The PuritanBoard - Baptism

The PuritanBoard - Baptism http://www.puritanboard.com/ Discuss baptism and the objects of baptism. This forum is for those who desire to DEBATE and DISCUSS. All others please refrain from this Forum. en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:44:43 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.puritanboard.com/images/retro/misc/rss.jpg The PuritanBoard - Baptism http://www.puritanboard.com/ Authoritative interpretation of Baptism in the 1689 http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/authoritative-interpretation-baptism-1689-a-55462/ Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:28:44 GMT Thanks to a friend, I have received the following. http://www.bible-researcher.com/1689/appendix.html Thanks to a friend, I have received the following.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/1689/appendix.html ]]> Baptism timmopussycat http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/authoritative-interpretation-baptism-1689-a-55462/ Baptism in the nude? http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/baptism-nude-55257/ Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:25:14 GMT I've heard it asserted that the early church baptized converts in the nude. (I know the EOC still does this with infants.) How widespread was this practice? I know of one church father (Cyprian, IIRC) who said this was done, but was this a local or regional or worldwide thing? ]]> Baptism PointyHaired Calvinist http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/baptism-nude-55257/ The design of baptism http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/design-baptism-55153/ Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:12:15 GMT In the thread on points of difference between paedo and antipaedobaptists it seems the design of baptism was becoming confused. In an attempt to rescue brotherly relations with paedobaptists while disowning their baptism, the antipaedobaptist... In the thread on points of difference between paedo and antipaedobaptists it seems the design of baptism was becoming confused. In an attempt to rescue brotherly relations with paedobaptists while disowning their baptism, the antipaedobaptist brethren began altering the design of baptism. Whereas Christian theology recognises that "profession of faith" is more than mere words but includes a visual renouncing of the world and following Christ through baptism, the antipaedobaptists began arguing that profession of faith and baptism are two distinct things.

I have started this thread to discuss this particular point, and do not desire to discuss any other point.

I am going to begin by quoting the antipaedobaptist theologian, John L. Dagg, to prove that antipaedobaptists also maintain that baptism is part of a profession of faith. The quotation is taken from Manual of Theology, vol. 2, chapter 1.

I ask my antipaedobaptist friends to explain why Dagg's theology is correct or incorrect. If correct, how can they still accept antipaedobaptists as professing believers? If incorrect, what biblical considerations repudiate his claims? What antipaedobaptist theologians contradict his claims?

Quote:

The profession of renouncing the world, and devoting ourselves to Christ, might have been required to be made in mere words addressed to the ears of those who hear; but infinite wisdom has judged it better that it should be made in a formal and significant act, appointed for the specific purpose. That act is baptism. The immersion of the body, as Paul has explained, signifies our burial with Christ; and in emerging from the water, we enter, according to the import of the figure, on a new life. We put off the old man, and put on the new man: "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."

The place which baptism holds in the commission, indicates its use. The apostles were sent to make disciples, and to teach them to observe all the Saviour's commands; but an intermediate act is enjoined, the act of baptizing them. In order to make disciples, they were commanded, "Go, preach the gospel to every creature." When the proclamation of the good news attracted the attention of men, and by the divine blessing so affected their hearts, that they became desirous to follow Christ, they were taught to observe his commandments, and first to be baptized. This ceremony was manifestly designed to be the initiation into the prescribed service; and every disciple of Christ who wishes to walk in the ways of the Lord, meets this duty at the entrance of his course.

]]> Baptism armourbearer http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/design-baptism-55153/ Need Advice (From Both Sides) - Teaching on Baptism http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/need-advice-both-sides-teaching-baptism-55140/ Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:34:43 GMT On Sunday evenings this fall, our church has been covering the topic of Basic Christianity and Discipleship. We have a lot of new members and new believers, and so we have been split into groups of 10-20 to go over these things. For example, we... On Sunday evenings this fall, our church has been covering the topic of Basic Christianity and Discipleship. We have a lot of new members and new believers, and so we have been split into groups of 10-20 to go over these things. For example, we spend one lesson on the attributes of God, one on prayer, how to study the Bible, the nature and role of the Church, etc. I lead one of these groups.

A pastor writes an extended outline for a lesson, and each group uses that outline for their lesson.

This week's lesson is on Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

It's a 7-page outline, with 5.5 of them on baptism. We are baptists after all, and that is a major point in our identity. Two of those pages address the debate around infant baptism.

And there is a major problem. The argumentation is not just weak, but just plain wrong. I'm not pretending to be a scholarly authority on the matter, but the pastor attempts to address Reformed paedo's specifically in part of it, and it's just plain full of red herrings, non-sequiturs and, I hate to say it, general ignorance about what Reformed paedo's believe.

A few examples: he states there are only 3 categories of scriptures used by paedos to make their case - those that mention baptism and not infants, those than mention infants and not baptism, and those that mention neither.

Now, if I put my paedo hat on, all I would have to say is, "So? Even if I grant that all my references fall in those categories, infant baptism can still be drawn from good and necessary consequence, so that accusation is of no effect." And the paedo would be right.

He says (emphatically) that there are no examples of infants being baptized. While I agree, it would be FAR more accurate (and fair) to say that there are no clear examples, and that the debate simply cannot and will not be settled on the basis of the well-known passages with household baptisms. Their ambiguity (again, even if the paedo grants it) cannot be considered sound argumentation against a paedo.

And lastly - in his refutation of Reformed paedobaptism, not once does the outline bother even to use the words "Covenant of Grace" or explain basic tenets of Covenant Theology. It's as if it doesn't exist. It boils down to, "Hey, using this baptist framework, now I've proved infant baptism is wrong." There's no effort (or even apparent knowledge) that paedo's are operating from a different set of core interpretive and theological principles. Now, I know this is only a basic outline of our Church's view on these matters, but you can't refute a position without explaining what they hold.

Simply put, I have serious doubts over whether our leadership has ever read or interacted with an intelligent paedobaptist. I am actually quite angry at the assumption and apparent arrogance at the belief that some of the greatest scholars God has ever given to man can be thoroughly dismissed in 2 pages, in the same way we would dismiss a view that is genuinely nuts.

I almost feel like I've been insulted, even though it's not directed at me. It's just not fair. At all. I would want and expect a dogmatic stance from church leadership - but one that is well-reasoned, and shows evidence of careful study.

I know the right answer - talk to my elders about it in the most humble way possible. However, I am quite certain (in all human terms) that even suggesting that this argumentation is inadequate would be seen almost as mutiny, or like I'm arguing for infant baptism. And by its very nature the conversation is disrespectful, regardless of my behavior and attitude in it. It's an accusation of sloppy research, libelous writing toward brothers in Christ who deserve better, etc. The conversation, quite simply, would NOT go well. The guy who wrote it is the most wonderful, humble minister I've ever known, he has memorized nearly half of the Bible, and holds a Ph.D in Church History. And that is why it is hard for me to believe what I see in front of me.

I can attempt to skirt that portion of the outline to focus on others. The leadership has openly said that the outline is just a basic guide,and that individual teachers can focus on some parts more than others if they wish. Should I do my best just to spend the majority of our time on those other things? Or should I address the pastor/s directly about it? How?

An important side note, there are 2 elders that are in the group I teach. Excessive deviation and focus on other parts of the outline would probably raise eyebrows.

Help! I got the outline on Wednesday, and I teach on Sunday. ]]> Baptism smhbbag http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/need-advice-both-sides-teaching-baptism-55140/ <![CDATA[Calvin's Institutes 4.16.1-6]]> http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/calvins-institutes-4-16-1-6-a-55024/ Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:30:11 GMT Reformation 21 is blogging through Calvin's Institutes this year. You can find their reading plan here.

In 4.16.4, Calvin writes:

Quote:

For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.

But this is not the only way to preserve the parallel between circumcision and baptism. Clearly the greater spirituality of the New Covenant must count for something. The physical sacrifices of the OT have given way to the greater spiritual sacrifices offered by the NT Christian (1 Pet 2:5). The OT temple finds its counterpart in the greater temple of Christ’s body (John 2:19-21). The OT priesthood has been fulfilled in Christ our High Priest (Heb 7-10), and transformed into the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:9; Heb 13:10, 15; Rom 12:1). Similarly, OT circumcision finds its fulfillment, not in baptism, but in spiritual circumcision, or regeneration (Col 2:11-12 Notice that this text - another favorite proof text for paedobaptists - is talking about believers, and says that those who are “circumcised” in God’s sight are those who have put off the flesh, and have been raised with Christ through their faith. It is this inward experience of spiritual circumcision that is tied to baptism in the NT). Indeed, it is never baptism, but only the Holy Spirit, which is said to be the NT “seal” on believers (Eph 1:13). Given that these historical continuities are in terms of spiritual fulfillment rather than literal identity, we can agree with Calvin that “circumcision… was their first entrance into the Church.” But then the appropriate NT counterpart to this is not water baptism as a means for infants to enter the church. Rather, even as in the OT circumcision followed physical birth into physical Israel, so in the NT baptism follows spiritual birth into spiritual Israel. Here the parallel between circumcision and baptism – much insisted upon by the Reformed – is not only preserved but is seen to actually support a believers’ baptism policy. It preserves the analogy with OT practice, and a theological analogy – not an identity – is all we have to go on with respect to circumcision and baptism. In any event, the paedobaptist will be hard pressed to argue that his construal of the circumcision/baptism parallel is more plausible than the Baptist’s.

In 4.16.6, Calvin writes:

Quote:

Let it not be objected, that the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that, in accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews. Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different, that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism.

Here Calvin’s two main assumptions are brought together. Baptism is now “instead of” circumcision, and “the covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common.” The only difference pertains to “the mode of confirming it.” So Calvin here acknowledges a distinction between what is “common” and what is “different”. The question is whether this distinction saves paedobaptism from the Baptist critique. It appears that it does not, for it can be easily accommodated by the Baptist.

Here is a list of items which Calvin would regard as merely pertaining to “the mode of confirming” the covenant, and therefore subject to modification in the historical transition from circumcision to baptism:

(1) Circumcision was the removal of the foreskin; baptism is different because it involves immersion in water (Not everyone is aware of the fact that on Calvin’s view, “it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church” 4.15.19).

(2) Circumcision was applied to males only; baptism is different because it is applied to both males and females.

(3) Circumcision was performed on the eighth day; baptism is different because no particular day is prescribed.

Calvin would regard these as specifics about circumcision which were “in accordance with the form of the old dispensation,” and therefore subject to “being abrogated.” By way of contrast, Calvin insists that “the covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common.” The question then is how to classify the fact, additional to the three facts above, that circumcision was applied to infants. Is this, like the three facts above, also a transitory feature of God’s covenantal dealings with men, pertaining only to “the mode of confirming” the covenant at a particular point in history, and therefore subject to abrogation? Or is it (as Calvin would have it) essential to the covenant and the reason for confirming it? What if a Baptist were to say:

(4) Circumcision was applied to infants; baptism is different because it is applied after a credible profession of faith.

This thesis is wholly compatible with Calvin’s distinction between what is “common” and what is “different”. Indeed, Calvin’s distinction gives us no guidance – in itself – as to whether we should affirm or deny (4). But it is noteworthy that (4) above is confirmed by all relevant NT data about baptism. Jesus’ institution of the sign of Christian baptism commanded that it be applied to disciples, as “disciples” is defined by the NT (Matt 28:16-20; Mark 16:16). Throughout the rest of the NT, and especially displayed in the book of Acts, baptism functions in accordance with Jesus’ institution of it. It is a sign for disciples, who have placed their faith in Jesus; after Peter’s Pentecost sermon, it was only “those who accepted his message” who were baptized (cf. Acts 2:38, 41). And so we follow the apostolic policy and example of only baptizing those who received the apostolic gospel. All clear cases of baptism in the NT reflect this “believers’ baptism” policy, for the vast majority of cases of baptism in the NT come after a credible profession of faith. Indeed, the household baptisms in Acts and elsewhere were of believing families (Cornelius, the Philippian jailor, Crispus, Stephanus), and we use this significant datum to interpret the one household baptism (Lydia) where Luke does not tell us the details as he does with all the rest. The consistent policy is to baptize those who received the apostolic gospel. There may be one or two cases where this pattern may not be clearly exemplified, but this offers no support to the view that, in those cases, baptism was applied in the absence of a credible profession of faith, much less to infants. Thus, the reasonable thing to do, in light of the clear NT pattern, is to classify (4) with (1)-(3) above.

Source ]]> Baptism eqdj http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/calvins-institutes-4-16-1-6-a-55024/ Paedo vs Credo: Main point of contention? http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedo-vs-credo-main-point-contention-54965/ Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:36:37 GMT Hey brothers,

when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?

also, one more question:

is it possible for a Baptist to believe that the Church is Israel? why/not?

cheers. ]]> Baptism steadfast7 http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedo-vs-credo-main-point-contention-54965/