piningforChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
Baptism as commanded by Christ is instituted for justifed persons to portray what God did when He justified them. That is its primary purpose.
Children that have the sign of the covenant
- Thread starter Mocha
- Start date
- Status
piningforChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
Pastor Way says,
Baptism as commanded by Christ is instituted for justifed persons to portray what God did when He justified them. That is its primary purpose.
Baptism as commanded by Christ is instituted for justifed persons to portray what God did when He justified them. That is its primary purpose.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
As Dr. McMahon has inquired, please provide the passages that support this idea. You can't; there aren't any! The commission calls us to make disciples and baptize them. That is exactly what was done w/ Ananias and Saphira, Demas and these other unknowns who 'walked no more' w/ Christ. It has nothing to do with their justification.
As well, how would anyone know whom is actually justified?
If that is the case, no one would qualify as no one knows who is actually justified.
All for now, nighty night!
piningforChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
Here is the Scripture I previously provided. It proves my position thoroughly.
Romans 5:20-6:4:
And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
Romans 5:20-6:4:
And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
This is not intended to sound unduly harsh but you seem to have ignored or misunderstood the first five pages of this thread and the last three pages have been almost exclusively generated by you and others trying to re-explain the previous five to you.
I recommend you take a breath, go back and read all that's been written and make sure you understand both viewpoints. Then come back and let's discuss some new issues.
I recommend you take a breath, go back and read all that's been written and make sure you understand both viewpoints. Then come back and let's discuss some new issues.
piningforChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
Rich, my arguments (and those of Piper) have only been brushed off, and have yet to be addressed. So, as far as I am concerned, the first 5 pages of this thread were interesting; I sought to add to the discussion and not one person has yet to address the issue I just brought up.
The arguments you presented from Piper were addressed earlier in the thread. Just because Piper's name wasn't addressed or it looked a bit different doesn't mean the issue was not addressed.
Your issue above has been addressed as well. Again the form might have been different but the substance was the same.
piningforChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
After reading over the arguments, Scripture has shown itself to support this confession exclusively:
'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'
1698 Baptist Confession
And, I believe that it is not an inference based on a dispensational eyes, but a direct conculsion from Romans 5:20-6:4. Am I correct?
'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'
1698 Baptist Confession
And, I believe that it is not an inference based on a dispensational eyes, but a direct conculsion from Romans 5:20-6:4. Am I correct?
No. For the reasons previously cited.
piningforChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
I guess what I'm saying is that I just stated an axiom from Scripture and "reasons previously cited" will not and can not bring resolution. Only Scripture can, and Scripture has yet to defeat the axiom:
'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'
Based on,
Romans 5:20-6:4:
And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'
Based on,
Romans 5:20-6:4:
And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
Present a Scripture that will defend your confession and then I'll agree with it. Your Scripture does not and the reasons previously cited show clear Scriptures that refute.
On the face of it, your "axiom" includes elements that are nowhere mentioned in the passage cited:
1. The verses say nothing about water baptism per se
2. They say nothing about a person giving up of himself. In fact, I know of no Scripture that describe baptism like that
Thus, it is ridiculous to assert that your Scripture verses line up so indelibly with your confession that the truth of it is axiomatic.
I can agree with some of the parts of the Confession on Baptism but certainly not all. As confessions go it's the best Baptist one. Nevertheless it's lacking in substantive language that other Scriptures ascribe exegetically to the sacrament.
The substance has been argued from both sides.
I really like this New Covenant text...
Isaiah 59:20-21
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.
That's just a taste. Isaiah 59 and 60 are awesome, simply awesome.
Isaiah 59:20-21
20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.
That's just a taste. Isaiah 59 and 60 are awesome, simply awesome.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Isaiah is part of what made me paedo, along with Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Hebrews.
and Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, ....
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by SemperFideles
and Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, ....
Not Ruth?
:bigsmile:
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Perhaps I'm a little slow, but it just occured to me that these "gleanings" that Baptists do of baptism texts are not really expounded by the Apostles in their teachings. What's more, Jesus doesn't expound like the Baptists, either. I know we accuse the Baptists of eisogesis, but if their postulations are true, why is it that the Apostles don't practice what the Baptists preach?
Take some example postulations (I realize that Matthew may not be speaking for the entire baptistic population.)
Postulation 1:
Baptism portrays what happened to us when we became Christians, when we became justified.
Does Paul anywhere claim that baptism is a portrait of our justification? Where does Paul talk about the connection between baptism and justification? Doesn't he more likely show that the portrait of our justification is the Cross of Christ? Doesn't he more likely teach that regeneration, which would be closely tied to baptism because it is the sign of the Holy Spirit's work of renewal, is the result of the gospel message being received by our hearts, not the result of our justification? If this is so, then baptism is not the result of justification, but logically prior. Isn't this what Paul preaches?
Postulation 2:
Baptism is at least a proclaimation of the person's treasuring of the divine light in his affections when it is apprehended by the natural faculties.
Who in the NT places such an emphasis on baptism? Where do they teach that a person proclaims anything in baptism? Where do they teach the convert to treasure baptism? Where do they teach that divine light, or any spiritual gift for that matter, is apprehended by the natural faculties?
Matthew, if you don't know it already, the 1689 is almost word for word with the Assembly of Westminster. Now, I'm not trying say more than what needs to be said, but quite frankly, the 1689 Baptists did not have to do as much work. If they merely took what was already and whittled down the parts they didn't like, then that confession just doesn't seem to me to be as well thought out. They didn't have the disciplines that the divines had. They didn't have to have the discipline since most of the document was already in front of them. This may mean that what they put forward was not as carefully addressed as it should have been. You might want to look more carefully at Chapter 11. They do not site Romans 6:3-6 anywhere in their treatment of Justification. Baptism may indeed be linked to justification, just as the preaching of the gospel is linked. But they did not inextricably tie baptism to justification, nor should they, because the Bible does not teach it.
In Christ,
KC
Take some example postulations (I realize that Matthew may not be speaking for the entire baptistic population.)
Postulation 1:
Baptism portrays what happened to us when we became Christians, when we became justified.
Does Paul anywhere claim that baptism is a portrait of our justification? Where does Paul talk about the connection between baptism and justification? Doesn't he more likely show that the portrait of our justification is the Cross of Christ? Doesn't he more likely teach that regeneration, which would be closely tied to baptism because it is the sign of the Holy Spirit's work of renewal, is the result of the gospel message being received by our hearts, not the result of our justification? If this is so, then baptism is not the result of justification, but logically prior. Isn't this what Paul preaches?
Postulation 2:
Baptism is at least a proclaimation of the person's treasuring of the divine light in his affections when it is apprehended by the natural faculties.
Who in the NT places such an emphasis on baptism? Where do they teach that a person proclaims anything in baptism? Where do they teach the convert to treasure baptism? Where do they teach that divine light, or any spiritual gift for that matter, is apprehended by the natural faculties?
Matthew, if you don't know it already, the 1689 is almost word for word with the Assembly of Westminster. Now, I'm not trying say more than what needs to be said, but quite frankly, the 1689 Baptists did not have to do as much work. If they merely took what was already and whittled down the parts they didn't like, then that confession just doesn't seem to me to be as well thought out. They didn't have the disciplines that the divines had. They didn't have to have the discipline since most of the document was already in front of them. This may mean that what they put forward was not as carefully addressed as it should have been. You might want to look more carefully at Chapter 11. They do not site Romans 6:3-6 anywhere in their treatment of Justification. Baptism may indeed be linked to justification, just as the preaching of the gospel is linked. But they did not inextricably tie baptism to justification, nor should they, because the Bible does not teach it.
In Christ,
KC
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
piningforChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
Notice how in my first postulation, I said baptism portrays what happened to us when we were saved, what happened to us when we were justified. The Scriptural support of this postulation was already given and has yet to be refuted:
Romans 5:20-6:4:
And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
Peter says:
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Baptism is in the name of Jesus, thereby proclaiming His lordship. It is tied to repentance and therefore is a rightful expression of treasuring the divine light that is apprehended through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Paul says:
Galatians 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Faith releases us from the captivity of the law. We become sons of God through faith. And, our baptism into Christ is likened to putting on Christ. When we are baptised, we are outwardly proclaiming our putting on of Christ as we inwardly treasure that reality that was communicated to our minds by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus says:
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "œAll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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 all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
There is a reason they are baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is a proclaimation of the lordship of the triune God in the heart of the believer. It may be implied that this proclaimation is attended with the treasuring of the believer of all God is for him in Christ.
I too have been convinced of the verity of the historical view and practice of believer baptism from the Scriptures, Old and New Testiments. Moreover, stalwarts such as Charles Spurgeon, A. W. Pink, and John Bunyan were likewise convinced from the Scriptures of their positions, matching the claim you have put forth of historical othodoxy from the members of the Westminster Assembly.
On the mode of baptism, the Weminster Divines had their eyes clouded by tradition. With hundreds of years between us, their mistakes are clearly seen from the Scriptures.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Do all baptism validate one's position in Christ?
piningforChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
That question does not need to be answered. Done properly within the context of a healthy local church, most will.
BrianBowman
Posting Priviledges Revoked
Is this an accurate summary of the play-by-play so far?
Matthew Johnson's entire line of reasoning reveals the hermeneutical differences between the covenantal continuity (with progressive revelation) which underlies padeo-baptist position -AND- the discontinuity fundamental to the credo-baptist position (i.e. God has done something "brand new" with the New Covenant that requires a "brand new" ordinance of baptism by imersion for confessing believers).
Matthew continues to challenge the padeo position with proof-texts while Rich, Scott, Matt McMahon, and others advance replies that attempt to engage Matthew (and indeed the Credo postion in total) with a comprehensive understanding of The Covenant of Grace and its progressive unfolding in _all_ of Scripture.
The Word of God is self-validating in its mandate that we get "understanding". Here is the list of references from the Proverbs alone:
Prov. 2:2-3,6,11; 3:5,13,19; 5:1; 8:1; 10:13,23; 11:12; 14:6,29,33; 15:14,21; 16:16; 17:10,27; 18:2; 19:8,25; 20:5; 21:30; 23:23; 24:3; 28:2,7,11,16; 30:2
So it would seem that proper hermeneutics should lead us to _understand_ ALL of Scripture without making any one Scripture repugnant to another. After nearly 20 years of considering these matters I believe the Covenantal view provides this understanding.
Matthew Johnson's entire line of reasoning reveals the hermeneutical differences between the covenantal continuity (with progressive revelation) which underlies padeo-baptist position -AND- the discontinuity fundamental to the credo-baptist position (i.e. God has done something "brand new" with the New Covenant that requires a "brand new" ordinance of baptism by imersion for confessing believers).
Matthew continues to challenge the padeo position with proof-texts while Rich, Scott, Matt McMahon, and others advance replies that attempt to engage Matthew (and indeed the Credo postion in total) with a comprehensive understanding of The Covenant of Grace and its progressive unfolding in _all_ of Scripture.
The Word of God is self-validating in its mandate that we get "understanding". Here is the list of references from the Proverbs alone:
Prov. 2:2-3,6,11; 3:5,13,19; 5:1; 8:1; 10:13,23; 11:12; 14:6,29,33; 15:14,21; 16:16; 17:10,27; 18:2; 19:8,25; 20:5; 21:30; 23:23; 24:3; 28:2,7,11,16; 30:2
So it would seem that proper hermeneutics should lead us to _understand_ ALL of Scripture without making any one Scripture repugnant to another. After nearly 20 years of considering these matters I believe the Covenantal view provides this understanding.
ChristopherPaul
Puritan Board Senior
"No." It is a simple answer for any Credo-only person or Paedo/credo person.
Why avoid the obvious answer with a "most will?"
If your position is so rock solid Matthew, then there should be no need to cower when asked a basic question.
An honest answer certainly does not destroy the credo-only argument for you does it?
[Edited on 11-16-2005 by ChristopherPaul]
piningforChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
Chris, "most will" implies that "every external baptism will not validate ones particular position in Christ." I answered the question. I saw that it was a leading quesiton, and I wanted to give a richer and deeper answer than simply "no." Therefore, I qualified my "no."
Brian, I claimed that there is both a continuity and a discontinuity between the covenants, echoing what Piper has written. You and all the other members of the board who have consistently ignored my arguments, claiming that they flow from a dispensational viewpoint, have not given my position its just hearing. My arguments expand on the issues addressed in the first part of this discussion, pointing out the oversight of the Westminster Divines concerning the discontinuity between the covenants which lead to an erroneous view of the mode of baptism. Do you (and others here) recognize that there is a difference betwenn the two covenants? Does this difference affect the mode of baptism, the sign of the new covenant which portrays what God does in bringing us into the new covenant family?
Additionally, let me say that my position and general view of Scripture does not fall into one particular category of dispensational/covenant theology/new covenant theology. I am furthest from a dispensational viewpoint, being most in harmony with the other two summations of Scripture's general theme.
Please read the above and this below and respond to the arguments specifically:
"But Colossians 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:21 seemed to me to be devastating to the pedobaptist viewpoint. Paul compares baptism with circumcision and says, "You were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." This says clearly: in baptism we are raised through faith. Baptism is effectual as an expression of faith. I did not see how an infant could properly accept this sign of faith.
Then 1 Peter 3:21 said, "Baptism. . . saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This text frightens many Baptists away because it seems to come close to the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican notion that the rite in and of itself saves. But in fleeing from this text we throw away a powerful argument for believer baptism. For as J.D.G. Dunn says, this is the closest thing we have to a definition which includes faith. Baptism is "an appeal to God." That is, baptism is the cry of faith to God. In that senses and to that degree, it is part of God's means of salvation. This should not scare us off any more than the sentence, "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord. . . you will be saved." The movement of the lips in the air and the movement of the body in water save only in the sense that they express the appeal and faith of the heart toward God."
Moreover,
"There is in fact an important continuity between the signs of circumcision and baptism, but the Presbyterian representatives of Reformed theology have undervalued the discontinuity. This is the root difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on baptism. I am a Baptist because I believe that on this score we honor both the continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church and between their respective covenant signs.
The continuity is expressed like this: Just as circumcision was administered to all the physical sons of Abraham who made up the physical Israel, so baptism should be administered to all the spiritual sons of Abraham who make up the spiritual Israel, the church. But who are these spiritual sons of Abraham who constitute the people of God in our age?
Galatians 3:7 says, "So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham." The new thing, since Jesus has come, is that the covenant people of God are no longer a political, ethnic nation, but a body of believers.
John the Baptist inaugurated this change and introduced the new sign of baptism. By calling all Jews to repent and be baptized, John declared powerfully and offensively that physical descent does not make one part of God's family and that circumcision, which signifies a physical relationship, will now be replaced by baptism, which signifies a spiritual relationship. The apostle Paul picks up this new emphasis, especially in Romans 9, and says, "Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants. . . it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God" (vs. 7-8).
Therefore a very important change has occurred in redemptive history. There is discontinuity as well as continuity.
Zwingli and Calvin and their heirs have treated signs of the covenant as if no significant changes happened with the coming of Christ. But God is forming His people today differently than when He strove with an ethnic people called Israel. The people of God are no longer formed through natural kinship, but through supernatural conversion to faith in Christ.
With the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus and the apostles, the emphasis now is that the spiritual status of your parents does not determine your membership in the covenant community. The beneficiaries of the blessings of Abraham are those who have the faith of Abraham. These are the ones who belong to the covenant community.
And these are the ones who should receive the sign of the covenant: believer baptism."
[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]
Brian, I claimed that there is both a continuity and a discontinuity between the covenants, echoing what Piper has written. You and all the other members of the board who have consistently ignored my arguments, claiming that they flow from a dispensational viewpoint, have not given my position its just hearing. My arguments expand on the issues addressed in the first part of this discussion, pointing out the oversight of the Westminster Divines concerning the discontinuity between the covenants which lead to an erroneous view of the mode of baptism. Do you (and others here) recognize that there is a difference betwenn the two covenants? Does this difference affect the mode of baptism, the sign of the new covenant which portrays what God does in bringing us into the new covenant family?
Additionally, let me say that my position and general view of Scripture does not fall into one particular category of dispensational/covenant theology/new covenant theology. I am furthest from a dispensational viewpoint, being most in harmony with the other two summations of Scripture's general theme.
Please read the above and this below and respond to the arguments specifically:
"But Colossians 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:21 seemed to me to be devastating to the pedobaptist viewpoint. Paul compares baptism with circumcision and says, "You were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." This says clearly: in baptism we are raised through faith. Baptism is effectual as an expression of faith. I did not see how an infant could properly accept this sign of faith.
Then 1 Peter 3:21 said, "Baptism. . . saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This text frightens many Baptists away because it seems to come close to the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican notion that the rite in and of itself saves. But in fleeing from this text we throw away a powerful argument for believer baptism. For as J.D.G. Dunn says, this is the closest thing we have to a definition which includes faith. Baptism is "an appeal to God." That is, baptism is the cry of faith to God. In that senses and to that degree, it is part of God's means of salvation. This should not scare us off any more than the sentence, "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord. . . you will be saved." The movement of the lips in the air and the movement of the body in water save only in the sense that they express the appeal and faith of the heart toward God."
Moreover,
"There is in fact an important continuity between the signs of circumcision and baptism, but the Presbyterian representatives of Reformed theology have undervalued the discontinuity. This is the root difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on baptism. I am a Baptist because I believe that on this score we honor both the continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church and between their respective covenant signs.
The continuity is expressed like this: Just as circumcision was administered to all the physical sons of Abraham who made up the physical Israel, so baptism should be administered to all the spiritual sons of Abraham who make up the spiritual Israel, the church. But who are these spiritual sons of Abraham who constitute the people of God in our age?
Galatians 3:7 says, "So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham." The new thing, since Jesus has come, is that the covenant people of God are no longer a political, ethnic nation, but a body of believers.
John the Baptist inaugurated this change and introduced the new sign of baptism. By calling all Jews to repent and be baptized, John declared powerfully and offensively that physical descent does not make one part of God's family and that circumcision, which signifies a physical relationship, will now be replaced by baptism, which signifies a spiritual relationship. The apostle Paul picks up this new emphasis, especially in Romans 9, and says, "Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants. . . it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God" (vs. 7-8).
Therefore a very important change has occurred in redemptive history. There is discontinuity as well as continuity.
Zwingli and Calvin and their heirs have treated signs of the covenant as if no significant changes happened with the coming of Christ. But God is forming His people today differently than when He strove with an ethnic people called Israel. The people of God are no longer formed through natural kinship, but through supernatural conversion to faith in Christ.
With the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus and the apostles, the emphasis now is that the spiritual status of your parents does not determine your membership in the covenant community. The beneficiaries of the blessings of Abraham are those who have the faith of Abraham. These are the ones who belong to the covenant community.
And these are the ones who should receive the sign of the covenant: believer baptism."
[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]
piningforChrist
Puritan Board Freshman
My position and its postulates (updated not with "proof texts" but instead with biblical examples and explainations) have yet to be given a just hearing.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Please see your own confession for refutation: This passage speaks about sanctification, not justification, as the 1689 uses it in Chapter 13 on Sanctification.
Therefore, according to the 1689 (and the Westminster on which it is based) baptism is a precursor of both justification and sanctification, since one must needs happen before the other. Baptism does not happen because of justification or of sanctification, but stands logically prior to both since baptism is not merely the application of water by the minister in the name of the Trinity, but also the sign of the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration that may happen at the time of the baptism, before it, or after it.
Repentance is placed on the same plane as baptism in this passage. Further, it is right that Peter preaches this way because it was ordained by our Lord Jesus. But it does not elevate baptism to a proclamation of a person's treasuring the divine light in his affections. If it were, do you not think that Scripture would record what each person said after they had been baptized? Do you remember the most famous saying after a baptism? The Word of God from Heaven spoke, not the person upon whom the baptism was administered. What proclamation can you say after your baptism that adds one thing to the goodness of it? You don't make Jesus Lord, He's Lord already. You don't crown Jesus King, He's King already. There is no proclamation from the person, there is proclamation from God. I should think that the proper proclamation of one who has just been baptized is absolute humble silence.
See above. He doesn't need water and a fool to proclaim anything about His Lordship.
First, if we apprehend at all, it is not our words that mean anything. It is God's Word. Therefore, we should be able to find examples of this kind of proclamation in the NT. Further, we should find the apostles teaching that baptism is a proclamation of the believer. We don't find either.
I'm not sure what you think this proves, but it says nothing about our proclamation in baptism, but everything about God's proclamation to us.
This is only true as the Holy Spirit works. But as we know, baptism is a sign or symbol of what happens, not the actual thing. It is a shadow of a reality. We can't see what happens in baptism. And everywhere the apostle teaches, he knows this. Only those who have been truly baptized by the Holy Spirit in the realm we can't see, have put on Christ. The water is not magic, nor the minister, nor the words, nor the participant. The Holy Spirit makes this effectual to us, and so, only by the Spirit do we put on Christ, not by the symbolic water. Do you see the difference. You're making much too much of the outward sign.
There is no inference that can be drawn anywhere in Scripture that says that water baptism is a proclamation of the Lordship of God in the heart. Again, we say nothing. God says everything. The proclamation must never come from us. We are His, He is not ours. We don't proclaim anything other than His Word and His Word does not tell us that we make Him Lord. We don't make Him Lord. He makes us subjects.
Here baptism is placed on the same plane as teaching, yet you are not suggesting that teaching is equal to the physical sign of baptism.
In Christ,
KC
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Baptism being associated in any way with Justification not only scares me, but reminds me of Rome!
[Edited on 11-16-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
[Edited on 11-16-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Matthew,
This thinking is akin to Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism. Formula does not have anything to do with salvation; whether or not one church is more proper in their administration of the sacrament than another, is irrelevent.
BrianBowman
Posting Priviledges Revoked
- Status
Similar threads
