# Baptism Question(s) Repository



## blhowes (Feb 17, 2007)

Well, I've decided to try again to come to grips with what I believe about baptism. My approach is to first look at all the verses that talk about baptism in the NT, see what they collectively say, and see if there are enough unanswered questions (in my mind) that compel me to look to the OT for answers. Hopefully at the end of the study I'll either be a stronger baptist...or a converted paedo. 

I'd like to ask help as I go along, so I've opened up this thread so I can ask questions as they arise. Some of the questions probably won't have any relevance to the main study I'm doing, but I'll ask the questions anyway and later decide their irrelevance.

Anyway, I've collected all the verses and am arranging them into categories now. I have a couple questions right up front that I'm curious about.

*1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? *

1) What is Paul talking about here, baptized for the dead?

*Mat 3:1,5,6 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,...Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.*

2) Any idea who coined the title "John the Baptist"? 

3) Multitudes went to John and were baptized. When they heard the call to repent, confess their sins, and be baptized, is this a practice (baptism) they were familiar with, based on their understanding of the OT (as opposed to being familiar with it because it was the tradition/practice of the Essenes (or whoever))?


----------



## Davidius (Feb 17, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Well, I've decided to try again to come to grips with what I believe about baptism. My approach is to first look at all the verses that talk about baptism in the NT, see what they collectively say, and see if there are enough unanswered questions (in my mind) that compel me to look to the OT for answers. Hopefully at the end of the study I'll either be a stronger baptist...or a converted paedo.



The correct order would be to start in the Old Testament and then move to the New. Beginning in the NT with anything is like walking into a movie halfway through and thinking you'll be able to fully understand what's going on. 

You touched on the importance of this a little bit when you mentioned John's baptism, which is not the same as Christian baptism. It was an Old Covenant ordinance being performed by the last Old Covenant prophet. Hebrews 9 mentions "various washings (baptisms)" which were part of the Old Covenant.


----------



## blhowes (Feb 17, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> The correct order would be to start in the Old Testament and then move to the New. Beginning in the NT with anything is like walking into a movie halfway through and thinking you'll be able to fully understand what's going on.


 Funny you should say that, as I almost made mention of that in the original post, that some might think it an incorrect approach. Your movie analogy is good, though hearing both sides of the issue on the PB for the last few years is kind of like walking into a movie halfway after having read several movie reviews by Hollywood's most respected movie critics - you pretty much know the plot and have a good idea of the context when you walk in with your popcorn, with extra butter, and soda.

I think it'll be a good study since its my intention to just use my findings from the NT as a starting point. I already know before I start that, when I get to household baptisms, I'll be drawn to the OT, as I will when I study the baptism verses that make mention of Moses and Noah. 

Since I've been taught as a baptist pretty much since I was saved, and accepted the teachings as 'Biblical' (and they may very well be Biblical) without questioning them, I'd like to take a closer look at what I've been taught first to see if I come to the same conclusions. Put all the scriptures (NT) on the table and examine them, while trying as best as I can to be impartial. 



CarolinaCalvinist said:


> You touched on the importance of this a little bit when you mentioned John's baptism, which is not the same as Christian baptism. It was an Old Covenant ordinance being performed by the last Old Covenant prophet. Hebrews 9 mentions "various washings (baptisms)" which were part of the Old Covenant.


Do you know which passages in the OT describe these various washings?


----------



## Davidius (Feb 17, 2007)

> Do you know which passages in the OT describe these various washings?



Unfortunately I do not know exactly what all the "washings" are to which the author to the Hebrews was referring, but here are a few things I came across when I googled "Old Testament Baptisms." Some of it is just talking about what you've already mentioned, the references to being baptized into Moses and the baptism of Noah's family. But I believe there are also a few things said about ceremonial washings.

http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-ot.htm
http://www.therevelation.com/baptismot.htm

I don't necessarily endorse any of those sites, just thought I'd pass them along. Hopefully some more knowledgeable members of the board will be able to help out with this question a little more! Hello?? Where are you guys?

Also, I just wanted to add that studying Genesis 17 in light of Galatians 3 was very helpful for me as I was making my transition to Presbyterianism.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 17, 2007)

I suggest also starting in the OT. You can't understand baptism from the NT unless you know stuff like The creation of man, the fall, God's promises to His people throughout history, etc. (all of which are found in OT).


----------



## Davidius (Feb 17, 2007)

***EDIT***

See below.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 17, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> I suggest also starting in the OT. You can't understand baptism from the NT unless you know stuff like The creation of man, the fall, God's promises to His people throughout history, etc. (all of which are found in OT).



***EDIT***
Oops, somehow I added a second comment instead of just editing the first one. Disregard the one before this.
***EDIT***


Andrew is right. 

One of the main reasons why Credobaptists fail to administer the sacrament correctly is _because_ they only look at certain texts in the New Testament instead of tracing the idea of an initiatory sign into the visible Church throughout all of redemptive history. 

In other words, if the approach is the cause of the error then you're always going to end up at the same error if you keep the same approach. 

I understand your point about going back to the OT when you come across particular NT passages, but that's not quite the same as really laying a strong foundation by studying the roots of baptism, the meaning of circumcision as it relates to the sign and the thing signified and as it relates to the Covenant of Grace, God's covenanting with families, etc in the OT. Going back to the 10 Commandments when I see the Sabbath mentioned in the Gospels will help me a little bit, but in order to truly understand the Sabbath (and other things) I can't start in the New Testament. Why? Because it's assumed in the New Testament that you know what the Sabbath is. Similarly, it's understood in the New Testament that you realize God's dealings are with families, that the sign representing the spiritual benefits of the Covenant of Grace is not only applied to those who profess their own faith, etc.


----------



## blhowes (Feb 17, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> May I suggest you also start in the OT and move to the NT and look at every verse in the OT and NT about children?
> 
> Just type children, child, descendant, offspring, etc., into a Bible word search program, write down the references (hundreds), and proceed to look them all up.


Thanks, Paul, good suggestion. I'll do that.


----------



## blhowes (Feb 17, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Unfortunately I do not know exactly what all the "washings" are to which the author to the Hebrews was referring, but here are a few things I came across when I googled "Old Testament Baptisms." Some of it is just talking about what you've already mentioned, the references to being baptized into Moses and the baptism of Noah's family. But I believe there are also a few things said about ceremonial washings.
> 
> http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-ot.htm
> http://www.therevelation.com/baptismot.htm


Thanks for the links. I had read Joe's article a while ago about the NT reference to Noah. I look forward to reading the rest.


----------



## blhowes (Feb 17, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I understand your point about going back to the OT when you come across particular NT passages, but that's not quite the same as really laying a strong foundation by studying the roots of baptism, the meaning of circumcision as it relates to the sign and the thing signified and as it relates to the Covenant of Grace, God's covenanting with families, etc in the OT. Going back to the 10 Commandments when I see the Sabbath mentioned in the Gospels will help me a little bit, but in order to truly understand the Sabbath (and other things) I can't start in the New Testament. Why? Because it's assumed in the New Testament that you know what the Sabbath is. Similarly, it's understood in the New Testament that you realize God's dealings are with families, that the sign representing the spiritual benefits of the Covenant of Grace is not only applied to those who profess their own faith, etc.


I may modify my approach, though focusing on and examining what the NT says wouldn't hurt. At a brother's U2U recommendation, I've started listening to a series (a 23-sermon series, wow) about baptism that William Shishko did. I just finished the first one in which he spoke about the 2 approaches used to study the scriptures, one used by the reformed baptist and the other by the paedobaptist. Definitely food for thought, and I look forward to listening to more of what he has to say.


----------



## bob (Feb 17, 2007)

The washing referred to in the book of Hebrews most likely refer to the various washings and purification rites presribed under the law.

Ex 29:20,21, (a sprinkling of blood)
Nu 8:7 19:9-19
Ex 29:4 30:17-21
Le 14:4-9

In regard to John's baptism, there a couple of thoughts. Some (the majority of commentaries that I have available) suppose that it was an extension of a Jewish rite of purification for proselytes. The difficulty with this view is that there is really no written historical evidence (so far as I am aware), whether biblical, apocryphal, or Jewish. Perhaps this rite was given greater significance when the Temple was destoryed, considering that proselytes would not have been able to offer a sacrifice by way of purification.

Some view John as having been given this command directly from God. The difficulty with this view is that there is no mention of anyone questioning him, which seems odd if John was instituting something relatively unknown.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 17, 2007)

blhowes said:


> I may modify my approach, though focusing on and examining what the NT says wouldn't hurt. At a brother's U2U recommendation, I've started listening to a series (a 23-sermon series, wow) about baptism that William Shishko did. I just finished the first one in which he spoke about the 2 approaches used to study the scriptures, one used by the reformed baptist and the other by the paedobaptist. Definitely food for thought, and I look forward to listening to more of what he has to say.



Excellent! I, too, listened to that series when I was studying the issue of baptism. It's great.


----------



## Davidius (Feb 17, 2007)

bob said:


> The washing referred to in the book of Hebrews most likely refer to the various washings and purification rites presribed under the law.
> 
> Ex 29:20,21, (a sprinkling of blood)
> Nu 8:7 19:9-19
> ...



True, we may not know exactly what it was but I think the main point is that it wasn't Christian baptism.


----------



## blhowes (Feb 17, 2007)

Bob,
Thanks for the OT references. 



bob said:


> Some view John as having been given this command directly from God. The difficulty with this view is that there is no mention of anyone questioning him, which seems odd if John was instituting something relatively unknown.


That was my thought as well. The multitudes came to him and were baptized, yet not one question? The scribes and pharisees came as well without questioning the practice? Could be, but its hard to believe.


----------



## satz (Feb 17, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Also, I just wanted to add that studying Genesis 17 in light of Galatians 3 was very helpful for me as I was making my transition to Presbyterianism.



I would appreciate it if you could elaborate just a little on how these two chapters togeather lead you toward presbyterianism.

Thanks!


----------



## Davidius (Feb 17, 2007)

satz said:


> I would appreciate it if you could elaborate just a little on how these two chapters togeather lead you toward presbyterianism.
> 
> Thanks!



Okay!

To begin with, the way in which the first half of Genesis 17 is structured was very helpful for me in understanding the difference between the sign and the thing signified, and coupled with Romans 4 (which I'll mention a bit later) it shows that not _every one_ is required to have faith before receiving the sign of the Covenant of Grace. In the first eight verses, God makes a promise to Abraham, saying what he is going to do for him, including the fact that he is going to make this covenant with Abraham and his seed, with Christ being the seed according to Paul's interpretation of this in Galatians. Then, in verses 9 - 14, God said to Abraham that part of his responsibility was to put "the sign of the covenant" on all of the male members of his household. 

In verse, 18, Abraham asked God to make Ishmael the child of the promise, but God said it would not be so, rather that Isaac would be the child through whom the covenant would be continued. The point is that in verse 23 lots of people "born in [Abraham's] house" and "bought with his money," that is, every male in the household received the sign of the Covenant of Grace even though they did not have Abraham's faith. This was the repeated in other families during the Old Testament. We know from Romans 4 that circumcision is a sign of "the righteousness that Abraham had by faith." Therefore, all the males, even Ishael who Abraham knew would not be established in the covenant, received a sign of righteousness by faith that they didn't have. 

Other parts of Galatians 3 help wrap it up concerning paedobaptism. Christ is the other with whom God made the covenant. If we have faith then we are the sons of Abraham and we are blessed along with him (v. 7 - 9). Therefore, since we who have faith are partakers of the Abrahamic covenant, and since part of the Abrahamic covenant was the requirement for Abraham's household to receive the sign, so are we also required to place the sign on our children. The substance of the sign (regeneration, cleansing, "righteousness by faith") is the same; only its accidents have changed (circumcision to baptism). 

So I guess Romans 4 was also very important for me, since it shows what circumcision was a sign of. The sign is placed on those who have Abraham's faith and their progeny, as a sign of God's covenant, not because the progeny necessarily have what the sign signifies (or the one who professed faith for that matter, since we can't tell with 100% certainty whether they've been regenerated). 

I haven't been around discussing these things as long as many of my Presbyterian brothers here so forgive me if this is unclear or hard to follow. I hope it at least made sense.


----------



## satz (Feb 17, 2007)

Thanks, David.


----------



## blhowes (Feb 18, 2007)

More questions:

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

*Q1:*
Is the promise in Acts 2:39 the same promise as the one mentioned in Acts 2:33 - the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? 

*Q2:*
Regarding "and to your children" in Acts 2:39, Gill writes the following. 


> *and to your children:* this is the rather mentioned, because these awakened, and converted souls, were not only in great concern about themselves, for their sin of crucifying Christ, but were in great distress about their children, on whom they had imprecated the guilt of Christ's blood, as upon themselves; the thought of which cut them to the heart, and made their hearts bleed, within them: wherefore to relieve them, and administer comfort to them in this their distress, the apostle informs them, that the promise of Christ, and of his grace, was not only to them, who were now called, but it was also to their children; to as many of them as the Lord God should call; and who are the children of the promise, which all the children of the flesh were not, Rom_9:6 and to these the promise should be applied, notwithstanding this dreadful imprecation of theirs:



I'm not sure how common this view is, but I've also heard James White express this view in his debate with William Shishko. I don't know the reasons why White and Gill (and perhaps others) chose the connection with Matthew 27:25 instead of the OT passages, perhaps its closeness timewise makes it more in context than the OT passages.

In this case it could perhaps be either/or, or both. Generally, when you try and 'link' a passage with other passages outside of the immediate context, how do you choose which to go with? Does 'majority rule'?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 18, 2007)

blhowes said:


> More questions:
> 
> Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
> Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
> ...


If I had to take a wild guess, I imagine that Dr. White got this argument from Gill himself.

Let's consider this argument and see if it helps the credo-Baptist cause:

1. How precisely were the Jews afraid of this judgment actually being visited upon their children? Seems very _covenantal_ to me. The New Covenant cut that Covenant connection off between father and son. Would not this knowledge have been enough for them not to worry about such an oath. Perhaps their kids are still in the Old Covenant so that curse is "grandfathered" to the children? Is this how it still applies to them.

2. Perhaps the curse carries over into the New Covenant after all. Even though they're in the New Covenant, that oath still is on the heads of their children. How does the knowledge that they, the fathers, are in the New Covenant in Christ, make them feel better about their kids? Their kids still have to express personal faith. Their kids are not off the hook yet _because they are not in the Covenant with Dad_.

Help me out here, how does this make their "bleeding hearts" feel better about their kids if their kids are not in the New Covenant?


----------



## blhowes (Feb 18, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> If I had to take a wild guess, I imagine that Dr. White got this argument from Gill himself.
> 
> Let's consider this argument and see if it helps the credo-Baptist cause:
> 
> ...


Thanks Rich for giving me a little more to chew on.


----------

