I've been listening to a program called Converse with Scholars over at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. (As a side note, I'm a student in the Introduction to Theology Course.) The specific podcast I've listened to is a two-part series on baptism.
Last year, they had Gregg Strawbridge (pastor of All Saint's Presbyterian Church in Akron, PA) on discussing and defending Paedobaptism (which is the practice of baptizing infants). In Covenant Theology (Wikipedia Article; A Puritan's Mind Article), they believe that there is a strong continuity between the old and the new covenants. Specifically with baptism, they teach baptism is a mark of entrance into the new covenant community; by "new covenant community", they teach that this mirrors the "old covenant community" more than is understood in the present day. For example, if a male adult wanted entrance into Israel, he confessed loyalty and trust in Yahweh and received circumcision as a sign of the covenant given to Israel. If an adult wants entrance into the Church-covenant community today, he would confess loyalty and trust in Jesus Christ and receive baptism as a sign of the covenant given to the Church (most everybody would agree to this summation of adult-conversion to Yahweh-ism/Christianity). For a male child born into Israel, circumcision was universally performed as a sign of the covenant; he was automatically brought into the covenant community whether he wanted to or not. For children of believers born into the Church-covenant community, baptism is universally performed as a sign of the covenant; the child is automatically brought into the covenant community whether they want to or not.
Now, some one might ask, "Is this child saved because he is baptized into the covenant community?" The answer is no because unlike Roman Catholicism, those who adhere to Covenant Theology DO NOT believe in baptismal regeneration. Infant baptism is not effectual for the removal of sin. Baptism is an ordinance performed on all those who wish to be in, or are born into, the new covenant community. It is a sign of the covenant given to the Church, not effectual for the removal of sin.
The other issue at hand surrounds the question: who exactly is included in the new covenant? To ask this another way, are only saved people included in the new covenant? As a mirror of Israel's old covenant, Covenant Theology would answer "no" to the second question. The new covenant is a community, so, just as Jewish children were brought up in Israel as Israelites, so Christian children should be brought up in a Christian community as Christians. The question would naturally follow: what about saving faith? Won't this confuse the child? Covenant Theology would answer "no" to this question as well. In Israel, people became prideful and arrogant because they believed that since they were, nationally speaking, God's chosen people, then that automatically means that they are on God's side - that they are saved, regenerated, individuals. Obviously, this wasn't the case. As Jesus said, one must be born of the spirit to be part of the Kingdom of God. So it is with the children born to Christian parents. They are part of the covenant community (i.e., we don't treat them as we would treat a typical unbeliever off the street), however they must be personally born again by the Spirit to be saved. They might put it this way: Not all who are "Christian" are actually Christian. Remember Christ's words in Matthew 25, that Jesus doesn't know (in a salivic sense) many who would otherwise claimed the name of Christ. Since the Father predestined individuals to salvation, any elect-person born into a Christian household will receive the gospel from the beginning of their life; saving faith will following regeneration at the appropriate time in that person's life.
I know that this treatment of paedobaptism is meager in comparison to the deluge of websites that can explain these things better than I can. Hopefully, I represented the paedobaptist side fairly; I tried to not set up a straw-man. Any corrections or clarifications are appreciated.
The following week, they had Thomas Schreiner on to discuss the opposing view, which is credobaptism (believer's baptism; Wikipedia Article; Founders.org Article [Critical Response]). The traditional baptist view of baptism is this: only born-again Christians are baptized. They offer interpretations of texts in Jeremiah and else where to justify the belief that only born-again people are actual members of the new covenant community. In other words, they reject the idea that non-believers can be members of the new covenant. They emphasize the fact that there are discontinuities between the old and new covenants. In terms of baptism, they believe that this does not replace circumcision. They believe that circumcision served as a prototype for the circumcision of the heart - physical circumcision represented what God wanted done spiritually, which was the cutting away of the "old man" (to use Pauline terminology; or, "circumcision of the heart"). They would argue that baptism, though it may seem to be similar to circumcision, does not serve the same purpose that circumcision served in the old covenant. From Romans 6, they would argue that baptism represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and the believer going through those things with Christ. Baptism as a mark of the new covenant either won't be emphasized, or won't be believed at all.
Again, I hope I represented the credobaptist viewpoint accurately. Straw-men are not welcome here.
Which side is correct? Does the New Testament allow for the baptism of infants, or does it militate against it? Honestly, after looking at the arguments for both perspectives, I'm not to sure anymore. The sense I receive when reading of Covenant Theology as a whole (of which I agree with many of their perspectives) is that they explicitly read and interpret Scripture from a covenantal point-of-view. As a result, they view the Church as an essential continuation of Israel in terms of the new covenant being a fulfillment of the old covenant. Israel and the Church are communities which will have both regenerated and unregenerated people in them. In terms of Christ dying for the Church and loving the Church, the issue becomes one of discerning between final consummation language from current-reality language. For example, with Israel, the Scriptures describe God loving Israel (the nation) as a husband loves his bride. However, as can be see in the Prophets, God chastised the nation severely. In fact, God punished the nation to the point where many unregenerate and regenerate people were killed. God loved Israel, however that didn't stop him from killing disobedient (ultimately, unregenerate) people inside the covenant community. So it is with the Church, where in the end, Christ will separate the disobedient (ultimately, unregenerate) people from inside the covenant community of the Church and "kill" them, as it were, in Hell.
Personally, I accept this perspective in principle, however, it is difficult to accept the idea that a child needs to be baptized to enter into the new covenant community. Dedication, sure, is OK; actual baptism, though? There are no negative commands (e.g., "do not baptize infants"), but there are no positive commands either (e.g., "baptize only professing, regenerate, believers"). I'm still undecided on the issue. I'll write more on this when I've allowed all this stuff to sink into my mind more. For anybody who reads this...what do you think?
Last year, they had Gregg Strawbridge (pastor of All Saint's Presbyterian Church in Akron, PA) on discussing and defending Paedobaptism (which is the practice of baptizing infants). In Covenant Theology (Wikipedia Article; A Puritan's Mind Article), they believe that there is a strong continuity between the old and the new covenants. Specifically with baptism, they teach baptism is a mark of entrance into the new covenant community; by "new covenant community", they teach that this mirrors the "old covenant community" more than is understood in the present day. For example, if a male adult wanted entrance into Israel, he confessed loyalty and trust in Yahweh and received circumcision as a sign of the covenant given to Israel. If an adult wants entrance into the Church-covenant community today, he would confess loyalty and trust in Jesus Christ and receive baptism as a sign of the covenant given to the Church (most everybody would agree to this summation of adult-conversion to Yahweh-ism/Christianity). For a male child born into Israel, circumcision was universally performed as a sign of the covenant; he was automatically brought into the covenant community whether he wanted to or not. For children of believers born into the Church-covenant community, baptism is universally performed as a sign of the covenant; the child is automatically brought into the covenant community whether they want to or not.
Now, some one might ask, "Is this child saved because he is baptized into the covenant community?" The answer is no because unlike Roman Catholicism, those who adhere to Covenant Theology DO NOT believe in baptismal regeneration. Infant baptism is not effectual for the removal of sin. Baptism is an ordinance performed on all those who wish to be in, or are born into, the new covenant community. It is a sign of the covenant given to the Church, not effectual for the removal of sin.
The other issue at hand surrounds the question: who exactly is included in the new covenant? To ask this another way, are only saved people included in the new covenant? As a mirror of Israel's old covenant, Covenant Theology would answer "no" to the second question. The new covenant is a community, so, just as Jewish children were brought up in Israel as Israelites, so Christian children should be brought up in a Christian community as Christians. The question would naturally follow: what about saving faith? Won't this confuse the child? Covenant Theology would answer "no" to this question as well. In Israel, people became prideful and arrogant because they believed that since they were, nationally speaking, God's chosen people, then that automatically means that they are on God's side - that they are saved, regenerated, individuals. Obviously, this wasn't the case. As Jesus said, one must be born of the spirit to be part of the Kingdom of God. So it is with the children born to Christian parents. They are part of the covenant community (i.e., we don't treat them as we would treat a typical unbeliever off the street), however they must be personally born again by the Spirit to be saved. They might put it this way: Not all who are "Christian" are actually Christian. Remember Christ's words in Matthew 25, that Jesus doesn't know (in a salivic sense) many who would otherwise claimed the name of Christ. Since the Father predestined individuals to salvation, any elect-person born into a Christian household will receive the gospel from the beginning of their life; saving faith will following regeneration at the appropriate time in that person's life.
I know that this treatment of paedobaptism is meager in comparison to the deluge of websites that can explain these things better than I can. Hopefully, I represented the paedobaptist side fairly; I tried to not set up a straw-man. Any corrections or clarifications are appreciated.
The following week, they had Thomas Schreiner on to discuss the opposing view, which is credobaptism (believer's baptism; Wikipedia Article; Founders.org Article [Critical Response]). The traditional baptist view of baptism is this: only born-again Christians are baptized. They offer interpretations of texts in Jeremiah and else where to justify the belief that only born-again people are actual members of the new covenant community. In other words, they reject the idea that non-believers can be members of the new covenant. They emphasize the fact that there are discontinuities between the old and new covenants. In terms of baptism, they believe that this does not replace circumcision. They believe that circumcision served as a prototype for the circumcision of the heart - physical circumcision represented what God wanted done spiritually, which was the cutting away of the "old man" (to use Pauline terminology; or, "circumcision of the heart"). They would argue that baptism, though it may seem to be similar to circumcision, does not serve the same purpose that circumcision served in the old covenant. From Romans 6, they would argue that baptism represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and the believer going through those things with Christ. Baptism as a mark of the new covenant either won't be emphasized, or won't be believed at all.
Again, I hope I represented the credobaptist viewpoint accurately. Straw-men are not welcome here.
Which side is correct? Does the New Testament allow for the baptism of infants, or does it militate against it? Honestly, after looking at the arguments for both perspectives, I'm not to sure anymore. The sense I receive when reading of Covenant Theology as a whole (of which I agree with many of their perspectives) is that they explicitly read and interpret Scripture from a covenantal point-of-view. As a result, they view the Church as an essential continuation of Israel in terms of the new covenant being a fulfillment of the old covenant. Israel and the Church are communities which will have both regenerated and unregenerated people in them. In terms of Christ dying for the Church and loving the Church, the issue becomes one of discerning between final consummation language from current-reality language. For example, with Israel, the Scriptures describe God loving Israel (the nation) as a husband loves his bride. However, as can be see in the Prophets, God chastised the nation severely. In fact, God punished the nation to the point where many unregenerate and regenerate people were killed. God loved Israel, however that didn't stop him from killing disobedient (ultimately, unregenerate) people inside the covenant community. So it is with the Church, where in the end, Christ will separate the disobedient (ultimately, unregenerate) people from inside the covenant community of the Church and "kill" them, as it were, in Hell.
Personally, I accept this perspective in principle, however, it is difficult to accept the idea that a child needs to be baptized to enter into the new covenant community. Dedication, sure, is OK; actual baptism, though? There are no negative commands (e.g., "do not baptize infants"), but there are no positive commands either (e.g., "baptize only professing, regenerate, believers"). I'm still undecided on the issue. I'll write more on this when I've allowed all this stuff to sink into my mind more. For anybody who reads this...what do you think?
Hi, Michael. I'm a good friend of Miss Jessica, and got to your blog from your comments left there. My name shall remain anonymous because, well, for the time being, I have to be a closet paedobaptist (Hangs head in shame) due to certain cirumstances beyond my finite control.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a fair job of describing the positions, insofar as you discussed some specifics. I would say you have a good grasp on the subject matter.
I just wanted to address your specific questions in hopes that I might be of some help (But I'll probably fail). You also did a good job of not erecting Straw Men.
Please note that I realize your post is not polemical, so when I respond with a probing question, it's only for the purpose of thought. I'm not saying you're trying to prove/disprove either of the said positions.
So now I'll make my feeble attempt to answer:
Michael: Which side is correct?
The Lord's side (paedobaptist) of course. :D.
Michael:Does the New Testament allow for the baptism of infants[?]
Of course it does. We know that whatever Laws, etc. God didn't want to be perpetual through to eternity were expressly abrogated and/or fulfilled in Christ. These were those things which were shadows and types of Christ to come. The command to apply the sign of entrance to the Covenant is nowhere rescinded in the New Testament. Thus, it stands.
Michael: or does it militate against it?
Nope.
Michael: Personally, I accept this perspective in principle, however, it is difficult to accept the idea that a child needs to be baptized to enter into the new covenant community.
No Reformed paedobaptist would (or should) affirm this. The child enters into the New Covenant by virtue of their existence. Baptism does not validate that, it merely signifies it.
Michael: Dedication, sure, is OK; actual baptism, though?
Do you mean as a practice for the Church? Why? Is there an express command for this dedication? Oughn't we have a command for whatever we include in the corporate worship of our Lord? :D
Michael: There are no negative commands (e.g., "do not baptize infants")
Though this is true, the paedobaptist will say that we must still have a positive command for such a sacrament. So where is it, when it comes to Infants? Rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, represented by circumcision (at that time).
Michael:...but there are no positive commands either (e.g., "baptize only professing, regenerate, believers").
Come to the dark side, my friend. Mu ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Michael: For anybody who reads this...what do you think?
Thumbs up. You'll be excited about seeing babies sprinkled in no time. :D
By the way, I'm certainly no expert on this matter, so I hope I haven't muddied your thinking.
A Closet Paedobaptist (here thereafter, ACP :-P ),
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments; they were helpful. :-)
Michael: Dedication, sure, is OK; actual baptism, though?
Do you mean as a practice for the Church? Why? Is there an express command for this dedication? Oughn't we have a command for whatever we include in the corporate worship of our Lord? :D
ACP, you're absolutely correct; we should practice those things the Lord explicitly commands us to do. "Dedication", as thought of in these modern times, is not present in the Scriptures. Thank you for the correction. :-D
Michael:Does the New Testament allow for the baptism of infants[?]
Of course it does. We know that whatever Laws, etc. God didn't want to be perpetual through to eternity were expressly abrogated and/or fulfilled in Christ. These were those things which were shadows and types of Christ to come. The command to apply the sign of entrance to the Covenant is nowhere rescinded in the New Testament. Thus, it stands.
The question I have in regards to your argument is this: how does Covenant Theology distinguish between those things there were a mere shadow of Christ's coming, and those things which were not?
Currently, I interpret "Christ fulfilling the Law" as Christ completely obeying the Law (10 Commandments plus the Mosaic Law). Jesus was the perfect Israelite. Therefore, those things prescribed under the Law (including circumcision) are done away with ("nullified" is how Paul put it in Ephesians 2). So the idea of carrying over "circumcision" into the new covenant is a strange idea indeed.
Now, I can see from the other side that you might argue it's the principle circumcision accomplishes that still stands; that is, the marking of entrance into God's chosen people. I can understand that interpretation. It seems to me, though, that the credobaptist has a slightly stronger argument in terms of the evidence that baptism is a physical representation of our participation in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection rather than a mark of entrance into the covenant community (maybe it's both at the same time?).
My struggle over this issue is difficult to accurately represent in text. In my mind, I have all these different factors supporting both the credo- and the paedobaptist perspectives. For example, baptism seems to be for professing believers only, however if families were being baptized, it seems to me that they would have serious trouble with the idea that their children were excluded from the Church because of their age (whereas children were not excluded in the nation of Israel).
I just thought of something from Paul's words in Romans 9, where he says that not all Israel is true Israel. His argument (as to why all Israelites are not covered by the new covenant) is that God elected true Israel out of the general nation he established. Jesus said that he would separate out those who are his servants those who are unfaithful from those who are faithful. I'm specifically thinking of the parable of the talents, where the servant who did nothing with this money was sent to hell. He was a member of the community, yet proved to be unfaithful to the Master.
Honestly, paedobaptism has some very convincing arguments, however I'm still being wishy-washy on converting over "to the dark side", as you so eloquently put it ;-)
I firmly believe that one's theological gate needs to be closed until one is convinced that he open his gate and let something new inside. I'm at the gate, but still hesitating on grabbing the handle and opening the door. I think I need to understand more the covenantal interpretation of texts that support their view of the "new covenant community"; this is where , I think, my acceptance or rejection of paedobaptism will lie.
Thanks for your comments, ACP! As I said, they were very helpful for me. Theology done in community is the best way to do theology. I believe spiritual growth is a community event, not an individual enterprise, which is why having a healthy, well-balanced Church is so essential for the individual members of the Body. Anyway, I could go on, but that is for another post!
Hi, Michael. Let me briefly address some of your thoughts(albeit ever so inadequately):
ReplyDeleteCurrently, I interpret "Christ fulfilling the Law" as Christ completely obeying the Law (10 Commandments plus the Mosaic Law).
That He certainly did. And those shadowy types and ceremonial laws which were pointing to him were fulfilled. However, the Moral Law is not abrogated. It continues on. We still shouldn't murder, worship idols, commit adultery, lie, steal, etc.
Jesus was the perfect Israelite. Therefore, those things prescribed under the Law (including circumcision) are done away with ("nullified" is how Paul put it in Ephesians 2).
Circumcision prescribed under the Law. It began with Abraham, not Moses. Thus, it wasn't merely national or ceremonial, because God's command to Abraham had to do with more than a physical circumcision.
So the idea of carrying over "circumcision" into the new covenant is a strange idea indeed.
Not at all, if you understand that circumcision and baptism both point to and signify regeneration. (Col. 2:11-12). "Why not stick with circumcision, then?." some might ask. Well, because that was a bloody ordinance, but since Christ's death we need no more bloodshed.
It seems to me, though, that the credobaptist has a slightly stronger argument in terms of the evidence that baptism is a physical representation of our participation in Christ's death, burial, and resurrection rather than a mark of entrance into the covenant community (maybe it's both at the same time?).
Bingo, it is both. See Calvin (I think Book 4: 15 and 16 of his Institutes) and his description of Baptism, then Infant Baptism.
My struggle over this issue is difficult to accurately represent in text. In my mind, I have all these different factors supporting both the credo- and the paedobaptist perspectives.
I understand completely, especially having grown up Baptist (mostly of the Arminian sort). There will always be "convincing", thought-provoking arguments from each side that seem to pull one back and forth. But ultimately, it comes down to hermeneutic.
For example, baptism seems to be for professing believers only, however if families were being baptized, it seems to me that they would have serious trouble with the idea that their children were excluded from the Church because of their age (whereas children were not excluded in the nation of Israel).
Right. In Acts 2, it seems there would have been an uproar.
I just thought of something from Paul's words in Romans 9, where he says that not all Israel is true Israel. His argument (as to why all Israelites are not covered by the new covenant) is that God elected true Israel out of the general nation he established. Jesus said that he would separate out those who are his servants those who are unfaithful from those who are faithful. I'm specifically thinking of the parable of the talents, where the servant who did nothing with this money was sent to hell. He was a member of the community, yet proved to be unfaithful to the Master.
Makes much more sense, and is also a simpler systematically, from the Paedobaptist perspective.
I firmly believe that one's theological gate needs to be closed until one is convinced that he open his gate and let something new inside. I'm at the gate, but still hesitating on grabbing the handle and opening the door. I think I need to understand more the covenantal interpretation of texts that support their view of the "new covenant community"; this is where , I think, my acceptance or rejection of paedobaptism will lie.
Michael, when you get a chance check out these sermons by Pastor Bill Shishko. A more concise series of sermons can be found here by Pastor Ed Donnely and are also good. I think you will find these helpful. I point you to these because I am quite a novice in this area. Blessings to you this Lord's Day.
ACP,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you point me to Shishko's sermon series. Jessica and I were up late Saturday night IMing, and she gave me the same link to Shishko's sermons. Thanks for the reference, though; I really appreciate it.
There will always be "convincing", thought-provoking arguments from each side that seem to pull one back and forth. But ultimately, it comes down to hermeneutic.
That's so true. In my Introduction to Theology class at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, they teach that we're to accurately represent the positions we argue against (irenic theology). We are to accurately represent them even if that means making their position sound good and convincing.
I agree with you, though, that one needs to not necessarily stick with a model of interpretation, but instead stick with a method of interpretation. If our methodology is correct, then we can accurately examine the various models, positions, systems, etc. and come to our own, informed, conclusions on these things. That's what I'm trying to do here. If my method of interpreting the Scriptures needs to be altered, then I'll alter it; however, I'll only do so after coming to an informed decision.
See Calvin (I think Book 4: 15 and 16 of his Institutes) and his description of Baptism, then Infant Baptism.
I have a condensed version of Calvin's Institutes. I'll definitely check out those sections.
That He certainly did. And those shadowy types and ceremonial laws which were pointing to him were fulfilled. However, the Moral Law is not abrogated. It continues on. We still shouldn't murder, worship idols, commit adultery, lie, steal, etc.
I completely agree that the Moral Law was not 'done away with'. What I'm saying, though, is that in Christ, perfect obedience was accomplished for us. What doesn't pass away are the primary principles of the Law, which were to love the Lord and to love other people. Another principle behind the Law was for Israel to be holy as God is holy. He gives that same command to us, the Church, today. That holiness, though, no longer comes through obedience, per se, of the Law, but through Christ's obedience for us. Therefore, when we're in Christ, we're motivated by the Spirit to live as Christ lived. So, in my estimation at least, we are following the "Law" (as completed by Christ), but more to the point, we're following the principle behind the Law, which is maintaining holiness. That may express itself through following physical actions that may resemble elements from the Mosaic Law, but it's not through actual obedience to the Law.
Does that make any sense, or am I just talking out of my ears?
Circumcision prescribed under the Law. It began with Abraham, not Moses. Thus, it wasn't merely national or ceremonial, because God's command to Abraham had to do with more than a physical circumcision.
You're absolutely right, circumcision did come before Moses. Circumcision, though, became regulated through the Law, though, didn't it? I see this the same as tithing: tithing came before the Law as well with Abraham. However, under the Law, tithing was regulated. I don't believe in Christian tithing today because of the same reasons. Christians are to be in themselves living sacrifices. The Church today is God's temple. Christians today are God's priests. Tithing served two purposes, to support the Levites and to be an expression of worship toward God. Today, we support the Church with monetary giving, and we also express our worship toward God with ourselves completely.
Again, does that make sense, or am is that reasoning off somehow? On these last two points (and I know I'm going out of order from your response), my level of certainty is around, maybe, a 3 or 4 (with -10 being "I absolutely do not believe and stake my life on it"; +10 being "I absolutely do believe and stake my life on it"; and 0 being "I don't know one way or the other").
I also realize that circumcision and baptism signify regeneration. The "circumcision of the heart" in the Old Testament and "being born of the Spirit" in the New Testament, I believe, are the same thing. God's divine electing work in the life of a person.
Thanks ACP for your comments and continued conversation. I really do appreciate you working with out with me. I'm being blessed :-) 'Till next time....
I completely agree that the Moral Law was not 'done away with'. What I'm saying, though, is that in Christ, perfect obedience was accomplished for us.
ReplyDeleteI'm not following the purpose of this, as I believe we're in agreement here. Christ accomplished all this for our justification (cuz we never could have), but this by no means we're not to strive after obedience unto the Law (i.e. Decalogue).
What doesn't pass away are the primary principles of the Law, which were to love the Lord and to love other people.
I don't believe the letter of the Law (the Decalogue, I mean) has passed either. In other words, we strive to obey the 10 Commandments strictly...not for our salvation, but because of our salvation. And yes, the Law is "summed up" in these two commandments. Love God. Love Neighbor. Notice the order of the commandments. The first 4 are about loving God. The last 6 are about loving Neighbor.
Another principle behind the Law was for Israel to be holy as God is holy. He gives that same command to us, the Church, today. That holiness, though, no longer comes through obedience, per se, of the Law, but through Christ's obedience for us.
Holiness has never come to man by obedience to the Law. Nay, it has always been by grace, through faith. Abraham believed, and it was credited unto him as righteousness. Anyone who has ever been saved in all eternity was justified on the grounds of Christ's obedience and sacrifice.
Therefore, when we're in Christ, we're motivated by the Spirit to live as Christ lived. So, in my estimation at least, we are following the "Law" (as completed by Christ), but more to the point, we're following the principle behind the Law, which is maintaining holiness.
Yes, but the principles are written on the hearts of all men. They were just later put on two tablets of stone. The Sabbath was around before Moses. Idolatry certainly was. Lying. Stealing. Murdering, etc.
That may express itself through following physical actions that may resemble elements from the Mosaic Law, but it's not through actual obedience to the Law.
Again, the 10 Commandments, were around before they were on tablets of stone. In fact, it's something to consider that the 10 Commandments were the only written laws that were set apart on these tablets, and carried in the Ark of the Covenant, etc. They were treated specially, which should say something of their perpetuity, as opposed to the ceremonial and judicial laws that were unique to the Mosaic law.
I originally meant to include the words in the brackets below in my original post. D'oh!
Circumcision [was not] prescribed under the Law. It began with Abraham, not Moses. Thus, it wasn't merely national or ceremonial, because God's command to Abraham had to do with more than a physical circumcision.
You're absolutely right, circumcision did come before Moses. Circumcision, though, became regulated through the Law, though, didn't it?
Genesis 17:14 indicates a regulation (i.e. has a threat attached to it if one fails to be circumcized):
14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
Michael, to be honest, these arguments can, have, and will go back and forth between Paedobaptists and Credo-only-Baptists alike without end. When it comes down to it, for me it has boiled down to a few things:
1. How has God treated and understood "family" througout Scripture? How are children to be understood, treated, distinguished?
2. In His covenant with Abraham (it's called an everlasting covenant by the way), God commanded Abraham to apply the sign to himself after his faith, but to apply it to his childen before. Now, Abraham is alluded to as exemplary of NEW Covenant faith. Since that is so, if a Christian is no longer to apply the sign of the Covenant to their infants (whatever the sign is for that Administration), shouldn't there be an active rescinding of such a command for the Christian?
In other words, do we assume continuity unless otherwise stated by Jesus and the APostles, or do we assume DIScontinuity unless Jesue or His disciples RESTATE and already understood law? I pose the former as being true, because God doesn't have to restate Himself.
Anyhoo, as aforenoted, I'm a novice at this. If you will follow the link I've put in my name, it will take you to an excellent message board which has multiple threads on Baptism. If you get the opportunity, pay close attention to the posts by Paul Manata in his defense of Paedobaptism. He's quite effective, me thinks.
Blessings.
ACP,
ReplyDeleteI think I'm beginning to see where my problem is in regard to the Law: I saw the Decalogue and the Mosaic Law as being one, that is, when I think "the Law", I think the Ten Commandments plus the Mosaic Law. So is it this, then, that the Ten Commandments sets the moral stage for the Mosaic Law? If that's the case, then it would seem that they would also be a foundation for the "Law of Christ", as it were, because they are moral standards that transcend time and space.
Holiness has never come to man by obedience to the Law. Nay, it has always been by grace, through faith. Abraham believed, and it was credited unto him as righteousness. Anyone who has ever been saved in all eternity was justified on the grounds of Christ's obedience and sacrifice.
Holiness is separation (that's what the word means), so when I say that a principle of the Law was for Israel to be holy, I'm saying that the Law served as a means for Israel to "separate" themselves from the evil of the surrounding nations. I agree, though, the principle agent for one to become 'holy' is God, because true holiness can only come about from one who truly rejects sin, and one only truly rejects sin after being reborn (or having their hearts circumcised; it's the same thing).
...[T]he principles are written on the hearts of all men. They were just later put on two tablets of stone. The Sabbath was around before Moses. Idolatry certainly was. Lying. Stealing. Murdering, etc.
You're absolutely correct, of course. This could go into another discussion of the Law in regards to Paul's take on it in Romans 7; we'll leave that one alone for another blog. ;-)
In other words, do we assume continuity unless otherwise stated by Jesus and the Apostles, or do we assume DIScontinuity unless Jesus or His disciples RESTATE and already understood law? I pose the former as being true, because God doesn't have to restate Himself.
Your points (1) and (2) and this paragraph are very interesting to me; I'll have to think on these things more.
BTW, I'm listening to Bill Shishko's 23-part teaching series on Christian Baptism. I'll finish it one of these days. Thanks, ACP, for your helpful discussion of these things. I appreciate your patience with me. :-D
Michael: So is it this, then, that the Ten Commandments sets the moral stage for the Mosaic Law? If that's the case, then it would seem that they would also be a foundation for the "Law of Christ", as it were, because they are moral standards that transcend time and space.
ReplyDelete"The Law" is the Law of Christ. I've heard people having the tenacity to say that Christ brough a higher or better law, which baffles me. You know why? Because the Bible says that the Law of the Lord is perfect. Thus, if it's perfect, it need not be abolished, replaced, honed, or perfected.
Also, since Christ is the Word of God, that also means the Decalogue. He didn't bring a new law, a better law, or a higher law. He simply showed the Pharisees their ignorance and how they misinterpreted God's Law.
You're absolutely correct, of course. This could go into another discussion of the Law in regards to Paul's take on it in Romans 7; we'll leave that one alone for another blog. ;-)
Do you mean when Paul says the following concerning God's Law in Romans 7 (verse 12)??
So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
His take on it is the same as Christ's, the Psalmist (Ch. 19)etc. i.e. it's good. ;)
That there is not a single instance of infant baptism in the NT, makes its validity questionable. Certainly, there are logical arguments for it, but that is all. As it stands, the principal witness for infant baptism are the noncanonical writings of the church.
ReplyDeleteSome will point to household baptism, which is present in Acts. Only, we do not know if any children were present. The opposite position is affirmed: "If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:17). And, "'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.' And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house" (Acts 16:31-32).
Now, is it possible that infants were also baptized? Possibly, but we do not know. It's possible that the households were entirely made up of adults or youth. It's possible that "household" would not have been understood as including infants.
Here's a question: Baptism was not entirely unique to Christianity, did any Jewish sect baptize infants? This would possibly be instructive.
I actually don't object to infant baptism. I was baptized as a Catholic (would that count?), and later as an adult. But I do not believe infanct baptism is derived from scripture, but tradition, for if scripture is the sole basis for deciding, I would have to say that paedobaptism is never contemplated.
That there is not a single instance of infant baptism in the NT....
ReplyDeleteThat statement is encapsulates the primary difficulty I have with infant baptism. In the year since I posted this topic, I still have intellectual difficulties with the concept of infant baptism.
I have begun listening to William Shishko on baptism, where he approaches the issue of infant baptism not from the typical Presbyterian position, but from the typical Baptist position; that is, he begins looking at the particulars of baptism in the Scriptures first, and then works out to the doctrine of infant baptism. His teachings are primarily a response to Reformed Baptists - who are typically covenantal - and yet reject infant baptism.
It's a unique approach I haven't encountered before, so I should learn quite a bit from his teachings.
In regard to Catholic baptism - I too was baptized into Catholicism as a baby. Personally, I count my Catholic baptism as illegitimate not because of the mode or because of my age, but because of the beliefs under girding the baptism: that the waters removed original sin so I might be saved. I do not believe that accurately represents the Scriptural witness of baptism or the foundation of salvation.
But since baptism is a passive experience, does Catholic dogma matter? It still comes down to what one believes. Does what another believe affect the validity of baptism?
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note, also, that the Catholic Church does not rebatize Christian converts.
But since baptism is a passive experience, does Catholic dogma matter?
ReplyDeleteI think belief is important, but to what degree and in what way, I'm not so certain yet. In any event, I'm not comfortable with a baptism done in the name of Christ under the belief that it's washing away original sin. (Yes, I realize that potentially, I'm calling all Roman Catholic baptisms illegitimate. There's a reason why I consider myself a Protestant....)
It is interesting to note, also, that the Catholic Church does not rebatize Christian converts.
I wasn't familiar with this. Is this a recent practice, or has this always been an historical practice of the RC church?
A very recent practice (1960s?). Our mutual friend, Michael Doherty, would know. I'll ask him.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, it makes sense, though, doesn't it?
Frankly, it makes sense, though, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteFrom their theological understanding - maybe.
They believe the physical act actual changes a person and makes them savable. I do not agree with that belief. Their practice of baptism may look and feel the same as a typical Protestant baptism (not to suggest that all Protestant baptisms have the same theological foundation), but they are not the same. They are two different ceremonies with two different meanings behind them.
What do you think, Mark: am I being too unreasonable?
The question, then, is what makes baptism efficacious. Is it what the baptizer believes? Or, is it what the baptized believe?
ReplyDeleteMike, I'd like to add another comment. It has been suggested that baptism superseded circumcision. This is an appealing interpretation, except:
ReplyDelete1. The theological significance of circumcision is discussed extensively in the NT. Never is it said to have been replaced by baptism, though the opportunity to say so certainly presented itself.
2. Paul speaks frequently of "true" circumcision, suggesting that the rite is not being replaced, but realized in Christ in a spiritual sense.
We must also consider that Paul's objection to the circumcision party pertained to the Gentiles. One senses that Jews continued the practice. For example, Paul circumcises Timothy, after the council at Jerusalem.