[A-Scholten]

This is the fourth posting in the open dialogue covering arguments contained in the recent book Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ.

Based on the responses received to the third post, that Baptist argument has fallen. You can go back to see if you agree! How will this next one fare? Note: an opportunity for thumbs-up/thumbs-down feedback has been added at the end of each post on the internet.

The following statements are a highly abbreviated version of the posting on the internet. To view this posting in its complete form click on:

http://dialogos-studies.com/Dialogos...nt_baptism.htm

Follow the Quick Link to the pages on this dialogue.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4.1.2.5 The Promise of the Land Confines the Abrahamic Covenant to the Old Testament.
BAPTIST STATEMENT

Genesis 17 documents God's promise to Abraham to be a God to him and his descendents. It also contains the promise of the land.

7And 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. 8And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.

The following quote from Reisinger in Abraham’s Four Seeds spells out his view of the implication of the promise concerning the land for his understanding that the Abrahamic cove-nant was limited to the Old Testament:

It is exegetically impossible to separate the ‘land promise,’ the ‘everlasting covenant,’ and the promise to ‘be your God’ in these two verses of Scripture. The ‘seeds’ in verse 7 and in verse 8 must be the same people. God promises to give the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession to the very same people to whom he promises that he will be their God and they would be his people. We cannot pick and choose whatever suits our theo-logical fancy, nor can we spiritualize part of this verse and naturalize the rest without clear NT Scripture evidence proving that is how the Apostles understood it. Covenant theology uses verse seven as a key proof text in an attempt to prove that their physical children are still included in "God's covenant (of grace) with Abraham." However, they will ignore the fact that verse eight is speaking to the same identical people and promising them a physical land of Palestine as an everlasting possession. (Pages 86-87.)

PAEDO-BAPTIST RESPONSE
Reisinger’s second seed is defined too narrowly; it does not meet the Scriptural givens.
In defining the break between the Old and New Testament Reisinger claims that “every single everlasting thing mentioned under the Old Covenant” was ended at the rending of the veil. Let’s consider another OT example in order to shed light on this one. Is it possible for the world to be covered by a global flood again? I believe most Christians would answer that in the negative. Yet, if one takes Reisinger’s stance, then “every single everlasting thing mentioned under the Old Covenant” is done away withincluding God’s covenant with Noah when He promised to never again cause a world-wide flood. In a similar fashion, the fact that the rending of the veil ended the Mosaic covenant and the Lawdoes not necessarily constitute the end of the Abrahamic covenant as well.
Acts 3 teaches us that there were in fact Jews alive after the rending of the veil who were still members of the covenant of Abraham. This is sufficient biblical evidence to support covenant theology’s practice of infant baptism.
To view this posting in its complete form click on:

http://dialogos-studies.com/Dialogos...nt_baptism.htm

Al

[bling]

Originally Posted by A-Scholten

This is the fourth posting in the open dialogue covering arguments contained in the recent book Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ.

Based on the responses received to the third post, that Baptist argument has fallen. You can go back to see if you agree! How will this next one fare? Note: an opportunity for thumbs-up/thumbs-down feedback has been added at the end of each post on the internet.

The following statements are a highly abbreviated version of the posting on the internet. To view this posting in its complete form click on:

http://dialogos-studies.com/Dialogos...nt_baptism.htm

Follow the Quick Link to the pages on this dialogue.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
4.1.2.5 The Promise of the Land Confines the Abrahamic Covenant to the Old Testament.
BAPTIST STATEMENT

Genesis 17 documents God's promise to Abraham to be a God to him and his descendents. It also contains the promise of the land.

7And 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. 8And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.

The following quote from Reisinger in Abraham’s Four Seeds spells out his view of the implication of the promise concerning the land for his understanding that the Abrahamic cove-nant was limited to the Old Testament:

It is exegetically impossible to separate the ‘land promise,’ the ‘everlasting covenant,’ and the promise to ‘be your God’ in these two verses of Scripture. The ‘seeds’ in verse 7 and in verse 8 must be the same people. God promises to give the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession to the very same people to whom he promises that he will be their God and they would be his people. We cannot pick and choose whatever suits our theo-logical fancy, nor can we spiritualize part of this verse and naturalize the rest without clear NT Scripture evidence proving that is how the Apostles understood it. Covenant theology uses verse seven as a key proof text in an attempt to prove that their physical children are still included in "God's covenant (of grace) with Abraham." However, they will ignore the fact that verse eight is speaking to the same identical people and promising them a physical land of Palestine as an everlasting possession. (Pages 86-87.)

PAEDO-BAPTIST RESPONSE
Reisinger’s second seed is defined too narrowly; it does not meet the Scriptural givens.
In defining the break between the Old and New Testament Reisinger claims that “every single everlasting thing mentioned under the Old Covenant” was ended at the rending of the veil. Let’s consider another OT example in order to shed light on this one. Is it possible for the world to be covered by a global flood again? I believe most Christians would answer that in the negative. Yet, if one takes Reisinger’s stance, then “every single everlasting thing mentioned under the Old Covenant” is done away withincluding God’s covenant with Noah when He promised to never again cause a world-wide flood. In a similar fashion, the fact that the rending of the veil ended the Mosaic covenant and the Lawdoes not necessarily constitute the end of the Abrahamic covenant as well.
Acts 3 teaches us that there were in fact Jews alive after the rending of the veil who were still members of the covenant of Abraham. This is sufficient biblical evidence to support covenant theology’s practice of infant baptism.
To view this posting in its complete form click on:

http://dialogos-studies.com/Dialogos...nt_baptism.htm

Al

What is “Christian Baptism” (CB)?
Which is it of the four alternatives: Sprinkling Infant baptism for salvation from original sin (OSB), sprinkling infant baptism for membership in Abraham’s Covenant (ACB), adult believer immersion baptism (ABB), and Holy Spirit spiritual baptism (HSB).
The Bible gives us examples of Christian baptism and analogies to Christian baptism, but it does not say it directly replaces anything:
Analogy with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection: The sins taken on with by Christ are destroyed in his death and are buried. The resurrection is a new life. This is an analogy for (ABB), some of (OSB), none of (ACB), and none of (HSB).
Analogy of the children of Israel going through the Red Sea: Israel is leaving the slavery of their old life going down into the sea, to walk out on the other side into a new life of true freedom. This is analogous to (ABB), some of (OSB), none of (ACB) and none of (HSB).
Analogy of Noah and the flood: The flood wipes out a huge amount of a sinful world, everyone was invited but it was only those that choose to inter the Ark, Noah walks out into a new pure innocent world. This is analogous to (ABB), some of (OSB), none of (ACB) and none of (HSB).
Analogy of circumcision: The circumcision is a visual daily reminder to every Jewish boy that he is part to the Abraham Covenant, it is cutting off of dirty flesh, it is a sign of membership, and it can be done by the parents to their children. This is analogous to all the different baptisms with about the same strength.
Known New Testament examples of Christian Water Baptism: Those being baptized are believing adults, all could have been immersed and some were most likely immersed, it was a response of the person being baptized: these only fit (ABB) adult believer baptism.

[A-Scholten]

Bling, would love to have you submit material for the papers on baptism. With your knowledge of the topic I think you'd be great for that. Can I count you in?!!!

Al

[A-Scholten]

Originally Posted by bling

What is “Christian Baptism” (CB)?
Which is it of the four alternatives: Sprinkling Infant baptism for salvation from original sin (OSB), sprinkling infant baptism for membership in Abraham’s Covenant (ACB), adult believer immersion baptism (ABB), and Holy Spirit spiritual baptism (HSB).
The Bible gives us examples of Christian baptism and analogies to Christian baptism, but it does not say it directly replaces anything:
Analogy with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection: The sins taken on with by Christ are destroyed in his death and are buried. The resurrection is a new life. This is an analogy for (ABB), some of (OSB), none of (ACB), and none of (HSB).
Analogy of the children of Israel going through the Red Sea: Israel is leaving the slavery of their old life going down into the sea, to walk out on the other side into a new life of true freedom. This is analogous to (ABB), some of (OSB), none of (ACB) and none of (HSB).
Analogy of Noah and the flood: The flood wipes out a huge amount of a sinful world, everyone was invited but it was only those that choose to inter the Ark, Noah walks out into a new pure innocent world. This is analogous to (ABB), some of (OSB), none of (ACB) and none of (HSB).
Analogy of circumcision: The circumcision is a visual daily reminder to every Jewish boy that he is part to the Abraham Covenant, it is cutting off of dirty flesh, it is a sign of membership, and it can be done by the parents to their children. This is analogous to all the different baptisms with about the same strength.
Known New Testament examples of Christian Water Baptism: Those being baptized are believing adults, all could have been immersed and some were most likely immersed, it was a response of the person being baptized: these only fit (ABB) adult believer baptism.

Bling, you provide the above analogies in response to the post above it. I believe it is correct for me to conclude as a result from this that it is your understanding that the analogies are stronger or clearer Biblical evidence against infant baptism than the original post is for it.

The analogies are rather general in nature. The disagreements between Baptists and paedo-baptists are quite long-standing. In order to make progress in those discussions it is my belief that it will be necessary to deal with specifics. For example, one of the main aspects that has to be figured in is the fact that the discussions are not between two mutually exclusive options: believer's baptism and infant baptism. Paedo-baptists also believe in adult or believer's baptism. Therefore, for Baptists to make progress in the dialogues it will be necessary for them to show that infant baptism is wrong, unscriptural. One way to do that would be to show that the Abrahamic covenant ended at that cross. This is the approach that Wellum and Reisinger strive to take. I think it would be quite difficult to establish through an analogy of Christ's death burial and resurrection that infant baptism is not biblical.

I have read these posts through several times thinking about what the best response would be. If I am missing something here, please bring it to my attention.

Thanks!

Al

[bling]

Originally Posted by A-Scholten

Bling, you provide the above analogies in response to the post above it. I believe it is correct for me to conclude as a result from this that it is your understanding that the analogies are stronger or clearer Biblical evidence against infant baptism than the original post is for it.

The analogies are rather general in nature. The disagreements between Baptists and paedo-baptists are quite long-standing. In order to make progress in those discussions it is my belief that it will be necessary to deal with specifics. For example, one of the main aspects that has to be figured in is the fact that the discussions are not between two mutually exclusive options: believer's baptism and infant baptism. Paedo-baptists also believe in adult or believer's baptism. Therefore, for Baptists to make progress in the dialogues it will be necessary for them to show that infant baptism is wrong, unscriptural. One way to do that would be to show that the Abrahamic covenant ended at that cross. This is the approach that Wellum and Reisinger strive to take. I think it would be quite difficult to establish through an analogy of Christ's death burial and resurrection that infant baptism is not biblical.

I have read these posts through several times thinking about what the best response would be. If I am missing something here, please bring it to my attention.

Thanks!

Al

You say: “Paedo-baptists also believe in adult or believer's baptism.” Not really, from my experience. Paedo-baptists do not “practice” adult believer’s baptism, but most would “allow” it (even if they do not have a baptistery for immersion). If they do “believe” in adult believer baptism how do they teach it? Do they teach it only to adults that have not been baptized as infants? Would they tell a parent that had their child “baptized” for salvation from the original sin they needed to be re-baptized?
One of the best lessons I ever heard on baptism was done by an old Catholic priest. He had immersed over half the adults in his congregation.
The problem I see is taking “one” analogy (baptism being like circumcision) used by the writers of scripture to help us understand Christian Baptism and making that symbolic analogy into teaching baptism replaces circumcision. Analogies are to help us understand and define the concept. Covenant Baptism does not fit the definition of Christian baptism as defined by all the analogies and examples we have in the New Testament. If you are saying: “Part of Christian baptism is becoming a member of the Abraham Covenant, than you are deemphasizing the more important aspects of Christian baptism to the point few will practice adult believer baptism, when they are older because they believe they were baptized as baby.”
Look, there is very little discussion in the New Testament about the Abraham Covenant so it is going to be very difficult for us to draw conclusions about its demise. But if Christian Baptism was replace circumcision and was to make the person a party to the Abraham Covenant, it is not being taught even though there are lots of examples and teachings on Christian Baptism.
Paul in Acts 19: 1-7 … 3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[b] the name of the Lord Jesus.
Paul is contrasting Christian Baptism that included the indwelling Holy Spirit with John’s baptism. It was not either/or, but Christian baptism replaced and did away with John’s baptism. Paul does not mention anything about the Abraham Covenant and, I think we would agree, John’s baptism did not replace circumcision.
Why did Paul Christian baptized these 12 men, after they had been baptized with John’s baptism?

[A-Scholten]

Originally Posted by bling

You say: “Paedo-baptists also believe in adult or believer's baptism.” Not really, from my experience. Paedo-baptists do not “practice” adult believer’s baptism, but most would “allow” it (even if they do not have a baptistery for immersion). If they do “believe” in adult believer baptism how do they teach it? Do they teach it only to adults that have not been baptized as infants? Would they tell a parent that had their child “baptized” for salvation from the original sin they needed to be re-baptized?

Have been swamped lately - getting caught up here again. Yes, in the Reformed understanding if a person has been baptized as an infant they do not need (and should not be) baptized again as an adult. What is behind this is the belief that it is primarily God's promises to us in baptism that are to be emphasized, not our promises to God. As a result of this, even though we do not believe that infants are baptized for the forgiveness of original sin, if a person was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic church, that baptism would be accepted in Reformed churches.

One of the best lessons I ever heard on baptism was done by an old Catholic priest. He had immersed over half the adults in his congregation.
The problem I see is taking “one” analogy (baptism being like circumcision) used by the writers of scripture to help us understand Christian Baptism and making that symbolic analogy into teaching baptism replaces circumcision. Analogies are to help us understand and define the concept.

Following this whole thought through, I think we are on dangerous ground using analogies to base theology on. Perhaps you and I are using the word in a different manner. I think we need to have specifics that are taught from Scripture to base our theologies on. My fear is that "analogies" can be interpreted differently by different people and it is quite difficult to pin down which one is right, or accurate and which one is "less accurate" or wrong.

Covenant Baptism does not fit the definition of Christian baptism as defined by all the analogies and examples we have in the New Testament.

Covenant baptism does not fit the Baptist definition of Christian baptism. But, that is the heart of all these discussions. Is the Baptist definition the best definition according to Scripture?

If you are saying: “Part of Christian baptism is becoming a member of the Abraham Covenant, than you are deemphasizing the more important aspects of Christian baptism to the point few will practice adult believer baptism, when they are older because they believe they were baptized as baby.”

I think what you are referring to as the heart of believer's baptism when you say it is deemphasized is one confessing Christ as Lord. That clearly is in so many ways the central focus of the Gospel. In the Reformed churches that is emphasized in the Profession of Faith that people make when they reach the age of accountability. So that key aspect, all things considered, is not lost, it is not deemphasized.

Look, there is very little discussion in the New Testament about the Abraham Covenant so it is going to be very difficult for us to draw conclusions about its demise. But if Christian Baptism was replace circumcision and was to make the person a party to the Abraham Covenant, it is not being taught even though there are lots of examples and teachings on Christian Baptism.

When you say baptism replacing circumcision is not taught in Scripture you are stating as fact the very point that is being debated. I'll be fairly direct here - it doesn't work to merely state it; it needs to be proven. That is the whole thing that is being focussed on here. In a similar manner, are examples sufficient to finalize the matter? There are no explicit examples of women taking communion - is that a problem?

In the book Believer's Baptism as an example, the authors take the approach of linking the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant and concluding then, that the Abrahamic covenant ended at the cross as well. I think that is incorrect. But that is the kind of thing that needs to be examined in order to come to an ultimate resolution on the matter of is baptism today the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. Related to this, that book takes the stand that baptism is the sign of the new covenant (Jer. 31). I find nothing in Scripture that states that or even teaches it indirecly. I believe the authors of that book are very vulnerable at that point.

Paul in Acts 19: 1-7 … 3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into[b] the name of the Lord Jesus.
Paul is contrasting Christian Baptism that included the indwelling Holy Spirit with John’s baptism. It was not either/or, but Christian baptism replaced and did away with John’s baptism. Paul does not mention anything about the Abraham Covenant and, I think we would agree, John’s baptism did not replace circumcision.
Why did Paul Christian baptized these 12 men, after they had been baptized with John’s baptism?

The matter of John's baptism and its relation to other New Testament baptism is a good question. The early days of the church were for sure a time of transition. To my knowledge it is difficult to say for sure just what John's baptism was and precisely how it related to later baptisms. I do not know of particular conclusions that can be drawn from John's baptisms. Perhaps that reveals a limitation of my understanding. At any rate, I'm willing to pursue it further.

To sum this up, as far as I can see, I think it is questionable to use analogies to arrive at a final understanding of baptism. But I strongly believe progress can be made by working on the particulars of the Abrahamic covenant - either to prove or to disprove baptism as the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. This in turn would either establish or undo the practice of infant baptism.

Al

[bling]

Al said:
Have been swamped lately - getting caught up here again. Yes, in the Reformed understanding if a person has been baptized as an infant they do not need (and should not be) baptized again as an adult. What is behind this is the belief that it is primarily God's promises to us in baptism that are to be emphasized, not our promises to God. As a result of this, even though we do not believe that infants are baptized for the forgiveness of original sin, if a person was baptized as an infant in the Roman Catholic church, that baptism would be accepted in Reformed churches.

I see you contradicting yourself here by saying: “Paedo-baptists also believe in adult or believer's baptism.” And turning around and saying: “… it is primarily God's promises to us in baptism that are to be emphasized, not our promises to God.” We both agree that Baptism is not a “salvation issue”, so it is not “required”, but is it needed and maybe even necessary for our Spiritual growth. Adult believer immersion baptism is much more than just a sign of a person’s commitment. It incorporates all that should be going on “spiritually” during our conversion in a physical act. It is the burial of our old life, the washing away of our sins, the placing of ourselves into hands of another, rising out of the grave, the walking out into a new world and life, the hugs and kisses of our new family, our first real witness (an excellent witness for those that can relate it to Christ), and it is an act of humility that gives us personal assurance that we have humble excepted God’s charity. Why would you and others not want that experience and why would withhold this from others by saying: they (Should not be) if they were baptized as infants?
(Paul re-baptized those baptized with John’s baptism, for the reason John’s Baptism did not include the indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit Acts 19: 1-7). Where does infant baptism address the receiving of the indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit?

Al said:
Following this whole thought through, I think we are on dangerous ground using analogies to base theology on. Perhaps you and I are using the word in a different manner. I think we need to have specifics that are taught from Scripture to base our theologies on. My fear is that "analogies" can be interpreted differently by different people and it is quite difficult to pin down which one is right, or accurate and which one is "less accurate" or wrong.

Christian baptism is not exactly like any of the “analogies” used to describe it including: circumcision, going through the Red Sea, Noah and the Ark, being born again, and Christ going to the grave/rising. But whatever the true definition of Christian Baptism; it must be consistent with all the analogies used and all the examples that are given.
How does “Covenant” infant baptism fit the “analogies” given in scripture for: the flood baptizing the earth, the Jews being baptized into the Red Sea/cloud and coming out on the other side, Christ going into the tome, and a second birth? How does “Covenant” baptism fit the words given at the baptism examples we have in scripture?

Al said:
I think what you are referring to as the heart of believer's baptism when you say it is deemphasized is one confessing Christ as Lord. That clearly is in so many ways the central focus of the Gospel. In the Reformed churches that is emphasized in the Profession of Faith that people make when they reach the age of accountability. So that key aspect, all things considered, is not lost, it is not deemphasized.

Hearing, believing, repenting and confessing are all mature adult acts combined with baptism in the New Testament, so why separate these acts for no apparent reason, other than saying, “we were not told they could not be separated”?

Al said:
In the book Believer's Baptism as an example, the authors take the approach of linking the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic covenant and concluding then, that the Abrahamic covenant ended at the cross as well. I think that is incorrect. But that is the kind of thing that needs to be examined in order to come to an ultimate resolution on the matter of is baptism today the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. Related to this, that book takes the stand that baptism is the sign of the new covenant (Jer. 31). I find nothing in Scripture that states that or even teaches it indirecly. I believe the authors of that book are very vulnerable at that point.

I see no need to go into a long discussion of: “Could baptism be a replacement for circumcision and we are all still heirs to the Abraham Covenant that was not nailed to the cross.” The Bible does not say: “Christian baptism is not the sign of being heir to the Abraham Covenant.” So that leaves it as a possibility. What we need to determine is: “What is the most likely definition for Christian Baptism.” That means: using the mind God has given us, praying about it, studying all the scripture that applies (not just picking and choosing one), discussing it openly with sincere Christians, and putting are prejudices aside. I think like other interpretations of scripture we can look at: “How does this interpretation affect my spiritual growth.” I see God doing everything possible to help willing individuals fulfill their objective and He does not require stuff arbitrarily. With that assumption I see a lot of logic behind circumcision and believer baptism, but no real logical reason behind infant baptism. I would like to see: why we went from circumcision (that worked wonderfully) to infant baptism?

Al said:
The matter of John's baptism and its relation to other New Testament baptism is a good question. The early days of the church were for sure a time of transition. To my knowledge it is difficult to say for sure just what John's baptism was and precisely how it related to later baptisms. I do not know of particular conclusions that can be drawn from John's baptisms. Perhaps that reveals a limitation of my understanding. At any rate, I'm willing to pursue it further.

Paul tells us “…John's baptism was a baptism of repentance.” John was preparing the way for Christ (and really the Kingdom that would include the Church and the indwelling Holy Spirit, which rolled out with Pentecost). The people that came to John’s baptism were Jews that had failed (everyone failed) in obedience of the Law. They had come to the conclusion: they were big time sinners and could not be saved by the Law. They were in need of another better way to be pleasing to God and forgiven since they could not keep from sinning. These Jews went from a commitment to the Law for their salvation to a commitment to a Loving and forgiving God that would be pleased with their repentance, seeking God’s forgiveness, and future actions out of Love for God. John’s baptism was a sign of starting a new life, a personal commitment to a new relationship with God. It was not tied to Christ’s death, burial and resurrection and did not include the indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit.