# Mikveh/Tevilah--Proof for Credobaptism?



## Kiffin (Apr 22, 2010)

Tevilah was a ritual washing (done by immersion) for Gentiles after converting into Judaism. Should the mikveh/tevilah inform our view on Christian baptism? I'm not too concerned on "mode" but really interested in the fact that it was done after "conversion."


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 22, 2010)

No, I don't think it should. There are too many discontinuous features for one thing. But mainly, it's not scriptural. Our doctrine cannot be built upon Jewish extra-biblical traditions.


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2010)

EJ,

I just covered this topic this past Lord's Day. I concur with Clark. Jewish ceremonial washings don't support either the credo or paedo position. They shed some historical context on why the Baptist may have chosen to baptize with water for repentance, but I see no significance beyond that.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Apr 22, 2010)

The paedo position is based on the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. Whereas circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant people in the old dispensation baptism has now replaced it as the sign and seal of the covenant people in the new one. (Col. 2:11)

Now as for mode, I think a reasonable case can only be made for full immersion if one holds that baptism is merely a symbol of "my" faith as opposed to the paedo position of it affirming God's work in the covenant community.


----------



## louis_jp (Apr 22, 2010)

Just curious -- not that it proves anything, but if a gentile was converted, were his children and whole household washed also?


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 22, 2010)

louis_jp said:


> Just curious -- not that it proves anything, but if a gentile was converted, were his children and whole household washed also?


 
Who knows? Male children would have been circumcised, though. 

ps - please fix your signature according to the rules of the board. (see my sig for details)


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 22, 2010)

With regard to "mode," a simple appeal to the world "immersion" does not prove much, since the word may have very likely taken on different connotations in our day than it did 2000+ years ago. For example, see Warfield's article on "The archaeology of the Mode of Baptism."


----------



## Kevin (Apr 22, 2010)

I have no trouble with the idea that pagan practices are the source of much that happens inside the church today. And i am not limiting that to baptists. But if you think that a pagan practice of immersion, overturns what the bible teaches on baptism, no it does not.


----------



## Kiffin (Apr 22, 2010)

Thanks for the responses brethren.


> But if you think that a pagan practice of immersion, overturns what the bible teaches on baptism, no it does not.


I believe that a cultural practice is "pagan" if it intends to communicate a pagan truth. So in the case of communicating a "conversion to Judaism," then definitely I would deem it pagan. But if it communicated a christian _credo_, I would argue otherwise.

For example, the idea of sacrificial offerings isn't exclusively "Judeo-christian." It was practiced by everyone. But obviously surrounding pagans communicated something different than OT saints when they sacrificed. Regardless of pagan use, God still used this "ritual" to teach his people. He spoke through the culture...

Isn't it possible that the Holy Spirit could have used the practice of _tevillah_ to communicate a Christian truth?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 22, 2010)

I think if one is already inclined to an immersionist view of baptism, then such practices might be attractive connections. If not, it will be seen as a "reach". I would think, however, that to rely on sources outside Scripture is generally unwise, other than to propose the pre-existence of some idea before its appropriation. And, assuming they were related, how does one go about explaining all the "discontinuities" between the practices? For example, the nudity?


----------



## Kiffin (Apr 22, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> And, assuming they were related, how does one go about explaining all the "discontinuities" between the practices? For example, the nudity?



Who says that baptismal nudity is discontinued?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 23, 2010)

EJ,
1) I really, really don't want to go there... 

2) When the ECF's were dragging all kinds of elaborations into the simple Christian rites (to compete with the mystery religions), they were among the first to make a connection (and difference) between their _Christian elaborations_ and _Jewish elaborations_. And they did the nudity thing.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 23, 2010)

Of course, Gentiles who came to faith would be washed as "credos" because they were coming into the faith as adults. The same happens in paedo churches when someone who is born outside of the covenant community (as the Gentiles would have been) comes to faith later in life...they are baptized as "credos" as well.


----------



## Kiffin (Apr 23, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> EJ,
> 1) I really, really don't want to go there...
> 
> 2) When the ECF's were dragging all kinds of elaborations into the simple Christian rites (to compete with the mystery religions), they were among the first to make a connection (and difference) between their _Christian elaborations_ and _Jewish elaborations_. And they did the nudity thing.


 
haha

do you have a title I could read into about the fathers and syncretism?

---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------




larryjf said:


> Of course, Gentiles who came to faith would be washed as "credos" because they were coming into the faith as adults. The same happens in paedo churches when someone who is born outside of the covenant community (as the Gentiles would have been) comes to faith later in life...they are baptized as "credos" as well.



wait, are you saying there is a connection?

I know there are credos in paedo communites. But the inquiry was whether or not _tevilah_ was related to NT baptism. If it was, then it would be an argument for a credo-only view. But on this thread, both Baptist and paedos disagree that it does...


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 23, 2010)

Frankly, I think that arguments against immersion as a mode (if not the mode) in the early church are a waste of time. Just finishing Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants, I was struck by how readily he concedes immersion before arguing a strong case for paedo-baptism. Similarly, Calvin wasted no time arguing against immersion when he discussed baptism and strongly supported infant baptism. 

Whether one is paedo or credo, the mode of baptism is decidedly secondary.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 23, 2010)

Male Gentile children were circumcised when their family was engrafted into the Covenant Tree on the basis of the faith of their father and/or mother(?) The twigs/twiglets were included with the branch so that they might also drink of the sap of the tree with the branch.

What happens/should happen when families are engrafted into the Covenant Tree today on the basis of their father's and/or mother's faith?

*Quote from Dennis*


> Whether one is paedo or credo, the mode of baptism is decidedly secondary.



And maybe it's even more important, respecting the question of the subjects of baptism, to explain the meaning of baptism to your covenant children whether you're paedo or credo than just have them baptised as infants and then forget about it (?)

How can they "improve" baptism so well as they might, in their younger years under the guidance of the common and saving operations of the Holy Spirit - whether they were saved in the womb, before their infant baptism, at the time of their baptism, afterwards, or are yet to close in with Christ by faith in their adolescence or later - if the subject of baptism is never brought before them between the time that they are water baptised as relatively unconscious babes, and the time that they are baptised with the Spirit at regeneration, and after?

Would a little Jewish boy not just think that all boys were made like that if circumcision was not explained to him? The Sacrament should be accompanied by the Word for the unconverted or converted child growing up who was the subject of it - or wasn't the subject of it for that matter!

I feel the necessity of "improvement of baptism" and how that is to be done with young children of paedos or credos may sometimes be more important than whether we are paedo or credo itself.


----------

