Saturday, January 22, 2005
I actually only just read this comment and found it interesting...perhaps it may provoke some debate (at least I hope Al will have something to say) I will also think about it in the coming weeks.
"I read your comment on the Red Sea and baptism. I have a completely different line of thinking regarding baptism and the OT that I have been working on for several years now. perhaps I'll run it by the bloggers.
I'm a Baptist. But I find baptistic arguments for their position to be highly spurious because they are NT only arguments. The paedobaptist argument from the totality of Scripture is much more appealing to me and I believe more biblical. However, it seems to me that a circumcision/baptism connection is not valid for this simple reason: the reason of 1 Cor 10:1-2 and other NT places.
Baptism is not a NT only phenomenon. It is quite literally everywhere in the OT. It precedes circumcision, stands along historically with it as a different sacrament, and extends beyond the closing of the circumcision era with the death of Christ.
Put simply, the Red Sea, Noah's flood, the priestly baptisms (see Heb 9:10), the Jordan crossings and washings of the OT, and the river of life in the garden of Eden all point to one thing. Baptism does not come from circumcision but from baptism. We ought not, therefore, let what took place in a completely different sacrament determine how we now practice NT baptism upon Christians because this is irrelevant.
Instead, we should look to the OT practices of baptism and as we do with the OT type of communion (namely the Passover), we should let the proper OT corresponding sacrament which I believe to be the washing of the priest in Exodus 29:4 inform our practice and mode of NT baptism.
So, for example, while the Red Sea crossing was a baptism in which no one got wet (the same is probably true with the flood), they did get wet in the Levitical initiation ceremony into the priesthood. In fact, they washed their whole bodies. This type serves as the example of why we see no explicit reference to sprinkling in the NT and why we see no explicit reference to the baptism of infants in the NT. The priest was not to receive his initiation baptism until he was older (in that case age 30).
To summarize. Baptism comes from... baptism, not circumcision. Baptism is informed by... baptism, not circumcision. Our argument not only need to be consistent with the entirety of Scripture, but by the same typified sacrament of identical substance. This is why I am a Baptist."
"I read your comment on the Red Sea and baptism. I have a completely different line of thinking regarding baptism and the OT that I have been working on for several years now. perhaps I'll run it by the bloggers.
I'm a Baptist. But I find baptistic arguments for their position to be highly spurious because they are NT only arguments. The paedobaptist argument from the totality of Scripture is much more appealing to me and I believe more biblical. However, it seems to me that a circumcision/baptism connection is not valid for this simple reason: the reason of 1 Cor 10:1-2 and other NT places.
Baptism is not a NT only phenomenon. It is quite literally everywhere in the OT. It precedes circumcision, stands along historically with it as a different sacrament, and extends beyond the closing of the circumcision era with the death of Christ.
Put simply, the Red Sea, Noah's flood, the priestly baptisms (see Heb 9:10), the Jordan crossings and washings of the OT, and the river of life in the garden of Eden all point to one thing. Baptism does not come from circumcision but from baptism. We ought not, therefore, let what took place in a completely different sacrament determine how we now practice NT baptism upon Christians because this is irrelevant.
Instead, we should look to the OT practices of baptism and as we do with the OT type of communion (namely the Passover), we should let the proper OT corresponding sacrament which I believe to be the washing of the priest in Exodus 29:4 inform our practice and mode of NT baptism.
So, for example, while the Red Sea crossing was a baptism in which no one got wet (the same is probably true with the flood), they did get wet in the Levitical initiation ceremony into the priesthood. In fact, they washed their whole bodies. This type serves as the example of why we see no explicit reference to sprinkling in the NT and why we see no explicit reference to the baptism of infants in the NT. The priest was not to receive his initiation baptism until he was older (in that case age 30).
To summarize. Baptism comes from... baptism, not circumcision. Baptism is informed by... baptism, not circumcision. Our argument not only need to be consistent with the entirety of Scripture, but by the same typified sacrament of identical substance. This is why I am a Baptist."
Comments:
I must congratulate the person who made these comments for realizing the manner in which NT rites derive their significance as conjugations of OT rites.
However, I still don't really follow his/her logic. Paedobaptists have been pointing to the OT background to Baptism for centuries, and this OT background has been perceived to be far broader than merely circumcision. One could argue that the key OT rite that underlies is the washing of priestly initiation. Peter Leithart, in his fantastic recent book, The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism has done just that.
Leithart is a strong advocate of paedobaptism (and paedocommunion) and points out that the OT baptismal washings are clearly related to the OT practice of circumcision in various ways. It is not a case of circumcision or baptismal washings as background for new covenant baptism, but circumcision and.
Even most Baptists will acknowledge some degree of correlation between OT circumcision and NT Baptism. You must appreciate all the signs, symbols, ceremonies and rites of the OT occur within a larger system and carry numerous relationships to each other. They are not hermetically sealed from each other.
For example, in the OT we see that there were baptismal washings to cleanse those with leprosy. There are numerous reasons to see these washings as part of the OT background for John the Baptist's baptism, which is a precursor to Christian baptism (not the same thing, contra Calvin). However, these baptisms for leprosy simply served to reinitiate the baptized person into the priestly nation that they had been marginalized by their uncleanliness. It readmitted them to the Passover and other parts of the cultic system. At this stage we need to remember that the only requirement for participation in Passover was circumcision. Consequently, we can see that certain OT baptisms at least served as reaffirmations of circumcision, forging a connection between the two rites.
There is also further evidence to suggest that circumcision was connected with the priestly ordination rite. The blood daubed on the ears, thumb and toe was an extension of circumcision. In addition to this, both priestly washing and circumcision were rites of the eighth day.
Even if we had none of this information we could create a connection from within the NT, where both Baptism and circumcision are spoken of in a similar manner on occasions. They both serve to initiate people into the community of God and they are held alongside each other in such books as Galatians. They are also connected in Colossians 2:11-12.
They are clearly not to be equated. Many paedobaptists, who have thought of the covenant more as an ahistorical theological construct with historical dispensations, have tended towards this error. Baptism merely replaces circumcision as a one-for-one exchange. In opposition to this, I would stress that Baptism differs significantly from circumcision. However, this difference serves to give Baptism meaning. If we are to understand Baptism we must understand circumcision. In addition to this difference, though, there is real analogy.
If Baptism is a conjugation of OT rites that bore some relationship to circumcision, we will never properly understand Baptism unless we have some appreciation of how the OT system of rites operated. The meaning of any one particular rite, however, is not self-contained but finds its meaning by virtue of its relationships to all the other rites and symbols. Consequently, an appreciation of the meaning of Baptism, even if it is wholly disanalogous to circumcision, is somehow dependent upon an appreciation of the meaning of circumcision.
As I have already pointed out, there are clear reasons to believe that Baptism is not wholly disanalogous to circumcision. There is even more reason why we have to let circumcision inform our doctrine of Baptism.
The point that priestly initiation is the corresponding OT sacrament does not persuade me. There are a number of OT sacraments that inform Baptism in various ways, just as there are a number of OT sacraments that inform the Supper (e.g. manna, Passover, tithe feasts, tribute offerings, various other sacrificial meals, etc.), not to mention the many stories and other things that should inform our understanding of the Supper (e.g. Abraham and Melchizedek, Lady Wisdom's feast in Proverbs, etc.).
I wonder what is meant by 'the same typified sacrament of identical substance.' This seems to be taking the analogy between OT and NT sacraments too far. NT Baptism is a 'conjugation' of OT priestly initiation, but it is not the same thing.
You claim that the recipients of priestly initiation washed their whole bodies. I agree. However, the washing was almost surely by affusion, rather than by submersion. There are good biblical theological reasons for resisting the practice of submersion, but paedobaptists have generally granted that submersion is a valid mode of Baptism. The debate is over whether any other form of Baptism is valid. I believe that submersion and sprinkling are equally unhelpful and believe that affusion is the biblical mode of Baptism.
Baptists who will place a lot of weight upon statements such as 'coming up out of the water' should appreciate that this was something that the baptizer did, and not just the baptizand (Acts 8:39). There are many other arguments that support the claim that Baptism was probably performed with the baptizand standing in water and having water poured over his head. There is a lot of creation imagery here, imagery that the (unbiblical, IMHO) practice of submersion loses. Also, I don't see why Christians should share the same relationship to baptismal water as those who were outside the ark and Pharaoh's army.
There are only two rather tenuous arguments that are given against paedobaptism. The first is that NT Baptism derives from OT baptisms and not circumcision. Quite apart from the fact that such a statement cannot be easily sustained in the face of the evidence, there is the further fact that paedobaptists have not traditionally rested the practice of paedobaptism wholly upon the analogy between circumcision and Baptism.
For myself, I believe that too much has been made of the analogy and have tried to take a lot of weight off this argument (although there is a real analogy). Even if the argument were wholly discounted, I don't see how that entails the denial of paedobaptism.
The other argument that is given is that priestly initiation took place at the age of 30. So? Are we to restrict Baptism to males from the tribe of Levi without physical disabilities over 30 years in age? Of course not! We must also remember that the whole nation was priestly to some degree, having been washed in the Red Sea (infants were, of course, included in this baptism).
We must remember that 1 Corinthians 7:14 teaches that the children and spouse of a believing parent are 'holy'. Baptists, in my experience, simply do not understand the full significance of this verse. It cannot mean merely having a positive influence. Their very status has been changed. The children of unbelieving parents are 'unclean' (not neutral); the children and spouse of a believing parent are 'holy'.
Biblically, the word 'holy' is not synonymous with the word 'clean'. The word 'holy' is particularly used for those things and people that are set apart for God's especial (sanctuary) use. The language of holiness is particularly applied to those of the priestly line (Leviticus 21:6-8). God has especially set apart the children and the spouse of a believing parent for sanctuary use. In order to enter into the sanctuary, one must be baptized.
1 Corinthians 7:14 does not presuppose Baptism. However, it does uncover the basis for Baptism.
The 'holy' person has been set apart for sanctuary obligation. A 'saint' is not necessarily a believer. A 'saint' — a holy person — can resist the obligations that God has placed on his/her life. The unbelieving wife can refuse Baptism and refuse to become part of the Christian priesthood, as can the children. However, if they do not object, they are to be given sanctuary access. They should be permitted to be baptized and should be allowed to partake of communion.
The infants of a believing parent have been set apart for sanctuary service. To refuse to baptize them and bring them into this service is disobedience.
The objection might be raised that they can be admitted at a later date, when they reach maturity. [As an aside, if they were to be initiated to the Christian priesthood at a later date (in the light of 1 Corinthians 7:14), they would not be initiated merely on the basis of a personal confession of faith, as Baptists wish to maintain. The unbelieving spouse and the children of the believing parent belong to the Christian community in a manner that Baptists (and many paedobaptists) will find it hard to grant, because they are far too individualistic. The Baptist position departs from Scripture on a number of counts.]
To this objection I will point out that the NT shows that the priesthood has now become the holy place (1 Peter 2:4-10). Priestly work is bodybuilding work. The infant may be more passive (like a stone in a temple) but still serve to edify/build up the priesthood/temple. The weakest members are often the most necessary. I have commented on this on my blog:—
"What Baptists really want is not so much faith and repentance as self-sufficient and independent, ‘stand-on-my-own-two-feet’ faith and repentance. They are looking for adult faith from children (not that adults ought to aspire to such faith detached from community). The irony is that, when the children grow up, they will be told to practice a ‘childlike’ faith.
"The chief danger of this expectation is that it easily falls into a trap similar to that of what Bonhoeffer terms the ‘pious fellowship’. When mature and independent faith is elevated and weak and dependent faith is demeaned, people will become afraid to admit the weakness of their faith and their (God-appointed — Genesis 2:18) need to depend upon others. They fear admitting the weakness of their faith, because they do not believe that the church has any real place for the weak in faith. Consequently they pretend to be strong in faith, while they are inwardly consumed by doubts, doubts that would have been dealt with had the community been accepting of weak and dependent believers. When we fear confessing our sins to one another and do not want to admit to others that our weak faith needs bearing up, the devil will happily pick us off, one by one.
"Infant Baptism teaches us that we do not need to pretend to be strong to each other and that there are many who may even have to be carried to the time of their death, not having the strength to ‘stand on their own two feet’. The important thing is that we are members of a body, a body that ministers to those members that are weak within it. In the Christian community the weaker members are frequently the most necessary and valuable members. They play the prophetic role, as Peter Leithart has observed, of identifying our selfishness and calling us to sacrificial self-commitment."
The parallel between OT priestly initiation and NT Baptism is far from an argument against paedobaptism. Baptists tend to disinherit OT covenant infants. In the case of covenant infants, even the blessings that they enjoyed in the OT are taken from them in the NT. Far from God being freer with His grace towards them in the new covenant, they are deprived of the grace they enjoyed in the old covenant order. I have read a number of Baptists who have tried to justify this and say that the infant children of believers are really better off in their version of the new covenant. Their words are hollow.
Besides, there are numerous other arguments that could be brought forward to support infant Baptism. I have mentioned these from time to time on my blog and elsewhere.
However, I still don't really follow his/her logic. Paedobaptists have been pointing to the OT background to Baptism for centuries, and this OT background has been perceived to be far broader than merely circumcision. One could argue that the key OT rite that underlies is the washing of priestly initiation. Peter Leithart, in his fantastic recent book, The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism has done just that.
Leithart is a strong advocate of paedobaptism (and paedocommunion) and points out that the OT baptismal washings are clearly related to the OT practice of circumcision in various ways. It is not a case of circumcision or baptismal washings as background for new covenant baptism, but circumcision and.
Even most Baptists will acknowledge some degree of correlation between OT circumcision and NT Baptism. You must appreciate all the signs, symbols, ceremonies and rites of the OT occur within a larger system and carry numerous relationships to each other. They are not hermetically sealed from each other.
For example, in the OT we see that there were baptismal washings to cleanse those with leprosy. There are numerous reasons to see these washings as part of the OT background for John the Baptist's baptism, which is a precursor to Christian baptism (not the same thing, contra Calvin). However, these baptisms for leprosy simply served to reinitiate the baptized person into the priestly nation that they had been marginalized by their uncleanliness. It readmitted them to the Passover and other parts of the cultic system. At this stage we need to remember that the only requirement for participation in Passover was circumcision. Consequently, we can see that certain OT baptisms at least served as reaffirmations of circumcision, forging a connection between the two rites.
There is also further evidence to suggest that circumcision was connected with the priestly ordination rite. The blood daubed on the ears, thumb and toe was an extension of circumcision. In addition to this, both priestly washing and circumcision were rites of the eighth day.
Even if we had none of this information we could create a connection from within the NT, where both Baptism and circumcision are spoken of in a similar manner on occasions. They both serve to initiate people into the community of God and they are held alongside each other in such books as Galatians. They are also connected in Colossians 2:11-12.
They are clearly not to be equated. Many paedobaptists, who have thought of the covenant more as an ahistorical theological construct with historical dispensations, have tended towards this error. Baptism merely replaces circumcision as a one-for-one exchange. In opposition to this, I would stress that Baptism differs significantly from circumcision. However, this difference serves to give Baptism meaning. If we are to understand Baptism we must understand circumcision. In addition to this difference, though, there is real analogy.
If Baptism is a conjugation of OT rites that bore some relationship to circumcision, we will never properly understand Baptism unless we have some appreciation of how the OT system of rites operated. The meaning of any one particular rite, however, is not self-contained but finds its meaning by virtue of its relationships to all the other rites and symbols. Consequently, an appreciation of the meaning of Baptism, even if it is wholly disanalogous to circumcision, is somehow dependent upon an appreciation of the meaning of circumcision.
As I have already pointed out, there are clear reasons to believe that Baptism is not wholly disanalogous to circumcision. There is even more reason why we have to let circumcision inform our doctrine of Baptism.
The point that priestly initiation is the corresponding OT sacrament does not persuade me. There are a number of OT sacraments that inform Baptism in various ways, just as there are a number of OT sacraments that inform the Supper (e.g. manna, Passover, tithe feasts, tribute offerings, various other sacrificial meals, etc.), not to mention the many stories and other things that should inform our understanding of the Supper (e.g. Abraham and Melchizedek, Lady Wisdom's feast in Proverbs, etc.).
I wonder what is meant by 'the same typified sacrament of identical substance.' This seems to be taking the analogy between OT and NT sacraments too far. NT Baptism is a 'conjugation' of OT priestly initiation, but it is not the same thing.
You claim that the recipients of priestly initiation washed their whole bodies. I agree. However, the washing was almost surely by affusion, rather than by submersion. There are good biblical theological reasons for resisting the practice of submersion, but paedobaptists have generally granted that submersion is a valid mode of Baptism. The debate is over whether any other form of Baptism is valid. I believe that submersion and sprinkling are equally unhelpful and believe that affusion is the biblical mode of Baptism.
Baptists who will place a lot of weight upon statements such as 'coming up out of the water' should appreciate that this was something that the baptizer did, and not just the baptizand (Acts 8:39). There are many other arguments that support the claim that Baptism was probably performed with the baptizand standing in water and having water poured over his head. There is a lot of creation imagery here, imagery that the (unbiblical, IMHO) practice of submersion loses. Also, I don't see why Christians should share the same relationship to baptismal water as those who were outside the ark and Pharaoh's army.
There are only two rather tenuous arguments that are given against paedobaptism. The first is that NT Baptism derives from OT baptisms and not circumcision. Quite apart from the fact that such a statement cannot be easily sustained in the face of the evidence, there is the further fact that paedobaptists have not traditionally rested the practice of paedobaptism wholly upon the analogy between circumcision and Baptism.
For myself, I believe that too much has been made of the analogy and have tried to take a lot of weight off this argument (although there is a real analogy). Even if the argument were wholly discounted, I don't see how that entails the denial of paedobaptism.
The other argument that is given is that priestly initiation took place at the age of 30. So? Are we to restrict Baptism to males from the tribe of Levi without physical disabilities over 30 years in age? Of course not! We must also remember that the whole nation was priestly to some degree, having been washed in the Red Sea (infants were, of course, included in this baptism).
We must remember that 1 Corinthians 7:14 teaches that the children and spouse of a believing parent are 'holy'. Baptists, in my experience, simply do not understand the full significance of this verse. It cannot mean merely having a positive influence. Their very status has been changed. The children of unbelieving parents are 'unclean' (not neutral); the children and spouse of a believing parent are 'holy'.
Biblically, the word 'holy' is not synonymous with the word 'clean'. The word 'holy' is particularly used for those things and people that are set apart for God's especial (sanctuary) use. The language of holiness is particularly applied to those of the priestly line (Leviticus 21:6-8). God has especially set apart the children and the spouse of a believing parent for sanctuary use. In order to enter into the sanctuary, one must be baptized.
1 Corinthians 7:14 does not presuppose Baptism. However, it does uncover the basis for Baptism.
The 'holy' person has been set apart for sanctuary obligation. A 'saint' is not necessarily a believer. A 'saint' — a holy person — can resist the obligations that God has placed on his/her life. The unbelieving wife can refuse Baptism and refuse to become part of the Christian priesthood, as can the children. However, if they do not object, they are to be given sanctuary access. They should be permitted to be baptized and should be allowed to partake of communion.
The infants of a believing parent have been set apart for sanctuary service. To refuse to baptize them and bring them into this service is disobedience.
The objection might be raised that they can be admitted at a later date, when they reach maturity. [As an aside, if they were to be initiated to the Christian priesthood at a later date (in the light of 1 Corinthians 7:14), they would not be initiated merely on the basis of a personal confession of faith, as Baptists wish to maintain. The unbelieving spouse and the children of the believing parent belong to the Christian community in a manner that Baptists (and many paedobaptists) will find it hard to grant, because they are far too individualistic. The Baptist position departs from Scripture on a number of counts.]
To this objection I will point out that the NT shows that the priesthood has now become the holy place (1 Peter 2:4-10). Priestly work is bodybuilding work. The infant may be more passive (like a stone in a temple) but still serve to edify/build up the priesthood/temple. The weakest members are often the most necessary. I have commented on this on my blog:—
"What Baptists really want is not so much faith and repentance as self-sufficient and independent, ‘stand-on-my-own-two-feet’ faith and repentance. They are looking for adult faith from children (not that adults ought to aspire to such faith detached from community). The irony is that, when the children grow up, they will be told to practice a ‘childlike’ faith.
"The chief danger of this expectation is that it easily falls into a trap similar to that of what Bonhoeffer terms the ‘pious fellowship’. When mature and independent faith is elevated and weak and dependent faith is demeaned, people will become afraid to admit the weakness of their faith and their (God-appointed — Genesis 2:18) need to depend upon others. They fear admitting the weakness of their faith, because they do not believe that the church has any real place for the weak in faith. Consequently they pretend to be strong in faith, while they are inwardly consumed by doubts, doubts that would have been dealt with had the community been accepting of weak and dependent believers. When we fear confessing our sins to one another and do not want to admit to others that our weak faith needs bearing up, the devil will happily pick us off, one by one.
"Infant Baptism teaches us that we do not need to pretend to be strong to each other and that there are many who may even have to be carried to the time of their death, not having the strength to ‘stand on their own two feet’. The important thing is that we are members of a body, a body that ministers to those members that are weak within it. In the Christian community the weaker members are frequently the most necessary and valuable members. They play the prophetic role, as Peter Leithart has observed, of identifying our selfishness and calling us to sacrificial self-commitment."
The parallel between OT priestly initiation and NT Baptism is far from an argument against paedobaptism. Baptists tend to disinherit OT covenant infants. In the case of covenant infants, even the blessings that they enjoyed in the OT are taken from them in the NT. Far from God being freer with His grace towards them in the new covenant, they are deprived of the grace they enjoyed in the old covenant order. I have read a number of Baptists who have tried to justify this and say that the infant children of believers are really better off in their version of the new covenant. Their words are hollow.
Besides, there are numerous other arguments that could be brought forward to support infant Baptism. I have mentioned these from time to time on my blog and elsewhere.
Seriously though, helpful words...
I would agree that 1 Corinthians 7:14 plays a large part...however, you say;
"The 'holy' person has been set apart for sanctuary obligation. A 'saint' is not necessarily a believer. A 'saint' — a holy person — can resist the obligations that God has placed on his/her life. The unbelieving wife can refuse Baptism and refuse to become part of the Christian priesthood, as can the children. However, if they do not object, they are to be given sanctuary access. They should be permitted to be baptized and should be allowed to partake of communion."
I don't know whether this is a right criticism but I don't know whether the spouse should be baptised even if they don't object.
Just to clarify...the use of the word sanctify here means "set apart" instead of "holy" as it can mean in other parts of the bible. So the spouse is viewed in a special way by God because the husband and one wife in marriage are one flesh. So it is with infants...they are set apart/ seen in a special way by God. We baptise the infant because it stands in the believing parents faith - unable to make its own profession. However, surely the unbelieving spouse as an adult is responsible for making her own profession before the Lord? That may not be entirely correct...
Agree totally with...
"The parallel between OT priestly initiation and NT Baptism is far from an argument against paedobaptism. Baptists tend to disinherit OT covenant infants. In the case of covenant infants, even the blessings that they enjoyed in the OT are taken from them in the NT."
Calvin I believe hints at something similar saying in effect that baptists have to say to their children that they would have been more privileged being born before Christ than after him...
I would agree that 1 Corinthians 7:14 plays a large part...however, you say;
"The 'holy' person has been set apart for sanctuary obligation. A 'saint' is not necessarily a believer. A 'saint' — a holy person — can resist the obligations that God has placed on his/her life. The unbelieving wife can refuse Baptism and refuse to become part of the Christian priesthood, as can the children. However, if they do not object, they are to be given sanctuary access. They should be permitted to be baptized and should be allowed to partake of communion."
I don't know whether this is a right criticism but I don't know whether the spouse should be baptised even if they don't object.
Just to clarify...the use of the word sanctify here means "set apart" instead of "holy" as it can mean in other parts of the bible. So the spouse is viewed in a special way by God because the husband and one wife in marriage are one flesh. So it is with infants...they are set apart/ seen in a special way by God. We baptise the infant because it stands in the believing parents faith - unable to make its own profession. However, surely the unbelieving spouse as an adult is responsible for making her own profession before the Lord? That may not be entirely correct...
Agree totally with...
"The parallel between OT priestly initiation and NT Baptism is far from an argument against paedobaptism. Baptists tend to disinherit OT covenant infants. In the case of covenant infants, even the blessings that they enjoyed in the OT are taken from them in the NT."
Calvin I believe hints at something similar saying in effect that baptists have to say to their children that they would have been more privileged being born before Christ than after him...
There is a fuzzy division between being ‘objectively’ holy by virtue of our being set apart by God and being ‘subjectively’ holy by virtue of our living up to our high calling. The spouse of the believing person is objectively holy, without necessarily being subjectively holy. Objective holiness need not imply ‘salvation’, in the sense in which this term is generally employed (which is narrower than the manner in which this term is often used in Scripture).
My belief is that, if the spouse does not refuse Baptism, it is our duty to baptize them. I would take the willingness to be baptized as profession enough. Many of those baptized in the book of Acts had a very limited understanding of the truth of God (think of the Philippian jailor’s household, or Cornelius’ household). To be baptized is to be saved (in the more proper, biblical sense of the word — 1 Peter 3:21). Whilst the unbelieving spouse may be objectively holy, they are not allowed to participate as members of the body of Christ until they are baptized. Their objective holiness brings them near to the sanctuary of God; Baptism brings them in.
Biblically, salvation is participation in the body of Christ. One can be an unbeliever and still experience a measure of salvation. Many unbelievers are baptized. However, only a living member (i.e. someone living by faith) of the body of Christ is assured of final salvation. Baptism transplants us into the body of Christ, but it cannot ensure that this transplant will be successful in the long term. I explain my understanding of this in depth in the post on Baptism that I linked to in my earlier comments.
Evangelicalism tends to find this manner of using the language of salvation and holiness strange and troubling. However, Scripture seems quite happy to do so.
The spouse may be totally clueless about the things of God. However, God has set them apart and claimed them for temple service and so they ought to be baptized if they do not object. Once they are baptized they need to be trained to faithfully fulfil their new obligations as a member of the Christian priesthood. Ex opere operato Baptism makes someone a member of the body of Christ and a Christian priest. The state of the person’s heart neither validates nor invalidates the rite. From that point forward, God views the baptized person as a new person, with new privileges and new responsibilities. In the lights of these new privileges and responsibilities the baptized person will be held accountable by God. They will face a stricter judgment. Consequently, no one can treat Baptism as a talisman that guarantees God’s blessing.
If we take this view of Baptism, as I am arguing that we should, it is important that we accompany it with strong teaching and training and discipline. Baptism may transplant the baptizand into the body of Christ, but this transplant will only be successful in the long term through the concerted effort of the other members of the body to knit this new member in by their varied ministries.
Baptists, who tend to focus on a ‘stand-on-your-own-two-feet’ kind of faith, are troubled by the idea of baptizing people who are largely ignorant. We need to appreciate that Baptism marks the beginning of our Christian lives and not so much our attaining to some degree of Christian maturity. A couple are not married because they have proved themselves faithful in living together for a number of months or years. Rather, the wedding provides the foundation for and precedes married life. In the same way, we should not be baptized because we have demonstrated true faith over a period of weeks, months or (all too often) years. Our baptisms should serve as the foundation of our life in Christ.
It seems to me that if Baptism is viewed as the beginning of Christian discipleship, rather than its goal, the Church can be seen more as a place of lifelong learning. The Baptist practice tends to present Baptism as a mark of having attained to a particular standard and does not serve as quite such a radical impetus to continual growth. The Baptist practice can present baptized church members as those who have been ‘discipled’, rather than stressing the fact that the Church (consisting of all the baptized) is the place where discipleship is taking place. Of course, Baptists do have a place for continual training of believers, but this is not as stressed as it could be.
A focus on evangelism is a good thing. However, by situating the process of discipleship prior to Church entry in Baptism, the process of discipleship has increasingly been placed outside of the Church. Consequently, the teaching in many Baptist churches is almost wholly geared towards ‘seekers’ rather than to the building up of the Christian priesthood and the fulfilling of the service of God in worship. I am convinced that the Lord’s Day service should be regarded as for the Church. It is not directed at the unbeliever, even though he may be present. He is eavesdropping on a conversation between Christ and His Bride.
This does not mean that he should be made to feel unwelcome. However, it does mean that the service is not designed with him in mind. Of course, when an unbeliever listens in on the conversation between Christ and His Bride we should not be surprised if he is convicted of his sin and realizes that God is truly among us.
Evangelism is good, but the Lord’s service is not the time or place for it. I am increasingly of the opinion that the idea that it ever was flows largely from Baptist assumptions about the relationship between discipleship and Baptism.
My position on this is one of the chief reasons why I would downplay the need for personal profession (beyond the willingness to be baptized) on the part of the believer's spouse.
My belief is that, if the spouse does not refuse Baptism, it is our duty to baptize them. I would take the willingness to be baptized as profession enough. Many of those baptized in the book of Acts had a very limited understanding of the truth of God (think of the Philippian jailor’s household, or Cornelius’ household). To be baptized is to be saved (in the more proper, biblical sense of the word — 1 Peter 3:21). Whilst the unbelieving spouse may be objectively holy, they are not allowed to participate as members of the body of Christ until they are baptized. Their objective holiness brings them near to the sanctuary of God; Baptism brings them in.
Biblically, salvation is participation in the body of Christ. One can be an unbeliever and still experience a measure of salvation. Many unbelievers are baptized. However, only a living member (i.e. someone living by faith) of the body of Christ is assured of final salvation. Baptism transplants us into the body of Christ, but it cannot ensure that this transplant will be successful in the long term. I explain my understanding of this in depth in the post on Baptism that I linked to in my earlier comments.
Evangelicalism tends to find this manner of using the language of salvation and holiness strange and troubling. However, Scripture seems quite happy to do so.
The spouse may be totally clueless about the things of God. However, God has set them apart and claimed them for temple service and so they ought to be baptized if they do not object. Once they are baptized they need to be trained to faithfully fulfil their new obligations as a member of the Christian priesthood. Ex opere operato Baptism makes someone a member of the body of Christ and a Christian priest. The state of the person’s heart neither validates nor invalidates the rite. From that point forward, God views the baptized person as a new person, with new privileges and new responsibilities. In the lights of these new privileges and responsibilities the baptized person will be held accountable by God. They will face a stricter judgment. Consequently, no one can treat Baptism as a talisman that guarantees God’s blessing.
If we take this view of Baptism, as I am arguing that we should, it is important that we accompany it with strong teaching and training and discipline. Baptism may transplant the baptizand into the body of Christ, but this transplant will only be successful in the long term through the concerted effort of the other members of the body to knit this new member in by their varied ministries.
Baptists, who tend to focus on a ‘stand-on-your-own-two-feet’ kind of faith, are troubled by the idea of baptizing people who are largely ignorant. We need to appreciate that Baptism marks the beginning of our Christian lives and not so much our attaining to some degree of Christian maturity. A couple are not married because they have proved themselves faithful in living together for a number of months or years. Rather, the wedding provides the foundation for and precedes married life. In the same way, we should not be baptized because we have demonstrated true faith over a period of weeks, months or (all too often) years. Our baptisms should serve as the foundation of our life in Christ.
It seems to me that if Baptism is viewed as the beginning of Christian discipleship, rather than its goal, the Church can be seen more as a place of lifelong learning. The Baptist practice tends to present Baptism as a mark of having attained to a particular standard and does not serve as quite such a radical impetus to continual growth. The Baptist practice can present baptized church members as those who have been ‘discipled’, rather than stressing the fact that the Church (consisting of all the baptized) is the place where discipleship is taking place. Of course, Baptists do have a place for continual training of believers, but this is not as stressed as it could be.
A focus on evangelism is a good thing. However, by situating the process of discipleship prior to Church entry in Baptism, the process of discipleship has increasingly been placed outside of the Church. Consequently, the teaching in many Baptist churches is almost wholly geared towards ‘seekers’ rather than to the building up of the Christian priesthood and the fulfilling of the service of God in worship. I am convinced that the Lord’s Day service should be regarded as for the Church. It is not directed at the unbeliever, even though he may be present. He is eavesdropping on a conversation between Christ and His Bride.
This does not mean that he should be made to feel unwelcome. However, it does mean that the service is not designed with him in mind. Of course, when an unbeliever listens in on the conversation between Christ and His Bride we should not be surprised if he is convicted of his sin and realizes that God is truly among us.
Evangelism is good, but the Lord’s service is not the time or place for it. I am increasingly of the opinion that the idea that it ever was flows largely from Baptist assumptions about the relationship between discipleship and Baptism.
My position on this is one of the chief reasons why I would downplay the need for personal profession (beyond the willingness to be baptized) on the part of the believer's spouse.
LOW-COST CIALIS
BUY CHEAP CIALIS ONLINE
TREATMENT IMPOTENCE
BUY CHEAP VIAGRA ONLINE
ACNE MEDICINE ONLINE
online accutane
WHAT IS ANTHELMINTICS
Buy Albemza
ANTIBACTERIAL MEDICINE & CARE
buy amoxil online
AMPICILLIN ONLINE
ORDER AMPICILLIN
BUY CHEAP BACTRIM
bactrim side effects
NEW DRUGS & PILLS… SUPER-VIAGRA…
BUY CIALIS ONLINE
BUY CIPRO ONLINE
half-price cipro
BUY CHEAP DIFLUCAN ONLINE
LOW-PRICES DIFLUCAN ONLINE
BUY CHEAP SUPER VIAGRA ONLINE AND SAVE 70 % OF MONEY...
BUY CHEAP CIALIS
BUSINESS CREDIT CARDS ONLINE
BUY CHEAP CIALIS ONLINE
TREATMENT IMPOTENCE
BUY CHEAP VIAGRA ONLINE
ACNE MEDICINE ONLINE
online accutane
WHAT IS ANTHELMINTICS
Buy Albemza
ANTIBACTERIAL MEDICINE & CARE
buy amoxil online
AMPICILLIN ONLINE
ORDER AMPICILLIN
BUY CHEAP BACTRIM
bactrim side effects
NEW DRUGS & PILLS… SUPER-VIAGRA…
BUY CIALIS ONLINE
BUY CIPRO ONLINE
half-price cipro
BUY CHEAP DIFLUCAN ONLINE
LOW-PRICES DIFLUCAN ONLINE
BUY CHEAP SUPER VIAGRA ONLINE AND SAVE 70 % OF MONEY...
BUY CHEAP CIALIS
BUSINESS CREDIT CARDS ONLINE
# posted by 
: 16 March 2007 at 05:12
: 16 March 2007 at 05:12
знакомствадляавмолдове секс знакомства полысаево сахалинские знакомства знакомства екатеринбург реж знакомства для секса с полными знакомства с факерами онлайн поиск найди интимные знакомства в кургане свингер знакомства в донецке знакомства в городе ижевске знакомства с трансдевушками
# posted by : 5 November 2010 at 00:16
: 5 November 2010 at 00:16
знакомства свердловск секс знакомства семипалатинск молодёжные знакомства в городе димитровграде секс знакомства мордовии знакомства бижбулякский район знакомства брак украина кронштадт знакомства интим знакомства в хабаровском крае секс знакомства кому молодые 1001 знакомства
# posted by : 5 November 2010 at 21:01
: 5 November 2010 at 21:01
знакомства байкит смоленск знакомства интимные знакомства в одесской области секс-знакомства в орле знакомства в самарской обл. знакомства с солдатаом знакомства в кущёвской однокласснии знакомства знакомства сатанистов для секса знакомства с девушками от 30 лет
# posted by : 6 November 2010 at 20:48
: 6 November 2010 at 20:48
гей знакомства новосибирск новость секс знакомства павловск интим знакомства волгоградской области знакомства с французами знакомства ухажер гей знакомства в чите сайты секс знакомства в городе кемерово тайные знакомства пермь знакомства г мелитополь девушки мусульманки знакомства маскве
# posted by : 7 November 2010 at 20:53
: 7 November 2010 at 20:53
одноклассники знакомства мамбо северодвинск знакомства женщины знакомства девушка красный гуляй секс знакомства для подростков саратов буда кошелево знакомства сайт знакомства лав плэнет интим знакомства сайта интим знакомства в московской области знакомства с бессексуалами знакомства в янаул башкортостан
# posted by : 7 November 2010 at 21:58
: 7 November 2010 at 21:58
свинг знакомства в г белгород знакомства радужный знакомства село бурлацкое знакомства некст планет реальные знакомства вуфе кишинев знакомства для а секс знакомства города глазова гей знакомства в тюмени интим знакомства петровск-забайкальский интим знакомства усть-илимск
# posted by : 8 November 2010 at 20:51
: 8 November 2010 at 20:51
богдан 35 москва знакомства знакомства парень девушку архангельская область знакомства для секса заинск секс знакомства купино знакомства волгоградская обл михайловка знакомства для секса щербинка знакомства москва знакомства ру девушки знакомства города псков поиск секс знакомства украина интимные знакомства в тольятти
Post a Comment
# posted by : 8 November 2010 at 21:55
: 8 November 2010 at 21:55