|
|
October 14, 2006, Matthew Cochrane, A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 3: The Proper Mode of Baptism
 In my last entry I explored the symbolism behind baptism. I asserted that the Biblical point of view was that baptism was intended to symbolize purification, or the washing of our sins. The Baptist view maintains that the symbolism of baptism lies in the union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. This position requires a belief in baptism by immersion, where the subject is completely put under water and then raised from it. For the Baptists, to give up this mode of baptism would be equivalent to giving up baptism itself. However, I believe that the mode of baptism – whether it is immersion, sprinkling or pouring – does not matter as long as the fundamental idea, purification, is expressed in the sacrament.
Baptists base their position on the mode of baptism on several grounds. The first is that they believe the word baptizo, the Greek word used for baptize in the New Testament, means to immerse. As Wayne Grudem, one of the leading advocates of the Baptist outlook, writes in his Systematic Theology:
The Greek word baptizo means “to plunge, dip, immerse” something in water. This is the commonly recognized and standard meaning of the term in ancient Greek literature both inside and outside of the Bible.
Baptists also believe that New Testament baptisms, including Jesus’, were performed in this manner. In Mark 1, they will point out that John the Baptist baptized people “in the Jordan River” (vs. 5) and, after Jesus was baptized, He came “up from the water” (vs. 10).
These lines of defense, however, do not hold up under closer inspection. Charles Hodge, who served as the Principal of Princeton Theological Seminary for more than 25 years in the mid-1800’s, lists in his three-volume Systematic Theology no less than seven different meanings for bapto and five different meanings for baptizo. Louis Berkhof, who taught theology at Calvin Theological Seminary for more than four decades, writes in his Systematic Theology:
It is quite evident that both words, bapto and baptizo, had other meanings, such as “to wash,” “to bathe,” and to “purify by washing.” The idea of washing or purifying gradually became the prominent idea, while that of the manner in which this took place retired more and more into the background. That this purification was sometimes effected by sprinkling, is evident…Since the word baptize does not necessarily mean “to immerse,” and because the New Testament does not in any case explicitly assert that baptism took place by immersion, the burden of proof would seem to rest on the Baptists.
Berkhof supports his claim that these purification rites were “effected by sprinkling” with Scripture. Here are a few such examples found in the Old Testament:
Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purification on them, and let them shave all their body, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean. (Numbers 8:7)
Whoever touches the body of anyone who has died, and does not purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of the Lord. That person shall be cut off from Israel. He shall be unclean, because the water of purification was not sprinkled on him; his uncleanness is still on him. (Numbers 19:13)
18 A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, sprinkle it on the tent, on all the vessels, on the persons who were there, or on the one who touched a bone, the slain, the dead, or a grave. 19 The clean person shall sprinkle the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, wash his clothes, and bathe in water; and at evening he shall be clean. 20 ‘But the man who is unclean and does not purify himself, that person shall be cut off from among the assembly, because he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD. The water of purification has not been sprinkled on him; he is unclean. (Numbers 19: 18-20)
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. (Psalm 51:7)
Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. (Ezekiel 36:25)
It is commonly known that Old Testament law commanded several different purification rituals for different occasions. In some cases the object was immersed, but, in several more, it is painfully obvious that sprinkling or pouring was the proper procedure. More proof is found in Leviticus 14:6. It reads:
As for the living bird, he shall take it, the cedar wood and the scarlet and the hyssop, and dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water.
As R.C. Sproul has famously pointed out, the blood of any bird is not enough to immerse a similar living bird in – it is simply impossible. The blood collected from the dead specimen would not be nearly enough to immerse another of its own kind in.
There is also an abundance of New Testament passages that make it clear that bapto and baptizo cannot mean “immerse” every single time:
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Matthew 3:11)
37 And as He spoke, a certain Pharisee asked Him to dine with him. So He went in and sat down to eat. 38 When the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that He had not first washed before dinner. (Luke 11: 37, 38)
For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:13, 14)
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. (Hebrews 9:19-21)
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea… (I Cor. 10:1, 2)
 Clearly the immersion definition of baptizo and bapto do not work in these passages. In the verses from Matthew, we do not think of being immersed in the Holy Spirit but of the Spirit being poured out onto us. Furthermore, anyone familiar with the Old Testament knows that the purification rituals involved the sprinkling of blood, not being immersed in blood. Yet the New Testament authors here used the words baptizo and bapto to describe these practices and events. Why? Because bapto and baptizo have several meanings.
Louis Berkhof, after examining these Scriptural passages, goes on to ask:
Was John the Baptist capable of the enormous task of immersing the multitudes that flocked unto him at the river Jordan, or did he simply pour water on them as some of the early inscriptions would seem to indicate?
Good point. The gospels record that John the Baptist baptized multitudes of people, yet the place where scholars believe John the Baptist performed all of these baptisms, the Jordan River is only a couple of feet deep. Immersion is not ruled out as a possibility here, but it sure seems improbable that it would have been used.
Berkhof then asks of the baptisms recorded in the book of Acts after the Pentecost:
Did the apostles find enough water in Jerusalem, and did they have the necessary facilities, to baptize three thousand in a single day by immersion? Where is the evidence to prove that they followed any other method than the Old Testament mode of baptisms?
Water was scarce in the Middle East in those days. Remember, this was well before the time of running water. Where did the apostles find enough water to immerse three thousand people? Charles Hodge makes note that water was so scarce in this region that private baths were simply not a custom during this time. Finding the amount of water necessary to immerse this many people within the city in one day would have been nearly impossible. Once again, it seems highly unlikely that immersion would have been the mode of baptism used here.
Now let’s take a look at Paul and Silas’s encounter with the jailor at Philippi in Acts 16:
25 But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed. 27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” 29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Berkhof notes:
Is there any evidence that the jailor at Philippi was not baptized in or near the prison, but led his prisoners out to the river, in order that he might be immersed? Would he have dared to take them outside of the city, when he was commanded to keep them safely?
After the earthquake the jailor was so scared of the punishment he might face at the hands of the Romans he was willing to kill himself first. Yet Baptists would have us believe that he led the prisoners outside the city to a body of water where he could be baptized or left the other prisoners unguarded while Paul and Silas took him away to get baptized. Something here just doesn’t add up.
Earlier, in Acts 10, when Peter baptized Cornelius, the Biblical account leaves the impression that water was brought inside the house for the baptism. Nowhere do we read that they left the house and sought a body of water for the purpose of the baptism.
We have seen the words bapto and baptizo translated in several different ways here – and I believe these words are used for the baptism sacrament because they encompass the many different modes that are acceptable to God. I want to make this clear – I do think that immersion is a perfectly acceptable means of baptizing the subject. I also believe, however, that effusion, sprinkling, and pouring are also Biblically endorsed means of performing this sacrament. That is because, in all of them, the main point of purification, or washing, is made. Baptists cannot accept these other modes because they misunderstand what baptism is supposed to symbolize. It is not supposed to convey our union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. Rather, it represents the washing away, or remission, of our sins.
Editor’s Note: For the rest of this series please see: Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8.
|
| Comments |
| Matthew, doing an awesome job here hitting the nail right on its head. Learning the proper symbolism in Baptism would certainly go a long way in showing how it should be done and who it was designed for. After being shown this kind of evidence, how could anyone not change their mind on the issue? - Stephen the Presbyterian |
|
| “For the Baptists, to give up this mode of baptism would be equivalent to giving up baptism itself.”
This is a very true statement but can be taken a step further. Baptists celebrate unity in the midst of diversity. That is, Baptists are proud of the fact that they’re the largest protestant denomination in the world. They’re the largest protestant denomination in the world because the requirements for being an SBC minister are very vague and very general. Over the years, Baptists have been conservative as well as liberal, Calvinists as well as Arminians, and some that preach the Bible as the only authority of God as well as some who preach extra-biblical authority and an errant Bible. What is it that unifies all Baptists? What unifies them is their belief in a “believer” baptism by immersion. I mentioned in a comment on an earlier post that most Baptist churches will not allow you in their congregation without having been dunked as a believer. What I didn’t mention is that now there are a lot of Baptist churches that will accept you no matter what Baptism you’ve had. Let me ask you something. If Baptists stay on this path of neutralizing their differences and alleviating the only thing they all have in common (baptism), what excuse do they have then to be a denomination at all? - Stephen |
|
| The SBC is a very conservative, mainline Protestant organization. They are diverse, sure, in some theological areas, but overall they hold to the Bible being the inerrant word of God and to a believer's baptism. There might be a few exceptions to that (you're going to get that in any large enough denominaion) but I think you'll find that for the most part they all hold true to t hose principles. They are also moving toward a more reformed, orthodox theology in their seminaries as we speak. - Mean Gene |
|
| I don't want this to come across like I am attacking the sbc, because I actually care greatly for that denomination. That being said, everything you have said here is only a half truth. Yes, they are moving toward a more reformed, orthodox theology in their seminaries as we speak, but this has to happen every thirty years with them. Baptists are so diverse that liberals creep in by the hundreds and then the thousands. Publishing companies owned by the sbc have put out a lot of material in the past teaching that the Bible is not infallible. Billy Graham himself has said that Hillary Clinton would make a great president someday. Universalism has been taught as universal truth. So called “protestants” have signed pacts uniting them with the Roman Catholics on theological issues such as propitiation. Art classes have been given in SB Bible colleges where students drew portraits of live nude models. You don't find that in every other denomination. When liberalism creeped into the northern presbyterian church in the 1930's the conservatives split and became the opc which is still conservative to this day-no horror stories. When liberalism crept into the southern presbyterian church in the 1980's the conservatives split and became the pca – no horror stories. If you look at the sbc history from the very beginning, liberalism always comes back because they have never split, they never define precisely what they want to believe. This is the cost of compromise, of always celebrating unity in diversity. There are many fine things about the sbc, which is why I wish they would fine tune everything. In everything, the moral of this story is that it’s better to be divided in truth than united in error. - Stephen the tired Presbyterian |
|
| Liberalism is a danger too the church - not just one particular denomination. I don't know much about the PResbiterians but apparently they have had a history with it to going by your own account. A large denomination will attract more liberals because of their numbers, but it is a danger to the church everywhere, not just the SBC. - Mean Gene |
|
| I don't want this to be a "why the presbyterians rock, and why the sbc stinks" comment (this isn't my blog to do with it what I wish). But you are saying things that aren't true which I feel like must be corrected. I'm not saying liberalism can't creep into the pca. Though, I hope the message that I am getting across is that you won't see it behind the pulpit or in the seminaries as you would in the sbc. I know of a man who graduated from seminary, and was being interviewed by the presbytery in hopes to be ordained as a pca minister. The first question they asked him was "what comes first? Faith? Or regeneration?" When he answered faith, he was automatically disqualified for being ordained and wasn't interviewed again for six months. In the sbc you don't even have to go to seminary to be ordained. Coincidence? The facts speak for themselves. Let me put it this way. If you think liberalism is in the pca i challenge you to prove me wrong. If you can give an example where the Bible was taught as fallible, universalism was taught as a fact, live nude models came anywhere near a Bible College, or where we have compromised with Romanists, I'm all ears. - You Know Who the You Know What |
|
| Stephen, I think you need to produce some resources where you are getting your info. Never heard of SB colleges providing art classes with live nude models. Never heard about Billy Graham stating that Hillary Clinton would make a great president someday.
Yes, the SBC has problems as does the PCA, the methodists, the Church of God, Assembly of God, Catholics...point is, you can't name a single denomination that does not have it's problems.
I think that this post has gotten way off course. We are talking about the Bible and infant baptism. You say you do not want this to become an SBC stinks blog but that is what you are making it. You seem to only be stating a "half truth".
From it's beginning, the SBC has been a conservative denomination. It was probably about thirty or forty years ago that SBC seminaries were able to be overrun with liberals. Here is how that happens for those who seem to be ignorant to SBC polity. The SBC elects it's president at the SBC convention through it's messengers. If a more liberal president is up for nomination, what happens is the liberal get together, register as messengers from their local churches, and they storm the convention with a vengence. The end result is that their man ends up in the office of president of the SBC. The president is the one responsible of filling vacancies in the seminaries. So you have a liberal president electing liberal seminary presidents and even though the liberal SBC president is a short term guy, the seminary president is not. The seminary president then brings in his liberal professors and before you know it you have thirty years of damage done inside of five years. Is there something wrong with that? Absolutely! Is there a quick fix? Absolutely not! Do we like it? Hardly!
The other thing I believe you are missing about the SBC is that every church is autonomous. While they report to and send financial contribution to the SBC, they make their own bylaws and constitutions. They have their own governing body and their own board of trustees. The seminaries operate in much the same way. I would agree that this is a great flaw in the SBC. The day is coming when the SBC is going to have to take a firm stand on several issues (on some they already have and churches have been kicked out of the denomination for failure to comply) and crack down on the requirements for being a SBC church.
You say the burden of proof is on me. You are bringing out specific examples. The burden of proof is on you. Prove me wrong. Thats fine. But you need to document what you are saying rather than just expect every reader to take you at your word. All I know about you is that you seem to have a spur in your saddle about the SBC. You say the facts speak for themselves...what facts? all I see is one person's opinion. Show me where you get your info (somewhere other than the Inquirer) and we'll see if the facts speak for themselves.
You want to find out more about the policies and procedures of the SBC go and check out SBC.net. - respectfully submitted - the SBC guy |
|
| Matthew, you are doing an excellent job of laying out your argument for baptism. I am a Baptist by choice. I don't necessarily agree with everything about the denomination but I do feel that they line up with my beliefs pretty well. I would like to point out that I have never heard it preached or written that Baptists believe the jailor led the prisinors outside the city. Scripture clearly states that he led them out of the prison...30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now look at verse 34"He brought them up into his house, set a meal before them, and rejoiced because he had believed God with his entire household." Now, you say Baptists would have us believe they were taken out of the city...only if the jailor lived outside of the city. Would he have dared to take them to his home if he was commanded to keep them safely? Scripture does not say he led them out of the city but it does indicate that he led them to a body of water somewhere. That indicates to me that it was near the jail. I say all of this to say this, it is not the mode that many baptists (at least not those I have talked to) would argue with you about. Many of us feel that a baptism by pouring or sprinkling is truely acceptable. Here is what I question, and I guess you are leading up to it in a later post, is infant baptism scriptural? We all agree that baptism is meant to symbolize the cleansing or washing away of our sins. I guess the issue I struggle with is whether or not that infant can understand he has a sinful nature that needs cleansing. I admit being Baptist and as such I hold to believers baptism (meaning after a person acknowledges Christ as Lord, only then would he be able to claim the cleansing of sins that Christs blood offers). I have three small children myself (one of them a newborn). My wife and I have discussed this issue as she was raised in the catholic church. I anxiously await your post where you move away from the mode of baptism and discuss infant baptism.
- the SBC guy |
|
| Steve: "When liberalism crept into the southern presbyterian church in the 1980's the conservatives split..." - I was quoting you. You were the one who pointed out that liberalism crept into the Presbiterian church, not me. If they haven't had a problem with liberalism snce the 80's, well that's not really saying much. See how they make it 30-40 yrs before you criticize other denominations. No denomination can keep liberalism out forever because no denomination can keep sin out forever. Didn't some Ivy league schools start out as Presbyterian? Doesn't seem like they did too good a job at keeping liberalism out. Im just saying this is something that transcends denominational lines, its not just limited to the SBC.
Also, I believe in believers baptism as well. I don't understand the connection between baptizing a certain way and baptizing babies. - Mean Gene |
|
| "I would like to point out that I have never heard it preached or
written that Baptists believe the jailor led the prisoners outside
the city." SBC Guy . . . SBC Guy, I don't think the post was
directly claiming that Baptists were preaching the fact that the
jailer led the prisoners outside the city. I think that the post
was saying that if, indeed, the baptisms of the jailor and his
household were by dunking then, of necessity, it would have had to have taken place outside the city since there was no other place in Jerusalem to get a body of water big/deep enough to conduct dunking- style baptisms in. In other words, the post was saying that IF one believes that these particular baptisms were performed by dunking then they had to have been performed in the river which was outside the city. It's not that Baptists necessarily preach this but that this is the logical conclusion to the belief that these were done under water.
- Jameson |
|
| Dear SBC guy,
My intentions from the beginning were never to hurt or offend. I hope that everything you have brought forth (that is, your challenging me to back up what I have stated) is out of an eagerness to find out truth and not because you feel the need to defend something I don’t believe has been attacked. As of yet, everything I have stated has been fact, not opinion. I agree that these comments have swayed a bit off topic, but as of yet do not believe they have been out of line. I was speaking about baptism in an above comment, and when “mean gene” replied to me with one thing, I replied back which did segue into another conversation entirely. Sometimes those things happen. I actually am very fond of the SBC as much of my family and friends attend SBC congregations. Also, some of my favorite authors (as well as some of the most beautiful writers) belong, or did at one time, to SBC congregations. So no, I do not have a “spur in my saddle.” I love the SBC so much, I hope one day to be a senior pastor of my own SB church so that I too can cast my vote in favor of conservative ideas. My idea right now is to build up, not tear down. In that light, everything I have mentioned has come from one of two books. The first book is a most exhaustive history of the SBC and written by an extremely conservative man who hopes to make the same changes I do some day. “The Baptist Reformation: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention” by Jerry Sutton is a very dry read, but extremely thorough in research. Jerry Sutton is more than qualified to speak on behalf of the SBC, but uses a technique that allows the sbc to speak for itself. The second book is actually not as dry, but not nearly as thorough in detail or research. “The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC” is actually a collection of responses to the fundamentalist movement, but was edited by Walter B. Shurden. I own other books about Southern Baptist history, although regrettably have not yet gotten around to reading them yet, but may as a result of these posts. As you can probably tell, SBC history is a large area of interest to me. Whatever I have learned about them that is not in those books mentioned above has been observed by personal experiences, since I grew up in the sbc (which is actually how I know that I know them as well as every inch of my glorious naked body), and by countless internet articles and blogs such as this one. - Stephen the Presbyterian |
|
| Dear SBC guy,
My intentions from the beginning were never to hurt or offend. I hope that everything you have brought forth (that is, your challenging me to back up what I have stated) is out of an eagerness to find out truth and not because you feel the need to defend something I don’t believe has been attacked. As of yet, everything I have stated has been fact, not opinion. I agree that these comments have swayed a bit off topic, but as of yet do not believe they have been out of line. I was speaking about baptism in an above comment, and when “mean gene” replied to me with one thing, I replied back which did segue into another conversation entirely. Sometimes those things happen. I actually am very fond of the SBC as much of my family and friends attend SBC congregations. Also, some of my favorite authors (as well as some of the most beautiful writers) belong, or did at one time, to SBC congregations. So no, I do not have a “spur in my saddle.” I love the SBC so much, I hope one day to be a senior pastor of my own SB church so that I too can cast my vote in favor of conservative ideas. My idea right now is to build up, not tear down. In that light, everything I have mentioned has come from one of two books. The first book is a most exhaustive history of the SBC and written by an extremely conservative man who hopes to make the same changes I do some day. “The Baptist Reformation: The Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention” by Jerry Sutton is a very dry read, but extremely thorough in research. Jerry Sutton is more than qualified to speak on behalf of the SBC, but uses a technique that allows the sbc to speak for itself. The second book is actually not as dry, but not nearly as thorough in detail or research. “The Struggle for the Soul of the SBC” is actually a collection of responses to the fundamentalist movement, but was edited by Walter B. Shurden. I own other books about Southern Baptist history, although regrettably have not yet gotten around to reading them yet, but may as a result of these posts. As you can probably tell, SBC history is a large area of interest to me. Whatever I have learned about them that is not in those books mentioned above has been observed by personal experiences, since I grew up in the sbc (which is actually how I know that I know them as well as every inch of my glorious naked body), and by countless internet articles and blogs such as this one. - Stephen the Presbyterian |
|
| P. S. One thing I forgot to mention is the one thing that is not in the books above. The part about Billy Graham came from a Newsmax article and can be found at:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/27/84943.shtml No I don't believe everything I read online, but Newsmax isn't exactly the Inquirer either. I have found it a helpful and reliable resource on a daily basis. - stephen the presbyterian |
|
| Hey Steve. What Baptist college allowed live nudes model in art classes? Maybe I went to the wrong one! (J/K) I was curious aboout that. Go back and read your article about Billy Graham again. I see where you are trying to go but that isn't a very good illustration. "Billy Graham himself has said that Hillary Clinton would make a great president someday."Steven...He never said it like that. I know I may be spliting hairs here but it was a "half truth" (as you say) that I thought needed correcting. The article actually reads, "...suggested his wife Hillary should be president." He never said she would make a great president. Not only that, I believe this would be one of those "had to be there to get it moments". Other articles by newsmax report Franklin Graham as releasing a statement informing the public that it was said jokingly.
Having said all of that, yes the SBC has had problems with liberals. We are fighting a battle right now with a liberal movement from the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. They seem to be getting a pretty good stronghold on many SBC churches, particularly since the SBC published the 2000 Baptist Faith & message. I know they are making a pretty strong presence in Virginia, Texas and maybe even Georgia and several other states. You suggest the SBC should split. Just to point out, I believe that was nearly detrimental to the PCA chruch. I am not citing from any particular resource but rather from conversations I have had with several people but when the split occured, were they not left with only one seminary and even struggled to keep it together as a denomination. I believe they are still a pretty small denomination that hasn't fully recovered from that split. Again, I am not citing any resources here so I may not be exactly right on that but I believe I am pretty close. That being said, if the SBC were to have split in the past when we were fighting to regain our seminaries from liberals, we would have most likely lost most, if not all of our seminaries. Conservatives were able to regain control of the seminaries and we didn't lose a single one. We lost some colleges and probably needed to cut some strings there anyway. By and large, our seminaries are very conservative and still in the hands of the SBC. I don't think a split would have been the best thing for the SBC. As mean Gene pointed out, come back in another ten to twenty years and lets see if the PCA isn't fighting liberals back out. I think I will look for the book by Jerry Sutton. He was in the running for President of the convention this year but didn't quite get the vote. I would recommend a book entitled Winds of Doctrine by Dr. Wiley Richards. This man is considered an authority on Southern Baptist History. You will not and I repeat, WILL NOT agree with his theology (he also authored "Why I'm not a Calvinist" and "Why I'm STILL not a Calvinist")but does give a rather exhaustive look at Southern Baptist History including the different doctrinal changes the convention has gone through over the years. My hands are tired now so I must stop writting. - Kevo |
|
| Stephen the Presbytarian: I too read the article about Billy Graham and conclude you have gravely misrepresented the facts. I admit I have not read the two books mentioned, but if your accusations are as "true" as the first one, your arguments hold no water. As for nude models, I could possibly see a Baylor-type University allowing something like that, but then I must point out that Baylor U. and many others are no longer Southern Baptist affiliated - and for good reasons. - Top Hat |
|
| I think out of anybody, my husband and I could point out most of the SBC's many faults. They are not perfect. I do not agree with some of what my pastor preaches or even what Kevin teaches the youth, but I greatly respect what they have to say and I recognize their authority. I did not choose to be southern baptist because of their theology - although I agree with it and its not very different from the theology that was taught at my dinner table growing up. I look at what the SBs are doing in this country and around the world to put Christ's love in action. They have more missionaries on the field than any other protestant denomination. They respond only second to the Red Cross in national disasters. They do the "work" of Christ and do not actively seek recognition or funds from outside sources. More than any other reason, that is why I choose to be part of a SB church. Yes, they have a faulty and even sinful history (so does America), were organized partly to endorse slavery, and have dead and dying churches (personally witnessed by myself). However, I know what I have been taught at a SBC college, I know what I believe and I know what I am a part of. - Michelle |
|
| There's no reason to split hairs here with the whole Billy Graham thing. We all know what he said. I have it downloaded on video somewhere so, no, it wasn't a joke. Billy Graham is good friends with Bill Clinton and that's no joke either. When Clinton was caught having an affair and then lied about it under oath and to the nation, Billy Graham flippantly excused President Bill Clinton's lewd and lascivious sexual sins by declaring that, " . . . well, the man just can't help himself. Clinton is handsome and virile, said Graham, and the girls are just 'wild' over him." Was that a joke too and just one of those “had to have been there” kind of jests? The only reason why Franklin Graham made that statement is because he received nearly a thousand phone calls from evangelicals who threatened to stop sending money to his ministry if an apology wasn’t made. Billy wasn’t sorry, so the apology came from Frank. - stephen the presbyterian |
|
| Dear Kevo,
You say that the split was detrimental to the pca. No. It was liberalism that was detrimental to the pca. What you are missing is that the pca split away from the pcusa free willingly (pardon the pun), so they didn’t lose any seminaries, they just didn’t have any to start off with at first. So yeah, times were hard financially. I’m sure God was up there scratching his head wondering how everything was gonna work out for us. I said the sbc should split. What I meant by that is y’all are the majority right now, so why not kick the liberals out while ya still got the chance, as well as the seminaries. You said, “if the SBC were to have split in the past when we were fighting to regain our seminaries from liberals, we would have most likely lost most, if not all of our seminaries,” as if that’s an excuse. If you would have fought them out in the first place before they took control of the seminaries, there would not have been that dilemma. Right now you don’t have that dilemma anyway though so I don’t see the problem. You said, “By and large, our seminaries are very conservative and still in the hands of the SBC.” Until when? The next vote? You said, “As mean Gene pointed out, come back in another ten to twenty years and lets see if the PCA isn't fighting liberals back out.” I hope the pca is always fighting the liberals out. If they aren’t, I’ll split. As far as Wiley Richards is concerned, he seems pretty liberal so I don’t know how he can be an authority on SBC history, since the field of historiography tells us history is usually written by the winners. However, I do strongly encourage you read Jerry Sutton’s book because it is therein you will find the answer as to which Baptist college put live nude models in their curriculum. I could tell you but, unlike many in the Baptist tradition, I don’t serve truth on a silver platter. That would defeat the purpose of me being - stephen the berean |
|
| moving on to the next blog... - |
|
| Dear Steve "I can't decide who I am or what people really say", I did not say it WAS detrimental, I said it was NEARLY detrimental. Thats not splitting hairs, thats adding words. You completely discredit yourself by doing these things. You obviously think that anyone who does not share your theology is a liberal. To say Dr. Richards "seems pretty liberal" is a tad overboard. This mans as conservative as they come. By the way, conservative does NOT equal reformed. Anyway, I'll not go any further. You've discredited yourself as far as I am concerned. Thats all I have to say about that.
Matt, I do look forward to the next entry where we can hopefully get back on track here. What was it? Infant Baptism? I forget. - Kevo |
|
| Look I grew up admiring Billy Graham as much as the next guy but he has said pretty questionable things in the last decade or so. Franklin, his son, is sharp but maybe Billy's getting a little old or senile. In a NEwsweek article: When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: "Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't ... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have." Found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14204483/site/newsweek/page/6/. I mean what happened to the only way to Heaven is through Jesus? Can't find them all now but he has said other things like that in the past decade or so. As for the other things the SBC is, overall, a wonderful denomination as Stephen has said, but it does have several flaws. - Mean Gene |
|
| I'm sayin I think everybody here is in more agreement then they realize and are only arguing about very small differences - Mean Gene |
|
| I agree with Mean Gene. The very small differences are being argued. After being a Southern Baptist for 40 years, I realize more than ever that the time is getting shorter and many people need to be told of the love of Jesus. We do what we are led to do by the Holy Spirit and when we stand before Christ we will understand fully all those things that seemed a mystery here on earth. There will be no denominations in Heaven. Study the word, ask for wisdom in faith and it will be given. Love one another - the greatest commandment of all. - Sister in Christ |
|
Sister, I agree with you. Study the word! Especially Mathhew 22:37-39 which says the greatest commandment of all is to love God. Loving one another was second greatest. - Stephen |
|
yes, it says by way of introduction in vs 39, "the second," but then it says, "is like [the first]". Agape is the similarity. We aren't loving God when we don't love others. And we aren't loving others until God gives us from His love because only God is good. In other words, emphasizing that number two is not number one, though correct, highlights the point of the passage which is being missed. I think Sister in Christ does get it.
Similarly, this whole mode thing is a smokescreen. Water baptism is symbolic of death and resurrection performed by Christ. Immersion captures that better than other modes . SBC might make it look like a quick dunk and you're good to go, but it's hard to judge the experience of the baptized in such a way.
Didache seems to imply that immersion is preferred but triple pouring may suffice (but only when there isn't enough water on hand; nearly all of today's churches potentially have plenteous amounts of water available). Noah's ark and crossing the Jordan into the promised land are Old Testament baptism metaphors mentioned in the New Testament that don't sound like immersion. In the Gospels and Acts, the baptized come up out of the water, but so does the baptizer. No one says the baptizer should get immersed at every baptism. So it's unclear in the Bible, but the earliest extrabiblical document, the Didache gives us insight regardless of some of the problems it reveals in other areas perhaps because it was based on Christianizing a Jewish document -a trap that pedabaptizers have yet to escape.
None of today's church baptisms seem to discuss what it means. They seem to be into just doing it which indicates to me that the experience of the baptizee is a significant part of the event.
This discussion about mode comes up here because you can't immerse an infant in public without freaking out the parents, grandparents and others in attendance. So, pedabaptizers have to remove that anticipated objection prior to finagling their way out of all the other reasons why only believers should be baptized and before they gloss over the lack of benefits or valid reasons why infants should be baptized (because they shouldn't be).
A possible (or likely) reason pedabaptizers want to do so is because they find solace in the law and infant baptism is one of those last few catholic things the reformers left in there that falls short of leaving the law where Paul put it, Paul took away snipping baby penis caps which is only a metaphor for continuing to try to keep the whole law. Metaphors are difficult for those that are hung up about how one counts to two. But Paul says, "Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become concious of sin." Rom. 3:20. Infant baptism is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig. Since we're not commanded to baptize infants and we're not commanded not to, there's no harm in not doing it. There is risk in confusing church members and visitors that ritual, legalism and relaxed hermeneutics are okay. We are commanded to baptize believers which implies that only believers should be baptized. The way of wisdom seems to point to believers baptism. The way of pseudo intellectualism, pedabaptism, is countered nicely by Occam's Razor, ie the explanation of pedabaptism is too complicated and ten weak pedabaptist arguments do not a solid argument make so it's probably the wrong answer. The message of believers baptism is too meaningful to nonchalantly allow it to be diluted with the sprinkling of infant baptismal water. - cdl |
|
"Water baptism is symbolic of death and resurrection performed by Christ. Immersion captures that better than other modes ."
-This is where we begin to disagree. I believe baptism represents the remission and washing away of sins.
"Didache seems to imply that immersion is preferred but triple pouring may suffice (but only when there isn't enough water on hand; nearly all of today's churches potentially have plenteous amounts of water available)."
-B.B. Warfield, the esteemed 19th century Princeton Seminary professor, shows that the two earliest forms of baptism were triple immersion and triple pouring. BTW, the Didache was definitely an early Christian writing, but it was by no means is it the earliest. The letters of Clement and Ignatius definitely date earlier than the Didache.
" Infant baptism is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig."
-This was funny the first time you used it. Time to get a new line though.
Again, I just want to reiterate that I believe immersion, sprinkling and pouring are all acceptable forms of baptism. I am not so legalistic to suggest that God will only accept one form of baptism and not another. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
Stephen, now that I've triple dunked on you, don't let your brother hog the conversation with random info.
I know you won't leave out scriptural references such as:
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. - cdl |
|
It's not random info if I'm correcting the false info you wrote which, BTW, was pretty random to begin with.
Also Colossians 2:12 was pretty much the entire topic of Part 2 in this series. Maybe you should read that post. Just a thought though.
Oh, the triple dunk line was funny but you accusing someone else of "hogging" the conversation on baptism was funnier. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
1. She said to love one another was the greatest commandment and it was wrong so I corrected it.
2. I don't have a fundamental problem with the act of immersing infants in front of family members. The Greek Orthodox Church practices it that way, as do others.
3. I believe in sprinkling because, as I have proven on the other post, Jesus himself was sprinkled when he was baptized.
4. In Noah's flood it was the unbelievers who were immersed, not the believers.
5. Nor were God's chosen people immersed when they crossed the Jordan. I'm just saying.
6. If baptism symbolizes being buried the way people were put into tombs in biblical times then a lot of things change. You'd have to fill up shelves of water and baptize people in that, and frankly, I don't even know how that would be done. I've seen Baptists immerse people in swimming pools which comes closer symbolically to playing marco polo than it does to the way Jesus was buried.
7. And I still want to know, if baptists are so caught up with being baptized how they think Jesus was baptized, then why are they completely opposite when it comes to how Jesus gave the Lord's supper. Talk about smoke screens! For real though, I'd like to see some consistency on their part with the way the modes of the sacraments are administered
8. There's a Bible verse that comes to mind that helped me out a long time ago when I was first studying the proper modes of baptism. Colossians 2:12: having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. - Stephen |
|
Stephen,
1. you may be in denial, but I reckon most readers know what you were doing
2. didn't know that, but not sure how it applies to Am-mer-reekin' churches
3. bogus
4. ba dump bump...chhhhh
5. that's what I said
6. ad absurdium
7. interesting red herring about an important part of worship but you always manage to skirt the fact that you can't show a valid reason for infant baptism or what benefit there is in it
8. exactly...it's pretty clear to those that aren't in denial - cdl |
|
1. What!? She made a mistake and I called her out on it. What do you think I was doing?
2. Umm, there are a lot of Greek (Eastern) Orthodox churches here in Am-mer-reekah.
3. If you're so sure then don't just sit there and call it names, prove it wrong
4. Well, it's true
5. Like I said, I was just saying
6. See # 3
7. You may believe what you want about our arguments, but you can't honestly say we're skirting the issue
8. So you admit you're in denial? - Stephen |
|
8. I won't deny that you are in denial.
7. with all honesty
6/3/5. not worth the effort
4. I didn't say it isn't.
2. then they must be right about immersion
1. being who you are - cdl |
|
Time to start the Chris Wallace style day counter a la Obama not getting on FoxNews:
I'll start with a refutable swag:
In 165 days, Stephen has not been able to show a valid reason for infant baptism nor a way in which someone benefits from it. - cdl |
|
June 18: 166 days - cdl |
|
You haven't been able to prove infant baptism wrong in just as many days. You have no problem calling our theological arguments names, but when asked to prove your own bogus accusations you just shrug and say, "not worth the effort." - Stephen |
|
so that would be your dodge #1 - cdl |
|
167 - cdl |
|
168 dodging the question warrants an additional day to the count - c short for cdl |
|
but no pressure; it'll take a while to get to Obama's 772 days; it's a tough position to support
- c |
|
169 days since you just slammed Piper for inferring re: gambling but you think it's ok for infant baptism
- c |
|
175 days as of Jun 25th
"Stephen has not been able to show a valid reason for infant baptism nor a way in which someone benefits from it." - cdl |
|
As I said 175 days ago with paragraphs:
CDL, let me tell you a story. When I was a teenager my favorite restaurant to go to was Denny’s. My friends and I used to stay up late and Denny’s was open 24/7 so that kind of became our hang out. Well, on one particular occasion I went to Denny’s with some friends of mine and there was this guy there who thought he knew as much about theology as I do. And he actually challenged me. So being slightly shocked that someone had so audaciously sized me up I told him to hold on a second so I could get my Bible from the car and prove that what I was saying was true and that what he was saying was obviously wrong. And believe me, he was wrong. So I started to excuse myself from the table when he said to me, “Why do you need to get your Bible? You should have your verses memorized like I do.” And when he said that, the whole table got quiet because they knew that this man wasn’t challenging me to an honest debate, he was challenging me to a pissing contest (you know the whole “let’s not debate an issue, let’s just see who knows the most”).
So this guy wants a pissing contest. The table we’re sitting at gets quiet because my friends know how much I hate pissing contests. So I say to him, “I don’t believe in memorizing Bible verses. That’s stupid.” This guy’s eyes opened real wide when I told him that so he asked me why not. I told him that there are two reasons why I don’t believe in memorizing Bible verses. First, by trying to memorize Bible verses people think they’re quoting God’s word verbatim, but they don’t quote it perfectly word for word. The Devil himself deliberately misquoted scripture when he was in the desert tempting Jesus to sin. Democrat presidential candidates misquote scripture in debates. And each time there seems to be something very fundamentally wrong with misquoting scripture. So why take that risk of trying to memorize it when it would always be very possible to misquote something (on accident even)? Why not just always have a Bible handy and read it when there is a passage you want to share with someone else? Also, reading it straight from the Bible will prove to your opponent that you’re not just making something up.
And the second reason why I don’t like to memorize scripture is because memorizing individual verses does not allow you to see the verse in context. Individual verses are never true all by themselves. Only in context are they true. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in a debate with someone that quoted a verse to back up what they say and then after I show them the verse they quote in context to the other verses in that chapter, they change their mind. So taking verses out of context is a very scary thing and a very serious matter. Context should always determine how we interpret a particular verse or passage. And that is the moral to my story. Yes, CDL, I told this whole story just to say that one thing – that everything must be taken in context. Now I am going to ask you to put the moral of that story in the back of your head. Is it in the back of your head? Good!
Dude, you can't possibly expect me to respond to what you wrote inside this comment box. It's not that I can't, it's that it won't change your mind anyway. To do so would be absolutely ludicrous. When you argue start off in the most difficult books to understand in the entire Bible – like Hebrews.
Hebrews took me nearly a year of an extremely in-depth Bible study to even begin understanding it. And even now it takes all my concentration to grasp even one part of it because I realize that in order to understand any of it you have to understand all the rest of it. For instance, in order to understand chapter 2, you have to understand chapters 1 and 3. In order to understand chapter 3, one must understand 1, 2, and 4. In order to understand chapter 1, one must understand chapters 1, 2, and 3 and so on. The whole book is like that. In order to understand chapter 4, one must understand chapters 1-3 and 5 and you get the picture. But you start your argument in chapter 6 by saying, “`leaving elemental teachings...of the doctrine of baptisms...’ the author then talks about the falling away or falling back into Judaism's works of the law orientation. Then he talks of OT concepts applied now and ultimately the new covenant, Christ's perfect death and the just living by faith.” And while you’re right in that, chapter 6 deals with falling away and OT concepts applied now and ultimately the new covenant, there is no way I can have any idea that your interpretations of those verses are correct. I have no idea what presuppositions you’re assuming. I have no idea if you and I even agree on that passage (we probably don’t, there’s a reason why the interpretation of that passage has been debated for centuries). But, and this is a pretty big “BUT,” even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, and even if I assume that you and I are on the same page and that we will agree on what that passage means, then you jump from chapter 6 to chapter 11 and two sentences after that you jump to chapter 12.
So if no one responds to you from here on out understand it’s not because we don’t have answers to what you’re saying, it’s because no one has the time or energy in any practical manner to explain to you how you’re wrong about chapter 12. Because in order to explain to you how you’re taking these verses out of context, we’d have to write an entire commentary on the entire book up to chapter 11. Other people have done it, but it won’t be me and it won’t be here on this blog inside this little comment space. You can tell from this comment I’m posting here and now, that I’m not afraid to type, but to type a comment of that magnitude would take me days and it’s not practical to begin with. I personally don’t believe that the author does speak in generalities. I think he is very precise, and for the record, the book of Hebrews is to me one of the strongest supports for paedo-baptism. The only one speaking in generalities here is you. I can tell you’re smart, but the problem is that your comments are almost always based off of erroneous presuppositions and false doctrines. Therefore, in order for me or anyone to disprove what you’re saying we’d have to start at the beginning by tearing down those false presuppositions. But who has the time to do that? Like, for example, you said above: "Stephen has not been able to show a valid reason for infant baptism nor a way in which someone benefits from it." I would love to respond to that. But I never will. And because I never will, it will always look as if I, Stephen the Presbyterian, don’t have an answer to that remark. But all the time, I really do have answers. I have answers to everything you’ve said here, but who can do away with pre-conceived notions and erroneous presuppositions in a single comment?
Arguing a point from the book of Hebrews is bad hermeneutics on so many levels. When arguing a point, one should never skip to the more difficult passage until all the simpler passages on that particular doctrine have been exhausted. A good hermeneutics professor will teach you to start with the more simple and easier to understand passages, and by unerstanding those it will help you better understand the more difficult passages. And granted, you didn’t start off your arguments in the book of Hebrews, but it was impossible to exhaust your arguments from the simpler passages because of the presuppositions you start with.
Please take what I’m saying in the nicest possible way. None of this is said maliciously or anything like that. I just can’t have you walking away from this debate thinking that you won, especially when Matthew won this debate a long time ago, since most of your real arguments can be explained in at least one of the posts he made about Baptism.
- Stephen |
|
6/25/08 160
Stephen, I've reduced the day count by 15 days. But, the count continues because, still "Stephen has not been able to show a (ie, one) valid reason for infant baptism nor a way in which someone benefits from it." - cdl |
|
"nor a way in which someone benefits from it."
I've asked you this question before and you never really answered. I doubt I'll get a straight answer from you this time either, because whenever you don't know an answer to the question you just say, "It's not worth it." That being said, CDL what do you think the benefits were of infant circumcision in the OT? Why did God command the Israelites to circumcise their infants? - Matthew Cochrane |
|
6/25/08 165
Stephen, I've added five days back to the count because apparently others are getting impatient and I can't respond to their questions until you've provided an input/response to "Stephen has not been able to show a (ie, one) valid reason for infant baptism nor a way in which someone benefits from it." - cdl |
|
Well then my input/response is a question. CDL, what do you think the benefits were of infant circumcision in the OT? Why did God command the Israelites to circumcise their infants? - Stephen |
|
6/25/08: 295 days since "Stephen has not been able to show a (ie, one) valid reason for infant baptism nor a way in which someone benefits from it."
including:
100 additional days for a repeat offense of "dodging the question"
15 additional days for answering a question with a question
0 additional days for implying that your copycat question is related to my question (but nice try)
1.5 additional days each for each red herring
a dozen additional days for being unoriginal
- cdl |
|
6/25/08 300 days
5 days added for not having your facts straight in your "lost tribe" post at TLM and for web posting elsewhere instead of answering the question here - cdl |
|
Well, I think pretty much everything was said that needed to be said in Stephen's story from Denny's then (seven comments ago - not that that will help you much because judging by how you count days the concept of math clearly flew way over your head). - Matthew Cochrane |
|
301
- cdl |
|
Stephen, it's now apparent, after at least 175 days, you are unable to offer a single "valid reason for infant baptism nor a way in which someone benefits from it." The only excuse you offer is that it is too hard to explain. Additionally, you, by your own admission agree with most of, or all of, what Matthew wrote "since most of [cdl's] real arguments can be explained in at least one of the posts [Matthew] made about Baptism". Furthermore, you follow his suit by answering the question with a question.
Maybe then, you, Stephen, can't answer the following questions either.
1. Why eventhough water baptism "symbolizes" or "signifies" [part 2], something, why it couldn't symbolize spiritual baptism?
2. And, why is God limited to exactly two symbolic (not one or three or more) meanings of water baptism (as long as they do not contradict scripture) when in fact, the Creator is communicating His action to finite brains? - cdl |
|
CDL, you do realize that when you try to revise history you shouldn't do it on a format where all the history is recorded, right? I mean, seriously, from now on either post a comment relevant to the argument or it will be deleted. Please stop cluttering the comment sections of my posts with irrelevant, annoying nonesense. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
Comments deleted. - Webmaster |
|
Thanks for admitting that you are unable to provide a single valid reason or benefit to anyone for infant baptism. - cdl |
|
posted at www.lizardmaster.com where truth isn't censored:
...no big surprise at not capable of talking (nct) [rationally]. My request for a single example in answer to my question got me the final solution: deletion. Therefore there is no example that nct is able to provide as expected. But, of course, it is his site, so it is also his right to control the content that resides there...especially content that totally discredits his position. - cdl |
|
Thanks for admitting that you are unable to provide a single valid reason or benefit to anyone for infant baptism.
Uh, no. Let's review. The reason to baptize infants is because it is commanded in Scripture. The benefit is the same as any instance when you choose to obey God. My reasoning is all explained in the posts and preceding comments.
My request for a single example in answer to my question got me the final solution: deletion.
Again, not hardly. Your request was fine and was not deleted. Your preceding comments amounted to little more than spam and were thus deleted. Sorry, but comments like "302" or "195" add nothing to the conversation. If you wish to answer the questions that were asked you or if you want to leave more points explaining your position, you are free to do so and those comments will remain as long as this site is still here. Only irrelevant comments will be deleted.
especially content that totally discredits his position.
Last time I checked "302" did not discredit paedobaptism. All of your arguments remain, so stop crying like a little girl with a skinned knee. .
- Matthew Cochrane |
|
On July 1st, it's now been 306 days since Stephen has failed to respond. - c |
|
On July 2, it's now been 307 days since Stephen has failed to respond. - c |
|
Stephen, like I say above...no big surprise that there is no example that you are able to provide...as expected. Btw, 302 might not discredit infbap but your failing to provide ONE VALID REASON OR BENEFIT FOR/OF IT certainly does. The only cry or whine I hear when I say 302 is the sadness I feel for the likes of you. Thanks for going out with barely a whimper. - c |
|
So, Stephen, since your silence indicates that there isn't a single "valid reason for infant baptism nor a way in which someone benefits from it." And, water baptism can "symbolize" or "signify" [part 2], spiritual baptism? And God is not limited to exactly two symbolic meanings of water baptism, maybe you will answer this question: if the consititution doesn't clearly reflect the will of the people, for example in cases of abortion or gay marriage, it may be amended, that is if the will of the people is strong enough to meet the constitutional amendment requirements, in either direction, ie for or against abortion or gay marriage, how is God's will clarified when the scripture is not, hypothetically, clearly understandable such as in the case of infant baptism, for or against? - c |
|
In Part 8 of my Paedobaptism series, you asked the same question and I answered by quoting Charles Hodge from his Systematic Theology:
"Children, therefore, were included in the covenant of grace as revealed under the old dispensation, and consequently were members of the Church as it was then constituted. In the sight of God parents and children are one. The former are the authorized representatives of the latter; they act for them; they contract obligations in their name. In all cases, therefore, where parents enter into covenant with God, they bring their children with them. The covenant made with Adam included all his posterity; the promise made to Abraham was to him and to his seed after him; and when the Mosaic covenant was solemnly inaugurated, it was said, "Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: that thou shouldst enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day." (Deut. xxix. 10–12.) It is vain to say that children cannot make contracts or take an oath. Their parents can act for them; and not only bring them under obligation, but secure for them the benefits of the covenants into which they thus vicariously enter. If a man joined the commonwealth of Israel he secured for his children the benefits of the theocracy, unless they willingly renounced them. And so when a believer adopts the covenant of grace, he brings his children within that covenant, in the sense that God promises to give them, in his own good time, all the benefits of redemption, provided they do not willingly renounce their baptismal engagements. This is really the turning point in the controversy concerning infant church-membership. If the Church is one under both dispensations; if infants were members of the Church under the theocracy, then they are members of the Church now, unless the contrary can be proved."
The kicker is you replied, "Not bad for the most part..."
Of course, I have asked several times now what you think the benefits were for infants being circumcised in the OT - and I am still waiting for an answer. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
Stephen, (and I am posting to Stephen), I doubt we'll ever resolve this with Matthew injecting himself into this dialogue. I obviously don't post to him. Let me help you out though (Stephen). A helpful form for an answer would be a straight forward, "c, a vaild reason for infant baptism is _________. A benefit of infant baptism is ___________." I don't think this request is asking too much.
Regards,
- c |
|
If you want a private conversation take Stephen out to dinner.
- Matthew Cochrane |
|
cdl, a vaild reason for infant baptism is the fact that it is commanded in scripture. A benefit of infant baptism is the same as any instance when you choose to obey God. The reasoning is all explained in the posts and preceding comments.
- Stephen |
|
THank you Stephen. A command is a command. If it were commanded, yes obedience is a great blessing available to believers. I'm not sure how an infant is capable of obedience or resistance. Reaping a benefit in such a case by the infant seems unlikely. I don't think I'd be held responsible, for example, as an infant accomplice if someone shoplifted into my diaper. In either case, the will of the infant is not involved.
BUT, where is it commanded? It certainly is not commanded in any of the above posts I'm aware of.
Btw, if we do have dinner, I don't like Denny's. Mimi's is most awesome, though. I can't buy though cuz that would get your constabulary relations in hack for soliciting. - c |
|
Btw, Stephen, I think, as a former soldier, you know what a command is, but in the interest of clarity, Merriam-Webster says "command noun an order given." The order doesn't change on it's own. It was given and if it is changed, it has to be modified. Merriam-Webster says, "order noun a specific rule, regulation, or authoritative direction : command" It is specific and not implied. I heard an O-6 tell a Lt once, "You thought!!?? You aren't supposed to think!! You're a Lieutenant!!!!! )(*&$%(*&%*&()$*&!!!!!" - c |
|
Well, what you just said goes more with what I'm saying than what you're saying.
"The order doesn't change on it's own. It was given and if it is changed, it has to be modified."
Presbyterians believe the command of giving the sign of the covenant to infants was given once in the old testament. Since it was never modified, we still believe in giving the sign of the covenant to infants. The only part that was modified is that now the sign of the covenant is baptism, not circumcision. Credos, on the other hand, don't believe in giving the sign of the covenant to their infants even though that part NEVER was modified, it was never changed. - Stephen |
|
that's one of those subtle twists; the command was to circumcise
baptiizing believers is clearly commanded
- c |
|
another way to consider this, Stephen. If baptizing infants is commanded, what happens if an infant is not baptized? - c |
|
"that's one of those subtle twists; the command was to circumcise . . . baptiizing believers is clearly commanded" - cdl
Well, the way I see it is the command was the same in the old as well as the new testament. The command was and is to administer the sign of the covenant to infants and converts. It was very specific and not implied at all in the old testament. According to your own logic, since that law was never modified, it hasn't changed.
"If baptizing infants is commanded, what happens if an infant is not baptized?" - cdl
Since baptizing infants is commanded for parents, a parent (or parents) sinning is what happens when a Christian infant is not baptized. How God chooses to manifest the punishment for that sin I honestly don't know. - Stephen |
|
Stephen, you certainly have the freedom to see it the way you want to see it and I can see how baptism is a sign to converts who experience it and remember it (since conversion involves a requisite amount of memory to effect a choice), but how is baptism a sign to infants who have no choice in the matter, do not experience it per se, and have no memory of it? Btw, circumcision is different in this regard. Circumcision is verifiable and evident and cannot be faked and it's probably merciful that there is no memory of it. - c |
|
Stephen, are you saying that there is no difference between a baptised baby and an unbaptised baby? - c |
|
Eh, the difference between a baptized infant and an unbaptized infant is a hard one. The baptized infant has been properly brought under God's covenant, and the unbaptized infant hasn't. What the implications of that are - we may never know.
In Exodus 4:24 God took the uncircumcision of Moses' son quite seriously - to the point God was going to put him to death. But then we also know that no one who was born during the exodus (40 years) was circumcised until God commanded them to do it when they reached Gibeath-haaraloth in Joshua 5:1-8. - Stephen |
|
Thanks for being open on that one. You are quite helpful. Could you answer the question about "how is baptism a sign to infants?" - c |
|
When a couple brings their infant forward for baptism, they are making a covenant with God. They are making a covenant that has to do with the infant, but the infant is not the one actively engaging in the covenant. However, the sign of that covenant - the covenant between the parents and God - is placed on the infant. It's not as much a sign to the infant, as it is a sign to God, the parents, and the congregation - Stephen |
|
Thanks, Stephen. Well articulated. That response and reading WCoF and PCA's BCO help answer my request for a benefit. The "give me a valid reason" answer of "it's commanded" is shakey to me. So it seems that the end is being used to justify the means. And, the baptized infant's status as "a non-communing member of the church" according to the BCO is way confusing. But, I think this dead horse is about beat. - c |
|
"But, I think this dead horse is about beat."
Buddy, we passed that point some time ago.
"So it seems that the end is being used to justify the means."
In what way do you mean? - Stephen |
|
What I mean Stephen is this. I can see the appealing sentiment surrounding an infant's baptism, but I can't see a clear connection between circumcision and baptism in either testament taken separately or together. I wonder if the end of having a nice ceremony for the sake of the congregants is being used to justify the means of a more relaxed scriptural interpretation. In other words, imho, the NT doesn't reflect the doctrine you espouse. As I said, in my opinion. It comes darned close I'll grant you but it doesn't seal the deal (no pun intended). Again, that's my opinion. I think the covenant is a wonderful, beautiful thing that enhances our understanding and appreciation of the Father and the Trinity, but the only way I can think to celebrate that is something like Trinity Sunday or such. Or, gasp, a sprinkling for infants and an immersion for believers (though that seems cumbersome), but for me, infant baptism is tainted because it detracts from believers baptism unless I find something more convincing. I can't disprove the claim that early Christians naturally began baptizing infants when circumcising them and everyone else was declared obsolete by the Council of Jerusalem. But, Paul, who lead the way to end circumcision also clarified in I Cor 7 that the child of a believer is not unclean but rather is holy and I don't see him clarifying the importance of baptizing the infant iaw the OT. This omission is glaring to me because he was talking to Corinthians who wouldn't have assumed a Jewish tradition as naturally as you have elsewhere proposed. And the beat goes on.
- c |
|
btw, Stephen, take a look at page 161 para 56.4 in
http://www.pcaac.org/BCO%202007%20Combined%20for%20Web.pdf
an inferred ordinance sure gets complicated compared to communion for example - c |
|
|
|
|
| |
©2009 Matthew Cochrane
| |
|
Recent Activity:
Top 5 Posts of the Month:
Recently Viewed Posts:
Top Ten Most Commented
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies (378)
Roe v. Wade: The 35th Anniversary of Legalized Abortion (147)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: A Followup (108)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (106)
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 3: The Proper Mode of Baptism (79)
Friday Political Roundup VI: Thoughts on New Hampshire's Primary (Special Wednesday Edition) (78)
Why I Like Mike, Part 2: Responding to the Conservative Establishment's Attacks (75)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: Congregational Meeting Announcement (69)
From the Depths of the Web 2, June 2008 (65)
Can the Church Compromise on Baptism? Part 1 (60)
Top Ten Hits All-Time
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 4: Defining Personhood
- Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 7: The Sign of the Covenant
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies
- Mentorship Program for Incarcerated Young Men Gives Christians Opportunity to Witness, Offer Guidance
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 3: The Beginning of Life
- Book Review: Love and Respect
- Book Review: Velvet Elvis
- The True Meaning of Christmas: Wrath, Judgment, Hope, and Grace
- In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church
Add your Feeds:
Blogs I read:
Fave Five
Religious and Cultural
Friends and Family
See what my readers are saying…
“this website should be named NotConsistentThought or NotCompleteThought”
“I would say you are too sensitive”
“you just twist and spin”
“you just bloviate and pontificate”
“you are legalistic”
|
|