thread about baptism though.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
The gospel has always been grace by faith buddy. You do understand that? Abraham had faith, Moses, I could go on but you get the drill.
Ignoring me means you are giving up, because…
…you do not understand ages, or economy, or many other good Bible words. Funny, Paul even uses ‘dispensation’ in Ephesians (KJV)!
Hide your head in the sand if you wish, but just as ‘day’ in Genesis (Hebrews) means ‘day,’ “one” in Ephesians (Greek) means “one.”
Ignoring me means you are giving up, because…
…you do not understand ages, or economy, or many other good Bible words. Funny, Paul even uses ‘dispensation’ in Ephesians (KJV)!
Hide your head in the sand if you wish, but just as ‘day’ in Genesis (Hebrews) means ‘day,’ “one” in Ephesians (Greek) means “one.”
It was a busy week, but I need to follow-up on what I said in a post above.
If under the New Covenant, children are now to be excluded, there would need to be some explicit teaching, says Charlie. I agree.
Galatians 3
Galatians 3:16 explains that the promise to Abraham’s offspring was ultimately made to Christ. The law was a temporary measure (Gal. 3:19); it showed up sin for what it was to make justification by faith in Christ a clear necessity (Gal. 3:21-22). Galatians 3:23-25 goes on to emphasize justification by faith in contradistinction to the law. Galatians 3:26 says that our sonship is based not on physical decent but faith in Christ. Galatians 3:27 actually brings in baptism as a metonymy for our conversion experience: those who are baptized (it is assumed) are one with Christ. Can we say that of baptized infants? Hardly. Galatians 3:28-29 goes on to explain that the covenant community no longer looks at Jewishness or Gentileness (gentility? :) ) is based on being one with Christ, which earlier in the passages was related to our faith in Christ.
Romans 9-11
Romans 9:6-8 explains that many physical Israelites were not saved because the spiritual reality was what really mattered. Romans 9:22-29 explains that election cuts across national boundaries. The spiritual reality is actually pursuing righteousness by faith (Rom. 9:30-31). What actually makes us part of the “tree” of God’s covenant community is faith, not family ties (Rom. 11:17-24).
Hope this hurried response helps.
Grace and peace,
Mike
If under the New Covenant, children are now to be excluded, there would need to be some explicit teaching, says Charlie. I agree.
Galatians 3
Galatians 3:16 explains that the promise to Abraham’s offspring was ultimately made to Christ. The law was a temporary measure (Gal. 3:19); it showed up sin for what it was to make justification by faith in Christ a clear necessity (Gal. 3:21-22). Galatians 3:23-25 goes on to emphasize justification by faith in contradistinction to the law. Galatians 3:26 says that our sonship is based not on physical decent but faith in Christ. Galatians 3:27 actually brings in baptism as a metonymy for our conversion experience: those who are baptized (it is assumed) are one with Christ. Can we say that of baptized infants? Hardly. Galatians 3:28-29 goes on to explain that the covenant community no longer looks at Jewishness or Gentileness (gentility? :) ) is based on being one with Christ, which earlier in the passages was related to our faith in Christ.
Romans 9-11
Romans 9:6-8 explains that many physical Israelites were not saved because the spiritual reality was what really mattered. Romans 9:22-29 explains that election cuts across national boundaries. The spiritual reality is actually pursuing righteousness by faith (Rom. 9:30-31). What actually makes us part of the “tree” of God’s covenant community is faith, not family ties (Rom. 11:17-24).
Hope this hurried response helps.
Grace and peace,
Mike
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
Mike,
Your last post was very helpful. Excellent analysis. May I add the observation that the OT said that the New Covenant would differ from the Old Covenant in several significant ways. (Jeremiah 31:31-34) One of these is that all the members of the New Covenant Community will be regenerated, unlike the mixture of regenerate and unregenerate in the Old Covenant Community.
Jeremiah states this as follows: “I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD, For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (vs. 33,34)
As to your observation that baptism is a matonym for conversion in Galatians 3:27, I believe you are probably correct in thinking this is a reference to water baptism. (At least that is what I understood you to be saying.) I think the Ephesians 4:4 statement about “one baptism” is probably water baptism as well. Some assume it must be Spirit baptism, but that is only an assumption. It seems clear that nobody was considered a Christian in the First Century until they were baptized, and Paul is probably referring to the act of water baptism which unites all who name Christ. There is indeed, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” ie, water baptism, which every follower of Christ in Paul’s day had experienced, and is a powerful uniting force among believers. We all share the same experience of water baptism. It is only the passing of the centuries, and the myriads of differing practices which causes modern ears to think Paul means Spirit baptism. In his day, water baptism was not questioned.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
Your last post was very helpful. Excellent analysis. May I add the observation that the OT said that the New Covenant would differ from the Old Covenant in several significant ways. (Jeremiah 31:31-34) One of these is that all the members of the New Covenant Community will be regenerated, unlike the mixture of regenerate and unregenerate in the Old Covenant Community.
Jeremiah states this as follows: “I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD, For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (vs. 33,34)
As to your observation that baptism is a matonym for conversion in Galatians 3:27, I believe you are probably correct in thinking this is a reference to water baptism. (At least that is what I understood you to be saying.) I think the Ephesians 4:4 statement about “one baptism” is probably water baptism as well. Some assume it must be Spirit baptism, but that is only an assumption. It seems clear that nobody was considered a Christian in the First Century until they were baptized, and Paul is probably referring to the act of water baptism which unites all who name Christ. There is indeed, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” ie, water baptism, which every follower of Christ in Paul’s day had experienced, and is a powerful uniting force among believers. We all share the same experience of water baptism. It is only the passing of the centuries, and the myriads of differing practices which causes modern ears to think Paul means Spirit baptism. In his day, water baptism was not questioned.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Someone asked a while back what I mean by “sort of”…
Well, it’s a huge topic and not quite the one we’re on here, but to generalize: the NC cannot really be “all the way here” because
a. It’s a covenant with Israel
b. Not everything it promises has occurred
If I remember right, Larry Pettegrew’s book included a nice short list of possible ways to understand the church’s relationship to the NC and I seem to recall that I agreed mostly with where he landed on the question.
So… book plug…
[amazon 0825435544 thumbnail]
Well, it’s a huge topic and not quite the one we’re on here, but to generalize: the NC cannot really be “all the way here” because
a. It’s a covenant with Israel
b. Not everything it promises has occurred
If I remember right, Larry Pettegrew’s book included a nice short list of possible ways to understand the church’s relationship to the NC and I seem to recall that I agreed mostly with where he landed on the question.
So… book plug…
[amazon 0825435544 thumbnail]
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[G. N. Barkman] It is only the passing of the centuries, and the myriads of differing practices which causes modern ears to think Paul means Spirit baptism. In his day, water baptism was not questioned.This is the understanding I’ve been coming to on my most recent readings through Scripture. So many of the questions we ask of passages, the authors had no intention of answering.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
[Aaron Blumer] If I remember right, Larry Pettegrew’s book included a nice short list of possible ways to understand the church’s relationship to the NC and I seem to recall that I agreed mostly with where he landed on the question.Why call it the church? Why not just call it the “New Covenant Community”? There’s room to understand the gradual fulfillment of the New Covenant promises. Jesus said the New Covenant was in His blood; and Hebrews 9:15 confirms that the New Covenant fulfillment began with His death and the forgiveness of sins. But the Spirit didn’t come immediately; the gifts didn’t come immediately.
Jews and Gentiles have been grafted into the same olive tree (Romans 11). But Romans 11 says nothing about Israel and the church. It just has one olive tree.
I’m making a point and not advocating that we drop the term “church” from common parlance. But if we’re the true sons of Abraham by faith, grafted into the same olive tree, and spurred on to full assurance of faith on the basis of the New Covenant, if Paul was a minister of the New Covenant…why are we even asking what the relationship between the church and the New Covenant is?
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
M. Osborne, because many have a disease that is known as a hardening of the categories. Thank the likes of Ryrie for perpetuating divisions that exist in Systematic Theology but not the Bible.
The Church experiences so much of the NC.
The Church experiences so much of the NC.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Because the Scriptures call it the church from Acts onward. It’s a biblical term.
Well, there are clearly distinct parties involved, and a chronology is evident. The question is what appears in the rest of the NT to explain who these parties are, given the chronology? One of the parties is, in fact, identified clearly as Israel in the chapter (Rom 11.1, 11.7, 11.25).
So that leaves identifying the other party. From there it’s a matter of reading it in light of what’s revealed in the rest of the NT.
Jews and Gentiles have been grafted into the same olive tree (Romans 11). But Romans 11 says nothing about Israel and the church. It just has one olive tree.Rom. 11 says nothing about Israel and the church?
Well, there are clearly distinct parties involved, and a chronology is evident. The question is what appears in the rest of the NT to explain who these parties are, given the chronology? One of the parties is, in fact, identified clearly as Israel in the chapter (Rom 11.1, 11.7, 11.25).
So that leaves identifying the other party. From there it’s a matter of reading it in light of what’s revealed in the rest of the NT.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The other party in Romans 11 is Gentiles, not the church. Or maybe a better answer: in Romans 9-11, physical Israel is set side-by-side with two other concepts/entities: spiritual Israel, and Gentiles. I think when we approach Romans 9-11 with Dispensationalist categories and questions, we take a lot of right points (e.g., physical Israelites will still be saved, they still have a place in God’s people), but get wrong answers from them, because we were asking questions the passage wasn’t trying to answer (e.g., “What is the relationship between Israel and the church?”).
Re: calling God’s people in our day, “the church”: you’re right, I have no qualms calling the people of God that we interact with today “the church,” because it is a biblical term.
But the question, “How does the church relate to the New Covenant?” puts too much of a strain on the New Testament. The writer of Hebrews made no attempt to distinguish his readership from the beneficiary in Jeremiah 31. While you could argue that there are still distinctions between how Abraham’s physical descendants will benefit from the New Covenant, and how the rest of us will benefit, the Bible itself never sets out to explain that question for us.
Hope this helps. Grace and peace,
Mike
Re: calling God’s people in our day, “the church”: you’re right, I have no qualms calling the people of God that we interact with today “the church,” because it is a biblical term.
But the question, “How does the church relate to the New Covenant?” puts too much of a strain on the New Testament. The writer of Hebrews made no attempt to distinguish his readership from the beneficiary in Jeremiah 31. While you could argue that there are still distinctions between how Abraham’s physical descendants will benefit from the New Covenant, and how the rest of us will benefit, the Bible itself never sets out to explain that question for us.
Hope this helps. Grace and peace,
Mike
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
Discussion