Of Bald Men and Bears

Several months ago, I wrote two posts about the connection of the outward signs of circumcision and baptism to their respective inward realities: circumcision of the heart and baptism of the Spirit. You can read those posts here: Part 1 and Part 2.

In the first post, I discussed the Bible does not speak of circumcision and baptism as ends in themselves, but as signs and seals that point to inward spiritual realities; thus, there is an important link between between the sacraments and regeneration. In the second post, I wrote about the fact that there is not a causal relationship between the outward signs and the inward realities--that is, just as being physically circumcised by itself did not save anyone, neither does water baptism by itself save anyone. So, one big question remains: How, then, do the outward signs correspond to the inward realities?

Let me begin this issue by referring to one of John Piper's arguments against infant baptism. In fact, in the sermon that he discusses these things, he notes that this particular argument has become one of the most important reasons that he is still a Baptist. He argues:

When the New Testament church debated in Acts 15 whether circumcision should still be required of believers as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire debate did anyone say anything about baptism standing in the place of circumcision. If baptism is the simple replacement of circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and thus valid for children as well as for adults, as circumcision was, surely this would have been the time to develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary. But it is not even mentioned.

Now, I should first note that Piper is one of my heroes, and I think that he is one of the most godly men living. His unbridled passion for Jesus Christ humbles and encourages me every time I hear him speak or read something that he wrote. Still, he and I disagree about the nature of baptism. So, allow me to respectfully disagree with the reasoning behind this argument.

I would say that the reason the Jerusalem Council did not bring up baptism as "the simple replacement of circumcision" is that to do so would have given the completely wrong impression to those who believed that a person must become Jewish first, and then a Christian, in order to be saved. The big theological problem behind this dispute was that many Jewish converts to Christianity were understanding their salvation as being rooted in Jewish identity (especially in regard to their being circumcised) and merely continued by Christ. Paul argued vehemently against this reasoning, declaring that Christ is not only the capstone of a Jew's salvation for being Jewish, but the foundation and the capstone (and everything in between) for salvation on the basis of faith.

So, to tell these confused Jewish Christians that baptism was "the simple replacement of circumcision" would have been extremely misleading. It would have confirmed their presuppositions that salvation comes on the basis of being Jewish (with Christ as the capstone of Jewishness), and it would have simply given them a different means of being Jewish--baptism instead of circumcision. Instead, the Jerusalem Council had to proclaim that Jesus Christ alone is the ground of salvation.

(By the way, Piper's whole sermon from which I am quoting is intended to demonstrate that there is not a definite link between circumcision and baptism. I believe that there is, and I have discussed this elsewhere, but I cannot spend too much time defending that point now. I already have enough to say.)

So, why do I bring this up when I said that I intended to write about what baptism actually does do? Mainly, I want my terms to be clear in how I describe the sacraments: Christ alone saves, so the sacraments cannot be more than the means through which Christ saves, rather than the basis of salvation.

This is the thrust of Paul's argument in Romans 4: Abraham was counted righteous by faith before he had received circumcision, partially to show that salvation comes by faith alone, and partially to "make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised." (Rom 4:11-12) Abraham's salvation by faith became the example of how all who followed him would be saved.

So, what role is left for the sacraments to play in salvation? Since this post has already become quite lengthy (this perhaps should have been two posts), I will suggest only one idea about how to think about the relationship of the baptism to the Christian's salvation: I think that it would be helpful to think of baptism as a seed planted in our hearts, along the lines of Jesus' parable of the sower.

A seed by itself is nothing, and until the seed can find a home in the rich soil of faith (rather than being snatched up or falling on rocky or weedy soil), it cannot produce any fruit. But, because God actually makes use of the outward sign of our baptism in order to cause the inward reality to blossom, baptism is extremely important. I simply think that there is too strong of a link in Scripture between water baptism and Spirit baptism to argue that water baptism is merely symbolic of salvation, but I think that the Scripture too clearly delineates between the two for there to be a absolute causal link. In my judgment, using the metaphor of a seed is a very helpful way to steer clear of these two extremes.

Now, a couple of clarifications for thinking about this metaphor. First, God does not need a seed to cause something to grow. Is God not able to raise up children of Abraham from mere stones? (Matt. 3:9) God normally uses a seed, but in certain cases he can certainly save someone without their being baptized. Salvation is found in Christ alone, even if God generally uses baptism as a means of communicating that salvation.

Second, baptism is often not the first seed planted in someone's life. I grew up in a Christian family, but I was not baptized as an infant. Furthermore, there are plenty of believers who did not even grow up in Christian families. Therefore, the first seed sowed in such lives was the word of God. (Presbyterians understand the grace communicated through the sacraments as being the same grace communicated through the word.) In that case, where the word of God was the seed planted, baptism would not be a second kind of seed, but would be the watering (pardon the pun!) on the seed. In cases where children of believers are indeed baptized after birth, the word that they hear read and preached as they grow up would water their seed of baptism.

In any case, no matter who plants and who waters, "God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth" (1 Cor 3:6-7). In the end, all glory goes to the Father who chose us, to the Son who died and rose again for us, and to the Spirit who enlivens our souls to see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. All glory be to the Triune God!

So, I hope that you find this metaphor helpful because I think that it communicates an important truth: we are not saved by baptism per se, but by Jesus Christ. Still, God's ordaining the ends of salvation does not mean that he did not ordain the means of communicating that salvation, and among those means (e.g., the proclamation of the word) would be the sacrament of baptism.

Labels: Baptism, Bible, Church, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 8:55 AM | Permalink | Comments

For my Worship Leadership class, we are required to visit two different types of churches (different from each other, and different from our own denomination) and to write papers where we discuss what we saw in the worship services that might be instructive for our own worship. So, a couple of weeks ago, I attended a Sunday evening Catholic mass with a couple who are my friends and members of the church. It was a very interesting assignment, so I published the paper that I wrote, which you can read here.

Also, if you want to read through the liturgy of a Catholic mass, you can see it here.

Labels: Baptism, Bible, Church, Communion, Theology, Worship

Posted by Jacob at 6:35 AM | Permalink | Comments

Unbaptized Infants Released From Limbo.

This post is dedicated to all of our readership who weren't baptized as infants, but were born well before this upcoming papal pronouncement. Back in the day, we would have had to go to limbo if we had not made it out of infancy; I'm glad that's no longer the case for all the new babies entering the world!

Labels: Baptism, Church, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Comments

Lindsey wrote me an e-mail, saying, "I'd like to see some sort of blog discussion about paedocommunion [i.e., infant communion]." We here at Of Bald Men and Bears aim to please our readership, so here we go!

If you are unfamiliar with the issue, allow me to give a brief explanation. Baptists, of course, say that baptism should be withheld from any who cannot make a profession of faith. Then, they withhold communion from any who are unbaptized, so only believers are partaking of the Lord's Supper. This is especially important because Paul writes, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).

For Presbyterians, however, the waters of this issue are a bit muddier since we baptize on the grounds of covenant membership, not professed belief. So, just as infant Hebrew boys were circumcised, we baptize the infants of Christians. Circumcision and baptism make up one set of the covenant signs (sacraments) that God has given to his people as an assurance of his covenant promises.

But here's where the problem comes in: the other set of covenant signs that God gave his people are the Passover feast and the Lord's Supper. There is no particular indication that very young children were excluded from Passover, and the only requirement seems to be that the boys/men were circumcised (Ex. 12:48). So, many Presbyterians argue that baptized children should be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper as soon as they are capable.

Other Presbyterians, however, point back to 1 Cor. 11:27 to note that small children are incapable of preparing themselves for communion; therefore, it is highly likely that they might partake in an unworthy manner, and therefore would be eating and drinking judgment on themselves (1 Cor. 11:29). The Westminster Confession of Faith, and therefore the Presbyterian Church in America, take this stance.

As for me, I've given some measure of thought to this issue, but I don't know that I have a strong opinion either way. So, for the time being, I'm content to submit myself to the authority of the Westminster Confession and accept their interpretation as the proper administration of the Lord's Supper.

That said, I have heard one good argument that might push me in the other direction: I don't know where I heard this, but someone somewhere made a point that Paul, in 1 Cor. 11, is writing about unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper rather than unworthy partakers. So, he is writing against those who would stuff themselves on the bread and get drunk on the wine, even while some go without. He is not, technically speaking, writing about people with unrepentant sinfulness in their lives.

So, there are two important questions to ask: (1) Does what Paul says extend in its significance to exclude people with sin who come unrepentantly to the Table? and (2) If so, to what degree must covenant children be able to consciously repent before being admitted to the Table?

And, with that, let's open the floor to discussion.

Labels: Baptism, Bible, Church, Communion, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments

I mentioned awhile ago that I was writing a paper to contrast baptism and the Lord's Supper in Baptist and Presbyterian thought. I just finished the paper, although, as I began writing it, I realized that I only had enough space to focus on baptism. Here is one of the better sections:

This definition [i.e., baptism as a sign and a seal of the covenant of grace] obviously limits Presbyterian sacramental theology from the Catholic notion that baptism works of itself (ex opere operato), but it also moves beyond even the more substantive levels of Baptist theology. Notice here a fine, but important, distinction between the theology of Presbyterians and that of Baptists: Baptists understand baptism to be symbolic—a kind of pronouncement of something already accomplished in the life of the baptized. Presbyterians, on the other hand, believe that baptism points the candidate to what God promises to accomplish through faith, which is the reality behind the sign. For Presbyterians, “the efficacy of baptism is prospective,”1 but for Baptists, the efficacy of baptism is retrospective. This aspect of Presbyterian theology is behind the Westminster Confession of Faith statement that “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered,”2 and it plays a significant role in justifying the practice of infant baptism.

The paper is nothing earth-shattering, but I did spend a lot of time on it. So, if you would like a copy, let me know through e-mail or a comment, and I will be more than happy to send it to you.

---

1-William B. Evans, “'Really Exhibited and Conferred...in His Appointed Time': Baptism and the New Reformed Sacramentalism,” in The Presbyterion 31:2 (Fall 2005): 88, my emphasis.
2-WCF, 28.6

---

Because of the brilliant suggestion my good friend made, I have posted the paper on Google Docs. There are some minor formatting issues, but the text is now available to any who wish to see it. Just remember my disclaimer: it's nothing earth-shattering.

Labels: Baptism, Bible, Church, Life, Seminary, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 7:08 AM | Permalink | Comments

I am writing a paper for my church history class that will contrast sacramental theology in the Westminster Confession of Faith and one of the Baptist confessions--probably the Baptist Faith and Message of 1925. In my research, I just came across an excellent essay by G. Todd Wilson called "Why Baptists Should Not Rebaptize Christians from Other Denominations." As you read this, remember that, when he speaks about baptism's "biblical intent," he is writing in the belief that the New Testament teaches that new believers should be baptized as a symbol of joining the faith community of the church:

If we opt for that alternative [i.e., rebaptism], however, we are put in the uncomfortable position of insisting that while baptism is not essential for salvation, it is essential for membership in a Baptist church. We must also take this view in the realization that we are giving baptism a different meaning from its biblical intent, and this weakens our appeal to the authority of the Bible for our faith and practice. Furthermore, if we change the meaning of baptism, can we really insist that others are not free to do the same, even if they choose to baptize infants? (44)

It does seem that Baptists cannot logically say that both of the following are true: (1) biblical baptism is only the kind of baptism that is administered as a sign of entry into the community of faith; and (2) those who were (unbiblically) baptized as infants, but have been members of the community of faith for years, must be rebaptized before becoming members of a Baptist church. Wilson makes an excellent point that the rebaptism of (2) is not the "biblical" baptism of (1), nor can it be, by definition.

I wonder if this argument would have made any different in John Piper's recently failed attempt to admit certain infant-batized Christians to membership in his Baptist church (see here and here).

Here is the second quotation, which, I think, stands alone:

In this same regard it is interesting to compare our practice of baptism with our emphasis in the Lord's Supper. In baptism we have focused upon the form and letter, but in the Lord's Supper our concern is with the spirit and substance. We have held firm on the mode of immersion, but we have ignored the "one cup" and "one loaf" so vitally significant to the meaning of the Lord's Supper in the biblical account, not to mention that we also substitute grape juice for wine. Our rigidity in baptism is so different from our freedom regarding the Supper, and this marked inconsistency deserves attention. The integrity of our Christian symbols is at stake. (45)

I would encourage believer-baptists and infant-baptists alike to read the entire article, if possible. Here is the bibliographic information:

Wilson, G. Todd., “Why Baptists Should Not Rebaptize Christians from Other Denominations.” In Proclaiming the Baptist Vision: Baptism and the Lord's Supper, edited by Walter B. Shurden, 41-47. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1999.

Labels: Baptism, Books, Church, Communion, Seminary, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 4:31 PM | Permalink | Comments

If you read this blog often, of if you know me (actually, I suppose that the only people who read this blog are those who know me), you know that I have only recently come to believe that God intends for Christians to baptize their infants. Before November 15, the date of my "conversion" on this matter, I was a committed Baptist for about a year. Before that, I wrestled with the arguments for and against infant baptism over the course of another year.

During the two years when I was agnostic on this, and then when I was a Baptist, I largely dismissed the relevancy of the household baptism accounts that we read in the book of Acts. Essentially, I considered that both sides were arguing from silence, because I processed the debate in terms of whether infants were actually present or not. So, I assumed that the paedobaptists were arguing, "Surely there must have been an infant at one of those household baptisms!" And, of course, there is no Bible verse that says, "And then they baptized all of so-and-so's household, which, by the way, included one infant." Because this is an argument from silence (which Baptists are quick to point out), I felt that the evidence from household baptisms was irrelevant at worst and inconclusive at best.

Only after I became a paedobaptist (which happened for different theological reasons) did I come to the realization that I had completely misunderstood the terms of the debate--in fact, I was shocked to find out that I had been dealing with a credobaptist caricature of the paedobaptist arguments from household baptisms. My error was that I did not understand that paedobaptists were arguing from the definition of the word "household."

When Luke wrote the book of Acts, he didn't just pick a word out at random to describe how the early church administered the sacrament of baptism. "Household" is a word with a long history among God's people. Specifically, God had told Abraham to circumcise all those who were born in his "house." Even in the New Testament, there is every reason to believe that one's "household" included that person's children (see 1 Tim. 3:4-5).

If Luke had intended to speak of baptism in a way to exclude the infants of believers, wouldn't it be counterproductive to use the word "household" in reference to those who were baptized? How could that not have caused incredible misunderstanding in the early church, since the natural understanding of "household baptism" would mean baptizing one's infants, since "household circumcision" had always meant circumcising one's infants?

More pertinently, why don't we read anything about such a misunderstanding--and about the apostles' correction of this misunderstanding!--in the book of Acts or in early church history documents?

Even if I don't completely understand the theology behind infant baptism (I'm still working through a lot of issues), I think that the mention of household baptisms in the book of Acts is the "smoking gun" that puts the weight of evidence largely on the side of paedobaptism. Far from being irrelevant or inconclusive, the accounts of household baptisms have become one of the biggest factors in my being a Presbyterian.

Labels: Baptism, Bible, Church, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 7:23 AM | Permalink | Comments

This morning, I visited Briarwood Presbyterian Church, the founding church of the PCA denomination. It was a bit too big for my taste, but it was a wonderful church. I was privileged to see the sign of the New Covenant given to three more covenant infants, and, for the first time in my life, I sang the Gloria Patri (I'm 22 years old--how sad is it that I've never sung that before now?).

The sermon was on Psalm 1:4: "The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away." Of course, the pastor preached that verse in the context of the entire psalm. He mainly emphasized, though, the utter foolishness of living a life that amounts to being the chaff that will be blown away and burned.

I thought the sermon was a wonderful example of what I urged in my last post, because he did not merely preach that Christianity is correct (though it certainly is that), but that it is wise. Those who delight in the law of the LORD are firmly planted like trees by a river, whose leaves and fruit are constantly in season, prospering in all they do. With the five short words "The wicked are not so" (three words in the Hebrew) the psalmist declares that the wicked will never know the joy and abundance and prosperity of the righteousness; rather, the wicked will be worthless, fruitless, desolate, and blown away.

The pastor did not appeal to pithy apologetics, nor did he attempt to lay out an elaborate, precisely accurate theological explanation for what he was saying. He simply commended the utter wisdom of living a life according to the fear of the LORD, meditating constantly on the law (the Hebrew word "torah" = instruction) of the LORD. Then, he exposed the depraved foolishness of living a life of seeking the council of the wicked, of standing in the way of sinners, and of sitting among scoffers. One way of living leads to a truly abundant and prosperous life; the other leads to worthlessness and death.

Please do not misunderstand me--apologetics and theology have their place, and a very important place at that. Their place, though, should propel us to live wholeheartedly in the fear of the LORD, delighting fully in the instruction for living that God gives us. Unless the intellectual aspect of our studies pushes us into virtuous, wise living, it is worthless.

My point is not that we should quit studying, but that we should be ever aware of God's goal for our studying: wise, fruitful, and prosperous living. What we study should convince us further of our great need for Jesus Christ and make it all the easier for us to entrust our lives to him more completely.

Labels: Alabama, Baptism, Bible, Church, Life, Philosophy, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments

This morning at a church I was visiting, I witnessed for the first time an infant baptism. When I realized mid-service that one was coming, I actually became really nervous and excited for what was about to take place. I had been anticipating my first infant baptism for a long time, and I was not disappointed: it was a beautiful and holy thing to see.

Ironically, before I knew that an infant baptism was coming, I had seen that same baby squawking during a hymn, and my mind went to Matt. 21:16, where Jesus quoted the Septuagint version of Psalm 8:2: "Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise." Thinking about how the baby was participating in worshiping the Lord with her parents, I wondered if she had been or would soon be baptized as a member of the covenant community. About ten minutes later, my question was answered.

Labels: Baptism, Bible, Church, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments

Since I first heard about "Federal Vision" Theology, I've read quite a bit about it on two blogs, The Presbyteer and Blog and Mablog. (Blog and Mablog has something just about every day on the controversy; both this blog and the Presbyteer's are very strongly pro-Federal Vision theology.) Also called "Auburn Avenue Theology" or the "Monroe Doctrine" (Auburn Avenue is the church in Monroe, LA, where much of this theology is being developed), there are some very interesting developments that could significantly shape the landscape of Reformed Theology over the next decade, and perhaps even for many years to come.

[Edit, 1/26/07, 10:37 am: In a comment below, The Presbyteer clarified his position on the matter; also, I realized that Doug Wilson, the author of Blog and Mablog, is not only supportive, but he was one of the contributors for my book on the pro-Federal Vision side. Just wanted to make that clear, lest I misrepresent anyone.]

But, that doesn't mean that this stuff is simple. There are some things these people are saying that seem very logical and natural extensions of the theology that led me to paedobaptism, but there are some things I read and cringe a little bit. The stuff that makes sense seems extremely helpful; the stuff that bothers me seems potentially disastrous.

So, to get a better understanding of the issues, I picked up The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision from the Samford University Library. The book is filled with five papers from "pros," five from "cons," and responses to each paper from the respective "other side" after a weekend of in-person debate and weeks of e-mail exchanges with each other. The whole conference was designed to get rid of misunderstandings surrounding the issue and to get to the big issues. I have only read the first few essays, but I finish up my Puritan Spirituality class this morning, and I will try to spend a good part of the day continuing to read it. My goal is to finish it before my Spring semester classes start on Tuesday, but I can't promise anything. I'll let you know my thoughts in a few days.

---

Also, in case you were wondering, I haven't forgotten about the third part to my "Outward Sign, Inward Reality" post series (read part one and part two here)--I simply am trying to make sure that I have a really good grasp of the issues before I slap something down I my blog. This Auburn Avenue Theology stuff, for example, is really making me think through a lot of the issues involved in what I would write for the third part. So, I'm making progress toward writing more about baptism, but I'm not even comfortable writing an interim report at this point. "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness..."

Labels: Baptism, Books, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 7:31 AM | Permalink | Comments

The more I reflected about my earlier post, my mind went to this verse, spoken by John the Baptist:

"I baptize you with water for 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 with fire." (Matt. 3:11, my emphasis)

Notice that John the Baptist draws a distinction between how he baptizes with water and how Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. From this, I think it seems reasonable to speak of a difference between the physical baptism of water and the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit, just as the Bible makes a distinction between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision.

But, when the Scriptures speak of spiritual (i.e., "heart") circumcision, no one assumes that those writers are speaking of all physical circumcision, as though physical circumcision automatically equates with heart circumcision. In fact, Paul goes out of his way to emphasize the difference between physical and spiritual circumcision: "For we are the real circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. 3:3). Of course, the physical and the spiritual circumcisions are linked, but my point is simply that they are not exactly the same thing.

Here is what I am trying to say: when we read texts where baptism is spoken of spiritually, we should not therefore automatically equate that spiritual baptism with water baptism. As with the two types of circumcision, I think there is a connection between water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism, but I am simply arguing that not all who have received water baptism have necessarily received Holy Spirit baptism, just as not all who received physical circumcision were heart circumcised. Consider the following texts:

• 3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:3-4)
• For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:13, my emphasis)
• For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Gal. 3:27)
• 11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having 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. (Col. 2:11-12)
• Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ... (1 Pet. 3:21)

I would argue that each of these texts should be interpreted as referring to spiritual, Holy Spirit baptism rather than physical, water baptism. In this way, the verses are always true--every single person who has been spiritually baptized in the Holy Spirit has:

• been baptized into Christ's death (Rom. 6:3-4)
• been baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13)
• put on Christ (Gal. 3:27)
• been buried with Christ (Col. 2:11-12)
• been saved (1 Pet. 3:21)

I make this point (i.e., that these verses are true for everyone who has been spiritually baptized) because it is a common baptist argument to point to these verses and say, "How can these verses be true of all who are [water] baptized if we [water] baptize people who are unable to give a profession of faith?" I think the problem with this question is now clear--Scripture understands a difference between those who have been baptized with water and those who have been baptized with the Holy Spirit, and these texts are referring to those who have received the latter. In fact, this interpretation is even more consistent than the baptist's interpretation, since there are obviously people who make false professions of faith, but who are nevertheless baptized. (This will always happen no matter what we might try to do to separate the sheep from the goats, since we simply have no way of knowing whom exactly God chooses to save.)

In my mind, understanding baptism this way has three implications:

1. This interpretation prevents baptists from claiming as proof that baptism should be restricted to those who can profess faith, since such a claim would confuse the spiritual baptism meant in the passages with their conception of what physical baptism should be.
2. This interpretation gives a good reason to avoid what I would call the "hyper-sacramentalist" understanding of baptism in parts of the early church, where baptism was seen as so important--being the actual mechanism for washing away sins--that some considered it necessary for salvation. Their belief stems directly from an interpretation of the above passages which understands the spiritual benefits as coming through physical baptism.
3. Finally, I think that this interpretation further demonstrates that we should understand baptism largely through an understanding of what circumcision was meant to be. In the Old Testament, we see that physical circumcision points to the goal of heart circumcision; in the New Testament (beginning with the distinction John the Baptist draws), we see that physical/water baptism points to the goal of Holy Spirit baptism. This high level of continuity from circumcision to baptism strongly suggests the validity of infant baptism.

So, how is water baptism related to spiritual baptism? Or, for that matter, how is physical circumcision related to heart circumcision? I'll try to pick up that topic soon.

Labels: Baptism, Bible, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 1:22 AM | Permalink | Comments

During my conversion to paedobaptism, I grew fairly cynical about the definition that I had always heard of baptism while I was growing up: "Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality." Of course, this definition was meant, in part, to discount the possibility of infant baptism, since it requires conversion (the inward reality) before receiving baptism (the outward sign). So, the more I came to believe in infant baptism, the more I thought I needed to jettison completely the definition of baptism that I had known all my life.

As I have reflected, though, I now see that definition as further confirmation of the validity of infant baptism. Consider how circumcision is spoken of in Scripture:

12"And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good? 14Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. 15Yet the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. 16Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. (Deut 10:12-16)

Also:

4Circumcise yourselves to the LORD;
    remove the foreskin of your hearts,
    O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem;
lest my wrath go forth like fire,
    and burn with none to quench it,
    because of the evil of your deeds." (Jer 4:4)

The Old Testament speaks of circumcision as more than simply an ethnic, physical ritual--it was a physical act that was intended to speak to a spiritual reality (i.e., physical circumcision pointed to heart circumcision), yet it had always been applied to infants! Therefore, the New Testament passages about baptism--where the physical act of baptism is generally linked to spiritual regeneration--are not proof of a prerequisite of spiritual regeneration in order to be baptized. If the first (Jewish) readers had been accustomed to thinking of their physical act of circumcision as having spiritual overtones, why would they suddenly consider the spiritual meaning of baptism to demand the exclusion of their infants?

All this said, I do not quite consider the definition of "outward sign, inward reality" to suffice for baptism. This post has been more of an apology to baptists for paedobaptism than an attempt to force my new wine into my old wineskins. Any definition of baptism must fully explore its meaning as a sacrament and its being a "sign and a seal" of our new covenant in Christ Jesus, so that the baptist definition is incomplete, but not completely wrong. What I believe to be the fuller definition of baptism, however, is another post for another day.

Labels: Baptism, Bible, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Comments

I have been a committed Reformed Baptist for almost a year now--I wrote a post about the reasoning that brought me to that position on January 3, 2006. (Another blogger cited that post here.) In my post, I had written the following:

First, you should know that I am approaching the issue from a Reformed, Covenant Theology perspective. From this, my main question is: Is there a covenant community in the new covenant containing both the regenerate and the unregenerate, as there was in the old covenant? I believe that the Bible does not reflect such a community under the new covenant.

Today, my question is still the same, but my conclusion is very different. The Lord has confirmed in my heart and mind from Scripture the validity of paedobaptism, or infant baptism.

On November 15 of this year, when my Bible reading plan had me reading in Hebrews 10, I landed on the following verses (26-31):

26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Emphasis added)

As I meditated on these verses, I rehearsed my (baptist) explanation of these verses--namely, that these people thought that they were saved, but they actually were not. I did not (and still do not) believe that, once a person is genuinely born again, anything can separate that person from the love of God.

But then I asked myself, "Well, then in what way were these people 'sanctified' by the 'blood of the covenant'?" In an instant, I realized that these verses only made sense if I had an understanding of the New Covenant that included the regenerate and the unregenerate. In an instant, the baptist branch on which I had been standing broke, and, by God's grace, I became a paedobaptist.

You see, my baptist covenant theology already believed that Christians are saved through Christ's fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (cf. Gal. 3:7-29, esp. 7, 9, 14, and 29); however, my baptist understanding of Covenant Theology strongly emphasized that "it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7). In other words, I believed that the Abrahamic Covenant in the Old Testament was manifested physically and spiritually, but that the only legitimate New Testament children of Abraham (i.e., the ones who would be blessed) were those who were his children spiritually, through faith. But, as the Holy Spirit began to work in my heart, teaching me to understand Hebrews 10:26-31, I saw that this was not a suitable understanding of the nature of the covenants for two reasons:

1. Keeping the covenant has always been accomplished by faith. Notice how Paul describes the significance of circumcision: "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised..." (Rom. 4:11). Circumcision had to do with the righteousness that comes through faith, not a righteousness that comes by the law. Thus, I could not draw as big of a distinction between baptism and circumcision as I previously had, seeing one as dealing with the law, and the other as dealing with faith--both deal with faith.
2. From the apostasy passages in Hebrews 10:26-31, Hebrews 6:4-8, 2 Peter 2:1-2, 12-17, and others, it has become clear to me that there are people who are full members of the New Covenant, but who are unregenerate and therefore apostasize, exactly as was possible in the Old Covenant. Therefore, I saw no reason to believe any longer that the nature of covenant membership had radically changed between the Old and the New Covenants. (Observe how, in my original post, I beg the question on this matter: in my first bullet point in response to Dr. Pratt's article, I essentially say, "I can prove that the New Covenant does not include unregenerate people [my main, underlying question] and cannot be broken [my minor point in that particular bullet point], because only the truly regenerate can be New Covenant members, and the truly regenerate will never break the covenant by falling away." See the problem?)

So, I was now left with an understanding of the New Covenant with a high degree of continuity to the Old Covenant. Suddenly, I was able to see how Peter's proclamation on the Day of Pentecost ("For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."--Acts 2:39) sounded uncannily like language from when God gave Abraham the sign and seal of circumcision: "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you" (Gen. 17:7). Furthermore, I started to appreciate how close the idea of the household baptisms in Acts were to the way God commanded Abraham to circumcise every member of his household: "Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant" (Gen. 17:12-13).

Finally, I just ran out of arguments against infant baptism, which leaves me where I am today: a reformed Reformed Baptist, beginning the process of finding a Presbyterian (PCA) Church in Birmingham, AL, to call home.

To end this post, I would like to close with a statement that I wrote in my post a year ago, but I have changed all the "baptist" references to "paedobaptist," and vice versa:

I certainly respect the beliefs of baptists (especially because I know how confusing the issue is and because I know how persuasive a case baptists have), but I am ultimately persuaded by the arguments on behalf of paedobaptism.

Only the grace of God could have changed my mind on this issue, but, when I least expected it, he did just that. I am excited and nervous to become a Presbyterian, but I gratefully acknowledge my spiritual debt to all the baptists I've ever known and to those whom I still know. While I now disagree with the baptist theology that I believed all my life, I absolutely respect and cherish the Christians who still hold to it. May Christ bless his church by bringing about a supernatural unity among his people, even as they continue to disagree on the proper subjects, timing, and methods of baptism!

Labels: Baptism, Bible, Church, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 12:57 AM | Permalink | Comments

Awhile ago, Andrew and I wrote about how Bethlehem Baptist (John Piper's church) was considering dropping their requirement of being believer-baptized for becoming a member of the church. Apparently, that proposal has now been withdrawn. Here is a link to John Piper's explanation of the current situation and the reason for withdrawing the proposal.

Mostly, the congregation greatly disagreed with the concept, and because of this, some of the elders who had previously agreed to the proposal changed their mind. Although there are no hard feelings, Piper still hopes that, at some point in the future, his church might implement this policy.

Personally, I find this unfortunate. I really liked the idea that Baptists would begin a policy where they insisted that their elders and pastors affirm their distinctive theology of baptism, but that they would also allow like-minded (in all other things) Presbyterian types to join their congregations. To my understanding, the Presbyterian Church in America insists that its elders, pastors, etc..., affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith (which includes provisions for infant baptism), but nevertheless allows people with a Baptist theology of baptism to join their churches. (Am I wrong about this?)

Hopefully, our brothers and sisters at Bethlehem Baptist will soon implement this idea and begin a trend among Baptist--especially Reformed Baptist--churches. Even more so, I genuinely hope that Baptists and Presbyterians will increasingly unite for the cause of the gospel in the coming decades. I see John Piper's proposal as a concrete way to jump-start that process.

Labels: Baptism, Church, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 7:57 PM | Permalink | Comments

As some of you may know, I have been thinking deeply for about a year on whether infant or believer baptism was the correct implementation of Jesus' Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). Over this break, I have had significant time to think, study, and pray about the subject, and I have (finally!) decided that, in my opinion, believer baptism is the most biblical position. I certainly respect the beliefs of paedobaptists (especially because I know how confusing the issue is and because I know how persuasive a case paedobaptists have), but I am ultimately persuaded by the arguments on behalf of credobaptism. I would like to spell out my reasons for this decision, for my own sake (at the very least), but hopefully to help those of you who might still be thinking about the issue. So, forgive the size of this post (it's kind of a big issue), and I am very interested in any questions or challenges to what I am going to write.

First, you should know that I am approaching the issue from a Reformed, Covenant Theology perspective. From this, my main question is: Is there a covenant community in the new covenant containing both the regenerate and the unregenerate, as there was in the old covenant? I believe that the Bible does not reflect such a community under the new covenant.

Here is a rough line of argumentation for what I have come to believe:

1. The old covenant was given to all those living within the physical, literal nation of Israel, all males of whom were to bear the sign of the covenant in circumcision, which was to be administered in their infancy.
2. The old covenant was conditional in a way that if those under the covenant obeyed the laws of God, they would live; if not, they would be destroyed.
3. Furthermore, some within the nation of Israel under the old covenant would have been regenerate and would have obeyed God, while others under the old covenant at the same time would not have been regenerate; nevertheless, regenerate and unregenerate alike under the old covenant were supposed to bear the sign of the covenant because the covenant was made with all of Israel.
4. Jeremiah 31:31-34 promises that the new covenant would be formed with all the house of Israel and the house of Judah (in this case, the spiritual Israel, or the Church of Jesus Christ); Jesus commands that all within the new covenant are to bear the sign of the covenant, baptism.
5. Jeremiah 31:31-34 predicts that the new covenant will be of a nature that it will be unbreakable, and that all its adherents would (1) have God's law written on their hearts; (2) know God personally; (3) have their sin forgiven.
6. Because only those who have true faith in Christ are genuine members of the new covenant, only those who can give evidence to the reality of their faith should bear the sign of the covenant (baptism).

This is generally the argument for Reformed, covenant theology credobaptism, but Dr. Richard Pratt makes a good case against this argument here. Dr. Pratt makes the case that, while the new covenant when it is fully realized at Christ's return will indeed be unbreakable, be fully internalized, and distribute salvation to all of its participants. Now, however, Dr. Pratt argues that the new covenant is breakable, is not fully internalized, and will not distribute salvation to all participants (i.e., the unregenerate who are merely part of the covenant community). This was the toughest argument I saw against credobaptism, but I think that it ultimately proves to be incorrect biblically.

Although I cannot go into every aspect of Dr. Pratt's article (although I would be willing to go into more detail if asked specifically about different parts of his article), I will give brief reasons why I disagree with it:

• Dr. Pratt argues that the new covenant is currently breakable. He cites Heb. 10:28-31, but if we want to interpret this passage as talking about someone who does not get salvation after having been sanctified by Christ's blood (phrases from the passage), how does that possibly fit into the doctrine of Definite Atonement (i.e., that Christ definitely paid for only his elect, who would be saved) or the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints (i.e., that God will ensure the ultimate salvation of those whom he has saved by his grace)? I don't particularly know what the Hebrews passage means, and I wouldn't feel qualified to comment on it without knowing the Greek, but, if it means what Dr. Pratt suggests it does, then the passage does violence to two very important doctrines which are much more easily demonstrable by Scripture. Dr. Pratt gives no more evidence to support his argument that the new covenant can be broken (indeed, the passages regarding Perseverance of the Saints seems to assert the exact opposite), so I see no further reason to believe that the new covenant can be broken.
• Dr. Pratt argues that the new covenant is not fully internalized right now. First, he points out that we believers, though the law has been internalized, are not able to speak authoritatively, but must submit to Scripture; only at Christ's return will covenant's internalization be ultimately realized in our lives. Second, he points to the 1 Cor. 7:14 verse, about unbelieving spouses and children being sanctified by their believing spouse/parent. I will grant his first point, but not the second. First, Paul also writes that unbelievers in no way are able to understand the things of God, because they do not have the mind of Christ as we have (1 Cor. 2:6-16). If this is the case, then is the new covenant internalized at any level in unbelievers? I would that it is not. As for the 1 Cor 7:14 verse, I would point out that paedobaptists do not believe that unbelieving spouses of believers are to be baptized. Therefore, I think that, because the new covenant does not become internalized at all in the lives of unbelievers, they should not be baptized.
• Finally, Dr. Pratt argues that the new covenant right now does not distribute salvation to all its participants partially from the Heb. 10 passage, but also from the parables of the Ten Virgins and the Talents in Matt. 25:1-30. I would argue that these parables do not talk about those within the new covenant community who are ultimately unregenerate, but about those who think that they are in the new covenant as believers in Christ, but in actuality are not. Notice how the bridgegroom responds to the virgins who are left outside: "'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you'" (v. 12). This is an interesting comment, since the Jeremiah prophecy about the new covenant states that all, from the greatest to the least members of the new covenant would know God (Jer. 31:34).

Certainly, for believers, the new covenant has not been manifested in its entirety; however, the new covenant is not true at all of the unregenerate right now. Accordingly, the sign of the new covenant should not be administered to the unregenerate or to those who are unable to demonstrate that they are regenerated. So, to answer my main question, I think that the new covenant is a spiritual covenant community of believers in Jesus Christ.

Since this is already a long enough post, I will not give any more arguments. I would, however, note that I am not the best theologian, biblical scholar, or anything else of that sort. If you have more questions on this subject, I would refer you (for starters) to a great series of sermons freely available on the internet in mp3s that you can get here (the series is the "2005 SBC Founders Conference Southwest"). In fact, the sermon entitled "Hermeneutics of Baptist Covenant Theology" devotes ten minutes to Dr. Pratt's article, which I briefly considered above, in a much more learned fashion than I did. I highly recommend the series.

Labels: Baptism, Church, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 10:33 PM | Permalink | Comments

Lately I've given a little thought to the idea of proof texting (i.e. citing only a few Bible verses to support a doctrine or point). My slightly PoMo/Emergent side (hey, I scored pretty high on the survey!) has always been slightly suspicious of proof texts. However, I've come to the conclusion that they have their purposes, which I'll try to outline.

Biblical proof texts derive a great deal of their meaning from the larger context (or "metanarrative"...5 more Emergent points for me!) of the entire Bible. The larger narrative (the story of God's redemption of human kind, for example) provides the context in which to understand a single verse. However, because this larger narrative is composed of individual verses, each verse (potentially) contains a point of truth for the whole narrative, and thus (potentially) a single verse can be cited as stating one particular truth. So the value of proof texting is that it can concisely point out one particular detail of the overall narrative. The danger with proof texting is that it is not terribly valuable in apologetics or polemics, where someone is likely to reject your understanding of the narrative, since often the over-arching narrative is important for interpreting the proof text in question. Unless both parties are operating within the same narrative, it seems likely that they can completely disagree as to the point of a proof text.

To use an example, when the Westminster Confession says "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized," and cites Genesis 17:8 in support ("And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee"), this verse is only going to provide support for infant baptism to someone who accepts the "narrative" of covenant theology. A dispensationalist can affirm the truth of this verse, but disagree about its impact on baptism within the church. If someone's over-arching narrative differs from yours, and they can twist any verse to fit within their own understanding of the narrative, the proof text will be useless in proving your point.

All this to say that I think proof texting should be used when working with someone with whom you share the same understanding or "metanarrative", and polemical debates are better resolved by presenting the big-picture, metanarrative to the opposing party rather than proof texts.

Labels: Baptism, Bible, Philosophy, Theology

Posted by andrew at 8:07 PM | Permalink | Comments

My dear colleague posted this about Bethlehem Baptist's (John Piper's church) pending decision to change their membership requirements from including mandates of a person's being immersed in a believers' baptism. There is an 84-page paper (PDF format) on the history and specific bylaws amendments that the church's board will be recommending to be adopted, but probably the best part of the document is John Piper's Twelve Theses regarding the issue of Infant and Believer Baptism, which I will reprint here:

1. Faithfulness to Biblical doctrine is crucial. It helps preserve the honor of Christ, promote the good of the church, and spread the gospel.
2. Not all doctrines are of equal weight in saving the soul or shaping Christlike holiness and love.
3. Doctrinal unity in the teaching authority (the elders) of the local church is more crucial and more realistic than doctrinal unity among the newest members and most recent or immature converts.
4. Different convictions about the proper mode of baptizing believers (sprinkling, pouring, immersing), and different backgrounds with respect to the mode of baptism a person has experienced, are not weighty or central enough matters to exclude a person from membership in the local church if he meets all other relevant qualifications and is persuaded from Bible study and clear conscience that his baptism is valid. Baptismal regeneration is so serious an error that it calls salvation by faith into question and is not an acceptable understanding or practice of baptism.
5. The office or denominational affiliation of the Christian person who has performed someone’s baptism is not a weighty or central enough matter to exclude a person from membership in the local church if he meets all other relevant qualifications and is persuaded from Bible study and clear conscience that his baptism is valid.
6. Infant baptism is not explicitly commanded or clearly taught in the New Testament; but believer’s baptism is uniformly practiced with nothing explicitly said concerning the baptism of infants born to believing families.
7. The Biblical case for infant baptism of children belonging to believing parents has some measure of plausibility, if this baptism is treated not as an instrument or evidence of an infant’s regeneration, but as an expression of hope that in a Christian family the child will be the beneficiary of the means of saving grace by word and prayer and all forms of Christian nurture.
8. However, the Biblical case for infant baptism is not the most compelling position, in view of Thesis #6 above, and in view of the apparent intention of God that the newness of the new covenant, and its hoped-for regenerate community, be signified by a new ordinance (baptism rather than circumcision) (1) that includes both men and women; (2) that occurs at a new point in life, namely, at new birth (which is evidenced by personal faith), not at natural birth (which evidences descent from covenant parents); and (3) that always in the New Testament signifies the reasonable belief that regeneration has already occurred, not the hope of a child’s future regeneration.
9. Yet, since the best defense of infant baptism admits that circumcision was no sure sign of belonging to the believing remnant of true Israel, but rather was a sign of hope that a child would prove to be a "child of promise" and not just a "child of the flesh," the alleged continuity between old covenant infant circumcision and new covenant infant baptism need not contradict the essence of the newness of the new covenant, since no claim is made that either the old sign of the covenant (circumcision) or the new sign of the covenant (baptism) secured the saving blessing. In other words the importance of voluntary membership in the regenerate people of God is not at issue between Baptists and the best defenders of the Reformed view of infant baptism. What is at issue is whether membership in the visible New Covenant Community should include infants who do not profess faith which is the outward mark of the New Covenant Community. (For a fuller treatment of this issue see John Piper’s “Infant Baptism and the New Covenant Community,” dated 2-14-93.)
10. Therefore, where the belief in the Biblical validity of infant baptism does not involve baptismal regeneration or the guarantee of saving grace, this belief is not viewed by the elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church as a weighty or central enough departure from Biblical teaching to exclude a person from membership, if he meets all other relevant qualifications and is persuaded from Bible study and a clear conscience that his baptism is valid. In such a case we would not require baptism by immersion as a believer for membership but would teach and pray toward a change of mind that would lead such members eventually to such a baptism.
11. It is fitting that the teaching authority of the church (the Council of Elders) be unified in its conviction concerning the proper administration of baptism, believing in and practicing what appears most clearly to be the practice and conviction of the early church, namely, believer’s baptism by immersion.
12. Bethlehem Baptist Church may support and form partnerships with Christians and Christian ministries which fall within #10 above and which are qualified morally and doctrinally in all other relevant matters.

I think that I agree with this (I'm still not persuaded that covenant theology necessarily leads to infant baptism), but I would have to do significantly more studying and thinking before I can come to a definitive answer.

Any thoughts on this from our infant baptist friends?

Labels: Baptism, Theology

Posted by Jacob at 8:56 AM | Permalink | Comments

John Piper's church, Bethlehem Baptist, has lowered its requirements for church membership (while simultaneously raising the bar doctrinally for elders). Hopefully this will lead (in its own small way) to greater unity among Christians who may disagree with one another on less than essential points of doctrine (e.g. baptism). From desiringgod.org:

After more than three years of study and prayer and discussion of this issue, the Council of Elders believes that membership requirements at Bethlehem should move toward being roughly the same as the requirements for membership in the universal body of Christ. That is, we have come to the conclusion that it is seriously questionable to say to a person who gives good evidence of being a true Christian and who wants to join Bethlehem: you may not join.

This conclusion raises problems of consistency for our present Constitution and By-Laws and our present church Affirmation of Faith and Church Covenant. These documents hold up some less than essential beliefs that must be affirmed in order to be a member at Bethlehem. Thus the door to membership at Bethlehem at the present time is significantly narrower than the door to membership in the universal body of Christ. The elders believe this should be changed because of how serious it is to exclude in principle any truly born-again lover of Christ from membership in the local church.

The most obvious change this involves is allowing the possibility that a person may become a member who has not been baptized by immersion as a believer but who regards the baptismal ritual he received in infancy not as regenerating, but nevertheless (as with most Presbyterians) in such a way that it would violate his conscience to be baptized as a believer. The elders are proposing that under certain conditions such persons be admitted to full membership.

Read the rest of the article.

Labels: Baptism, Theology

Posted by andrew at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Comments