# Another baptism debate



## josiahrussell

Not really.

But I'm just curious, how many of you came to the conclusion that your view of baptism is correct strictly from the bible without the influence of church history and tradition?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## earl40

I believe this is a good question. For myself I first changed to paedo after I realized I wished not to be a schematic, and second when I came to the dogmatic conclusion that there is a visible church (composed of wheat and tares) and an invisible church (composed of only wheat). The second scriptural conclusion lead me to hold dogmatically to including those The Lord loves in spite of ability to profess a faith they may posses.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

earl40 said:


> after I realized I wished not to be a schematic


For me it was venn diagrams.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 5


----------



## Gforce9

For me, it was a covenantal issue and not a "baptism" issue. My adult experience was pop-evangelicalism after a childhood of Rome. In evangelicalism, I was exposed to memorizing Scripture. The problem was that, by and large, pop-E has no systematic and one is memorizing little data bits, scattered throughout, with no context, with no meta-narrative....no over-arching story of redemption. Once that door was kicked open, it was only a matter of time...............

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Herald

For me it was scripture, books, plus the invaluable discussions on the PB; the latter having the most impact. I like to say that I finally knew I was a Baptist once I studied the matter thoroughly. Going up against Matthew Winzer, and getting my head handed to me, taught me the importance of doing my homework. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## KGP

Herald said:


> For me it was scripture, books, plus the invaluable discussions on the PB; the latter having the most impact. I like to say that I finally knew I was a Baptist once I studied the matter thoroughly. Going up against Matthew Winzer, and getting my head handed to me, taught me the importance of doing my homework.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



Out of curiosity, is that exchange still viewable here on PB?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Herald

KGP said:


> Out of curiosity, is that exchange still viewable here on PB?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It was more of a series of exchanges and it took place from 2005 to around 2007/8. You may want to use the advanced search feature to find it. I cringe at the exposure of my ignorance back then. Not that it's much better now!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Contra_Mundum

josiahrussell said:


> how many of you came to the conclusion that your view of baptism is correct strictly from the bible *without the influence of church history and tradition*?


Is this even possible? No man is able to absolutely transcend his place in time. His best efforts at confining himself to a single influence, if not accompanied by the admission that his power to do this is certainly less than his hopes, will probably produce a proud result.

The view is very likely to be idiosyncratic; that is, he will be the only person who holds his view _in every particular_. Until he teaches it to someone, who will then be the recipient (if not adherent) of a "tradition." Cannot escape from history and tradition. We are either receiving one, or passing one along; fitting in, or inventing.

One should take a step back, and try to determine/describe his own method of investigation of Scripture. He should try to figure out if he is a part of one "school" or another, deliberately or by default. Who else interprets Scripture (now or in the past) like he does? Exposure to the efforts of others will make one subject to their influence (tradition, again!); but it should make the interpreter aware of who his company is. If he finds he is in the company of the heterodox, more than the faithful, maybe it's time to rethink the method?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## a mere housewife

I think both sides have a very solid tradition of good Scriptural arguments on their side. And Pastor Buchanan is right -- the Scriptures are not meant for private interpretation: we're supposed to be seeking and finding common ground in how we interpret. Who we are finding that common ground with should also be illuminating.

Ultimately yes, it was understanding how one Scripture in particular fit into the whole Old Testament pattern that convinced me of my own current view.

But what I noticed about myself at the time and have noticed many times since is that, because we are more than just minds, we often become _open_ to being convinced of another view for non-theological reasons. And that initial openness can be (depending on our commitment to Scripture) more than half the battle. Maybe it's already won at that point, whatever we may come up with trying to justify our decision. This can be a good or a bad thing. Ie, I would hope that a cult member would notice the genuine love that a Christian community has for one another and the lost, and be so drawn to this that they are more willing to reconsider their theology. 

But I think it as often functions for selfish reasons, because we aren't yet glorified. Ie, I get tired of dealing with the sins in my own community. Some of their views or members embarrass me. Another community looks to me like it would ruffle fewer of my feathers or give me more prestige in the eyes of the world (tradition itself can be very powerful in its prestige factor), or at least the part that currently matters to me. If we aren't self aware that this kind of full-orbed influence operates on the best and on the worst in us, we can wind up moving from communion to communion, never really growing up in our knowledge of Scripture or in love for others, even though we are always changing views and church families.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

josiahrussell said:


> Not really.
> 
> But I'm just curious, how many of you came to the conclusion that your view of baptism is correct strictly from the bible without the influence of church history and tradition?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I searched the NT scriptures regarding those whom received the water baptism, and saw believers mentioned in that group of people. Also, I was not raised up under Covenant Theology, so I would not have seen OT equivalency on this issue, as would have seen more of a discontinuity regarding old/new Covenants than my Presbyterian brethren do here.
Interesting question, as all of us would have presumptions in theology that would shade how we came to our conclusion on this topic.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I feel that I did come to a paedobaptist conviction from the Scripture (just in the past year). Coming to a position on exclusive Psalmody came first, as I worked out continuities and discontinuities from the OT to the new. That helped me see the overall continuity that turned out to be covenant theology. The clincher was when I understood that without any prejudices about baptism, and if reading through the whole Bible from beginning to end, when I came to the NT narratives about household baptism I'd have simply accepted that the children were included, as with circumcision. 

I rather fiercely rejoice in this realization of God's covenant dealings. It has been a tremendous source of joy and comfort. Now I see it all throughout the Bible (kind of like with the doctrines of grace when one first 'discovers' them).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

KGP said:


> Out of curiosity, is that exchange still viewable here on PB?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You can check out the baptism forum and find a great many threads, some that run to hundreds of posts.


----------



## KGP

Pilgrim said:


> You can check out the baptism forum and find a great many threads, some that run to hundreds of posts.



I've been through several of them in the past, certainly valuable material there for understanding the logic behind the convictions on either side of this debate. As for this specific series of exchanges, well, Matthew Winzer 'schooling' anybody piques my interest, so maybe I'll go hunting for it


----------



## Steve Curtis

Dachaser said:


> all of us would have presumptions in theology that would shade how we came to our conclusion on this topic.



Not necessarily. My "presumptions" were decidedly Baptist - and Dispensational Baptist, at that! However, a careful and prayerful reading of God's Word a number of years ago compelled me to reject those presumptions and conclude that they were inconsistent with the testimony of Scripture.


----------



## jomawh

Standard Baptist covenantal/Jeremiah 31 arguments aside-

The way that scripture speaks of baptism as a "putting on [of] Christ," Gal 3:27, and that as many who are baptized are "baptized into his death," Romans 6:3. With full-respect to my paedobaptist brethren, whom I love, I just can't apply these statements to infants who lack a profession of faith, and neither can I see such a strong continuity between circumcision and baptism of the kind which would say, with Calvin, that the signs are essentially the same if only different in circumstance. That would require a back reading of the way the New Testament speaks of baptism into circumcision, which would be to say that circumcision represented the "putting on [of] Christ" and that all who were circumcised were "circumcised into his death." It just doesn't make sense to me.

Reading à Brakel state that unregenerate infants who receive baptism _really are _engrafted into and participate in the Covenant of Grace is just far from how I, as a Baptist, understand the Covenant of Grace in its New Testament administration.

(edit: Here I might be equivocating in my last sentence, as I might be leaning towards the 1689 Federalist view that states that the New Covenant and *only *the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace; I'm still working through my views).


----------



## Romans922

jomawh said:


> The way that scripture speaks of baptism as a "putting on [of] Christ," Gal 3:27, and that as many who are baptized are "baptized into his death," Romans 6:3.



It seems like you are saying that 'baptism' in those two verses is talking about water baptism. Is that how you are using the term, that Galatians 3:27 and Rom. 6:3 are referring to water baptism?


----------



## jomawh

Romans922 said:


> It seems like you are saying that 'baptism' in those two verses is talking about water baptism. Is that how you are using the term, that Galatians 3:27 and Rom. 6:3 are referring to water baptism?



Edit: I write all this with the knowledge that I'm responding to an elder in Christ's church. If you find that I am out-of-line or failing to respect him in his office, please PM me.

I believe that Paul is primarily addressing, as his intended recipients, the invisible church. In Galatians 1 Paul addresses the letter to the churches of Galatia, which he defines specifically as those for whom Christ gave Himself (v. 4). To say that Christ gave Himself for reprobates in the visible church makes no sense, and in referring to their having been baptized into His death Paul was therefore speaking to the invisible church. Likewise, in Romans 1 Paul addresses the letter to the Saints of Rome who are "beloved by God" (v. 7), which I again cannot take to mean that Paul intends to address the reprobate present in the visible church, generally-speaking. (Edit: I ought to have said at this point that I believe that Paul is here speaking of water baptism.)

I understand the Paedobaptist argument based upon the distinction between the sign and the thing signified, but I fail to see why one would give a sign, which points to the individual in question having put on Christ and been buried with Him, language that was never used to describe circumcision and which necessarily signifies that the individual has Christ as mediator (In what way is Christ their mediator?), to infants.

The question of "water baptism" or "spirit baptism" is irrelevant in my view, given Paul's intended audience based upon who he addresses at the start of his letters it could go either way. (I withdraw this statement)


----------



## Steve Curtis

jomawh said:


> The question of "water baptism" or "spirit baptism" is irrelevant



Not at all. In fact, if this were referring to water baptism, your position would hold more water (pun). For then, as you say, it would imply that all who have been baptized _externally_ were considered to have "been buried with Christ," to have "put on Christ," etc. If, however, Paul is referring to that "baptism" which accompanies true conversion, then indeed he is addressing only those who are thus converted (or, as you put it, the invisible church). The paedobaptist* would not suggest that Paul was referring to everyone baptized with water (adult or infant) any more than the baptist would suggest that there are none who have been baptized with water who lack true conversion.
_
*I am not considering those who hold to baptismal regeneration; obviously, that would be a different discussion._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jomawh

kainos01 said:


> Not at all. In fact, if this were referring to water baptism, your position would hold more water (pun).


I actually laughed.



kainos01 said:


> For then, as you say, it would imply that all who have been baptized _externally_ were considered to have "been buried with Christ," to have "put on Christ," etc.


Irrelevant was the wrong word for me to use- I wasn't being careful with my words. Apologies.

Given my argument I ought to have said, "Yes, it is referring to water baptism because, in consideration of Paul's intended recipients (regenerate saints), water baptism does signify their burial with Christ."


----------



## BG

Mason do you mean that baptism unites us to Christ's death or that it is symbolic of his burial? Also you quoted rom 6:3 can you explain how baptism is symbolic of his crucifixion.

Could it not be said that during the first Passover in Egypt that the children or all in the household were covered with the righteousness of Christ.

I became a Presbyterian after being a reformed Baptist for about 14 years and my conversion to The Presbyterian view happened while I was reading through Genesis.

Three things that influenced me to change positions.

1. The everlasting covenant, all of the covenants of scripture are said to be the everlasting covenant meaning they are all an administration of the covenant of grace.

2. The substance of saving faith is the same in the ot and the nt, if Adam, Abraham, Noah, Moses, or David were going to be saved it would be through the cross of Christ. 

3. After recognizing points one and two in my reading of the Old Testament I began to understand the New Testament in a totally different light. I started recognizing the following: 
1. The New Testament is written to the old testament church 

2. John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles are not bringing a new teaching to the people but in fact are correcting a misunderstanding of the old. Their message is not so much this is the way things are going to be now but this is the way things have always been why did you not understand it.

3. Context context context. The original recipients of the New Testament message would have never come to the conclusion that the anointed one had come to put their children out of the covenant. They would have recognized Peter's words "to you and your children" as being an affirmation of God's promises to Abraham that he would be a god to you and your children. It was an everlasting promise of the everlasting covenant and it will remain true everlasting.

Hebrews 13:20 tells us that the new covenant is in fact none other then the everlasting covenant.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jomawh

BG said:


> Mason do you mean that baptism unites us to Christ's death or that it is symbolic of his burial? Also you quoted rom 6:3 can you explain how baptism is symbolic of his crucifixion.


If we limit the scope of Paul's intended readers to the regenerate I see nothing wrong with saying that baptism, by faith, really does unite us to Christ's death. I don't hold to the Zwinglian, mere-symbolic view of the sacraments but neither do I hold to ex opere operato- faith is very much the necessary precondition for the elements to become effectual.



BG said:


> Could it not be said that during the first Passover in Egypt that the children or all in the household were covered with the righteousness of Christ.


To hold that the reprobate could in any sense truly be covered with the righteousness of Christ and then fall away (as did that generation) smacks of Lutheranism at best, or worse, Federal Vision. To read Christ's righteousness into this text in any way but typological means that His righteousness failed to preserve them. This is putting the oikobaptist cart before the Calvinistic horse.



BG said:


> 1. The everlasting covenant, all of the covenants of scripture are said to be the everlasting covenant meaning they are all an administration of the covenant of grace.


With the exception found within the Abrahamic promise, only the New Testament is ever described as an everlasting covenant, never the Mosaic (Ezekiel 36:26,27; 37:26, Isaiah 53:3, Jeremiah 32:38,40). It is thus improper to speak of all of the covenants of scripture as being *the *everlasting covenant as the contrast drawn from Jeremiah and the New Testament is that the New Covenant, to summarize, is a "better covenant established upon better promises." The dual-covenant nature of what was established with Abraham has to be emphasized here, as even Abraham recognized that the eternal promise that Jehovah was speaking of was not the typological land and physical descendants which Jeremiah later writes God's repudiation of, but rather the spiritual land and spiritual descendants, the true seed of Abraham by faith, that was being promised to him (Hebrews 11:6). The alternative is to say that Ishmael, Esau, etc, and all pretenders to the faith of Abraham, truly and really participated in the Covenant of Grace- if true, in what way was Christ their mediator, given that Christ is the mediator of the Covenant of Grace? Did Christ fail in His office of mediator given their status as unforgiven reprobates? 



BG said:


> 2. The substance of saving faith is the same in the ot and the nt, if Adam, Abraham, Noah, Moses, or David were going to be saved it would be through the cross of Christ.


We agree together that if anyone was ever to be saved it would be through the cross. The difference is that I can't see Christ present in the Old Testament elements which the book of Hebrews so clearly speaks of as being imperfect and broken. The Mosaic covenant itself could not save, but those true seeds of Abraham present, by faith, looked past the elements and realized, like Abraham, what the promise pointed towards- Christ, and the Covenant of Grace.



BG said:


> 3. After recognizing points one and two in my reading of the Old Testament I began to understand the New Testament in a totally different light. I started recognizing the following:
> 1. The New Testament is written to the old testament church


How would you respond to my citations from Galatians and Romans which show Paul is clearly limiting his intended audience to the regenerate, invisible church, and not the mixed visible church? Further, how can the New Testament be written to the Old Testament church given how quickly the ekklesia became Gentile-majority?



BG said:


> 2. John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles are not bringing a new teaching to the people but in fact are correcting a misunderstanding of the old. Their message is not so much this is the way things are going to be now but this is the way things have always been why did you not understand it.
> 
> 3. Context context context. The original recipients of the New Testament message would have never come to the conclusion that the anointed one had come to put their children out of the covenant. They would have recognized Peter's words "to you and your children" as being an affirmation of God's promises to Abraham that he would be a god to you and your children. It was an everlasting promise of the everlasting covenant and it will remain true everlasting.



1.) Only the New Covenant is made in Christ's blood. That fact ought to be enough to stress the discontinuity between the Old and the New. What the reprobate in the OT did not and could not understand is what, or rather who, the law and ceremonies pointed towards.

2.) The gospel itself was scandalous enough of a stumbling block to the Jews. Peter had already called them Christ-killers with wicked hands and murderous hearts. That the Jews did not turn away or pick up stones at these statements immediately is evidence of their regeneration. Yet I'm somehow expected to believe that they would have if they understood Peter to mean that children weren't meant to be baptized. It's silly.

Further, Peter tell us who the promise is, the Holy Spirit, in Acts 2:33- it was not a rearticulation of the Abrahamic promise but an affirmation that all those who the Lord will call will receive Him, which the Abrahamic never suggested nor contained.



BG said:


> Hebrews 13:20 tells us that the new covenant is in fact none other then the everlasting covenant.


I agree, and only the New Covenant.


----------



## Romans922

jomawh said:


> With the exception found within the Abrahamic promise, only the New Testament is ever described as an everlasting covenant, never the Mosaic (Ezekiel 36:26,27; 37:26, Isaiah 53:3, Jeremiah 32:38,40).



Eze 37:24 "My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd* (Davidic Covenant)*. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes.* (Mosaic Covenant) *
Eze 37:25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. *(Abrahamic Covenant)*
Eze 37:26 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an *everlasting covenant* with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 
Eze 37:27 My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God (Abrahamic Covenant), and they shall be my people. 
Eze 37:28 Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore." 


In fact, here's the Mosaic Covenant, 
Exo 19:1 On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. 
Exo 19:2 They set out from Rephidim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, and they encamped in the wilderness. There Israel encamped before the mountain, 
Exo 19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: 
Exo 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. 
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, *you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples*, for all the earth is mine; 
Exo 19:6 and *you shall be to me a kingdom of priests* and *a holy nation*. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel." 
Exo 19:7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the LORD had commanded him. 
Exo 19:8 All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD. 

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a *royal priesthood*, *a holy nation*, *a people for his own possession*, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 



Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a *new covenant* with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 
Jer 31:32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 
Jer 31:33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. *And I will be their God, and they shall be my people*. 
Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." 
Jer 31:35 Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— the LORD of hosts is his name: 
_Jer 31:36 "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever." 
Jer 31:37 Thus says the LORD: "If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the LORD." _
Jer 31:38 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when the city shall be rebuilt for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 
Jer 31:39 And the measuring line shall go out farther, straight to the hill Gareb, and shall then turn to Goah. 
Jer 31:40 The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever." 


Jer 32:37 Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. 
Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 
Jer 32:39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. 
Jer 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. 
Jer 32:41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul. 
Jer 32:42 "For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them. 
Jer 32:43 Fields shall be bought in this land of which you are saying, 'It is a desolation, without man or beast; it is given into the hand of the Chaldeans.' 
Jer 32:44 Fields shall be bought for money, and deeds shall be signed and sealed and witnessed, in the land of Benjamin, in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, in the cities of the hill country, in the cities of the Shephelah, and in the cities of the Negeb; for I will restore their fortunes, declares the LORD." 
Jer 33:1 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah a second time, while he was still shut up in the court of the guard: 
Jer 33:2 "Thus says the LORD who made the earth, the LORD who formed it to establish it—the LORD is his name: 
Jer 33:3 Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known. 
Jer 33:4 For thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the houses of this city and the houses of the kings of Judah that were torn down to make a defense against the siege mounds and against the sword: 
Jer 33:5 They are coming in to fight against the Chaldeans and to fill them with the dead bodies of men whom I shall strike down in my anger and my wrath, for I have hidden my face from this city because of all their evil. 
Jer 33:6 Behold, I will bring to it health and healing, and I will heal them and reveal to them abundance of prosperity and security. 
Jer 33:7 I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel, and rebuild them as they were at first. 
Jer 33:8 I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me. 
Jer 33:9 And this city shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and a glory before all the nations of the earth who shall hear of all the good that I do for them. They shall fear and tremble because of all the good and all the prosperity I provide for it. 
Jer 33:10 "Thus says the LORD: In this place of which you say, 'It is a waste without man or beast,' in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem that are desolate, without man or inhabitant or beast, there shall be heard again 
Jer 33:11 the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voices of those who sing, as they bring thank offerings to the house of the LORD: "'Give thanks to the LORD of hosts, for the LORD is good, for his steadfast love endures forever!' For I will restore the fortunes of the land as at first, says the LORD. 
Jer 33:12 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: In this place that is waste, without man or beast, and in all of its cities, there shall again be habitations of shepherds resting their flocks. 
Jer 33:13 In the cities of the hill country, in the cities of the Shephelah, and in the cities of the Negeb, in the land of Benjamin, the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, flocks shall again pass under the hands of the one who counts them, says the LORD. 
Jer 33:14 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 
Jer 33:15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 
Jer 33:16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.' 
Jer 33:17 "For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, 
Jer 33:18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever." 
Jer 33:19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 
_Jer 33:20 "Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, 
Jer 33:21 then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. _
Jer 33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, *(Abrahamic Covenant)* so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, *(Davidic Covenant)* and the Levitical priests who minister to me." *(Mosaic Covenant)*
Jer 33:23 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 
Jer 33:24 "Have you not observed that these people are saying, 'The LORD has rejected the two clans that he chose'? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight. 
_Jer 33:25 Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth, 
Jer 33:26 then I will reject the offspring of Jacob* (Abrahamic Covenant)* and David my servant *(Davidic Covenant)* and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them." _


----------



## jomawh

We simply disagree, on a presuppositional level, on the identity of the covenant spoken of in the verses you block-quoted. In my view the everlasting covenant is and only is the New Covenant and that the David spoken of is Christ just as the Israel referenced is made up the regenerate.

Without stating your exegetical conclusions I can't really interact with your quotations.


----------



## BG

jomawh said:


> We simply disagree, on a presuppositional level



On that we agree


----------



## Herald

jomawh said:


> We simply disagree, on a presuppositional level, on the identity of the covenant spoken of in the verses you block-quoted. In my view the everlasting covenant is and only is the New Covenant and that the David spoken of is Christ just as the Israel referenced is made up the regenerate.
> 
> Without stating your exegetical conclusions I can't really interact with your quotations.



Mason,

I have said something similar before on the PB in reference to baptism; that the the disposition of the New Covenant settles the baptism debate. Now that I am seriously looking at 1689 Federalism I understand what Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, Rich Barcellos, and Pascal Denault are saying; that the New Covenant _is _the Covenant of Grace (or the CoG inaugurated). If that statement is true it removes the tension Baptists sometimes feel when discussing the continuity/discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. In essence the baptism issue is settled depending on one's view of covenant theology. On that last point I believe credo's and paedo's are in agreement.


----------



## BG

Can someone break the new covenant?


----------



## Herald

BG said:


> Can someone break the new covenant?



No. The New Covenant is an everlasting covenant made between God and His elect. Believers may act contrary to how a covenant member should live, but the covenant itself cannot be broken since God is the covenant keeper (c.f. 1689 LBC chapters 7 & 18).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Can you explain what you mean by "break"? Is it renouncing one's faith and repentance after one has truly believed and repented? If so, I would say, No.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> In essence the baptism issue is settled depending on one's view of covenant theology. On that last point I believe credo's and paedo's are in agreement.



I agree with this. I have been trying to nail down the exact point of departure between Confessional Presbyterians and Confessional Baptists. It seems that Presbyterians are willing to take a 'good and necessary' step in regards to Abraham that Baptists are not.


----------



## jomawh

Herald said:


> If that statement is true it removes the tension Baptists sometimes feel when discussing the continuity/discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. In essence the baptism issue is settled depending on one's view of covenant theology. On that last point I believe credo's and paedo's are in agreement.



That's the conclusion I'm starting to come to.


----------



## Dachaser

jomawh said:


> Standard Baptist covenantal/Jeremiah 31 arguments aside-
> 
> The way that scripture speaks of baptism as a "putting on [of] Christ," Gal 3:27, and that as many who are baptized are "baptized into his death," Romans 6:3. With full-respect to my paedobaptist brethren, whom I love, I just can't apply these statements to infants who lack a profession of faith, and neither can I see such a strong continuity between circumcision and baptism of the kind which would say, with Calvin, that the signs are essentially the same if only different in circumstance. That would require a back reading of the way the New Testament speaks of baptism into circumcision, which would be to say that circumcision represented the "putting on [of] Christ" and that all who were circumcised were "circumcised into his death." It just doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Reading à Brakel state that unregenerate infants who receive baptism _really are _engrafted into and participate in the Covenant of Grace is just far from how I, as a Baptist, understand the Covenant of Grace in its New Testament administration.
> 
> (edit: Here I might be equivocating in my last sentence, as I might be leaning towards the 1689 Federalist view that states that the New Covenant and *only *the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace; I'm still working through my views).


My understanding is that the word for Baptism in the Greek would refer to Immersion, and this is why Baptists would tend to see it as believers baptism.


----------



## jomawh

Dachaser said:


> The word for Baptism in int e Greek would refer to Immersion, and again another reason to see it as being applied towards adult believers.



Curiously within the Westminster Assembly the vote was evenly split (24-24) between immersion-only and allowing other modes such as sprinkling. It was left up to the chairman, who sided with the other-modes position, to cast the deciding vote.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Dachaser said:


> The word for Baptism in int e Greek would refer to Immersion, and again another reason to see it as being applied towards adult believers.



Not sure what "int e Greek" is, but in NT Greek, whether "baptism" means immersion has been the fodder for much debate. Perhaps the most well-known example is Mark 7:4, which would have to then imply that the Pharisees "religiously" immersed themselves - and their tables (or couches) before eating.


----------



## jomawh

kainos01 said:


> Not sure what "int e Greek" is, but in NT Greek, whether "baptism" means immersion has been the fodder for much debate. Perhaps the most well-known example is Mark 7:4, which would have to then imply that the Pharisees "religiously" immersed themselves - and their tables (or couches) before eating.



Given that both Calvin and Luther admitted that baptizō means "to immerse," with the latter even admitting that immersion was the practice of the ancient church, strengthens the immersion case.


----------



## Steve Curtis

My point was that - on a forum consisting of both Baptists and Presbyterians - it is wise to acknowledge that this is by no means a settled issue. I mean, Presbyterians don't say, "Well, I know the Bible says that I _should_ immerse you (and your children), but..."


----------



## jomawh

kainos01 said:


> My point was that - on a forum consisting of both Baptists and Presbyterians - it is wise to acknowledge that this is by no means a settled issue. I mean, Presbyterians don't say, "Well, I know the Bible says that I _should_ immerse you, but..."



It's not a settled issue no, but discussing our differences cordially and being forthright about them is why we're here, isn't it?


----------



## Steve Curtis

jomawh said:


> It's not a settled issue no, but discussing our differences cordially and being forthright about them is why we're here, isn't it?



That, and the free donuts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

From Adam to Moses do you believe that anyone was saved and if yes under what Covenant administration ?


----------



## BG

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "break"? Is it renouncing one's faith and repentance after one has truly believed and repented? If so, I would say, No.




Would it have been possible for Moses or any OT believer to renounce his faith after he had truly believed and repented?


----------



## Herald

BG said:


> Would it have been possible for Moses or any OT believer to renounce his faith after he had truly believed and repented?



It would help if you will answer the question posed to you instead of responding with another question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jomawh

BG said:


> From Adam to Moses do you believe that anyone was saved and if yes under what Covenant administration ?


They were saved by the blood of Christ alone in the expectation of the fulfillment of the promise. They were thus in the Covenant of Grace, yet uninaugurated though still effectual for all regenerate, believing saints throughout time. This is why they were kept in what the New Testament calls Abraham's bosom- even in death they still had to wait for the covenantal transaction to take place upon the cross. By the reckoning of the Baptist formulation of Covenant theology the Abrahamic, Noahic, and Mosaic covenants pointed towards, but were not themselves, the Covenant of Grace. Nevertheless, believing Saints participated in and were included within the purview the Covenant of Grace in spite of their participation in these typological, pointing-forward covenants, though not on account of them. What else would we do with the handful of God-fearers who believed in the promise but who were still outside the bounds of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants?

What the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant brought was a typological foreshadowing in the laws and ordinances which Christ would fulfill in transacting its benefits to His Saints irrespective of their lack of perfect obedience to it (Romans 8). The giving of the Mosaic, in spite of its standard of perfect, unflinching obedience, was in this sense an act of grace for the Saints, but on the other hand an act of greater judgment upon those who refused to see through the law to see its telos, Christ.

That the typological host of Old Testament Israel was baptized into Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2), and not Christ, begs the question: How could one be baptized into Moses _and _Christ within the same covenant administration, if indeed the substance thereof was the same? How could Paul exhort Jewish Christians to continue to circumcise their children _and_ baptize them, presumably? How would that not be a kind of re-baptism, a reapplication of a sign with the same substance as the former, unless the two signs are indeed as Baptist covenant theology seems them: two different, yet related, signs with different substances and ends?

Still working through my understanding of the 1689 Federalist view, but this is all beginning to make sense to me.


----------



## BG

What passage in the old testament foretold a new sacrament immersion?

What passage in the old testament foretold that the anointed one would be immersed?

Would the church of that day not have quoted Isaiah 8:20 expecting some sort of validation for this new sacrament ?

20To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, _it is_ because _there is_no light in them.


----------



## BG

I happen to agree with Dr. J Adams on this point if Jesus was immersed then he is not the Anointed One.


----------



## Dachaser

jomawh said:


> Given that both Calvin and Luther admitted that baptizō means "to immerse," with the latter even admitting that immersion was the practice of the ancient church, strengthens the immersion case.


The KJV translators could have brought that use into their translation, as it would fit the Greek meaning into English, but that would go directly against their own theology, so was not done.


----------



## Dachaser

jomawh said:


> Curiously within the Westminster Assembly the vote was evenly split (24-24) between immersion-only and allowing other modes such as sprinkling. It was left up to the chairman, who sided with the other-modes position, to cast the deciding vote.


I did not know that, and just think how much would have changed if they went with immersion instead.


----------



## Dachaser

kainos01 said:


> My point was that - on a forum consisting of both Baptists and Presbyterians - it is wise to acknowledge that this is by no means a settled issue. I mean, Presbyterians don't say, "Well, I know the Bible says that I _should_ immerse you (and your children), but..."


I understand your point, and have changed my original wording.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> What passage in the old testament foretold a new sacrament immersion?
> 
> What passage in the old testament foretold that the anointed one would be immersed?
> 
> Would the church of that day not have quoted Isaiah 8:20 expecting some sort of validation for this new sacrament ?
> 
> 20To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, _it is_ because _there is_no light in them.


What was the meaning and understanding of the Greek term chosen by the Holy Spirit to signify baptism though?


----------



## Dachaser

excellent analysis on this important issue under discussion, and just strikes me how close and yet also how so far we brethren are in the respective Presbyterian and Baptist Covenant theology.


----------



## BG

Dachaser said:


> What was the meaning and understanding of the Greek term chosen by the Holy Spirit to signify baptism though?



Allowing scripture to interpret scripture the only place I can see that baptism is clearly defined is in the book of Hebrews chapter 9 verses 10 through 20 .

10but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
15Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.”21And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.


In verse 10 the word for washings there is baptismos or baptisms. The apostle Paul Describes some of the various old testament baptisms in verses 13, 19 and 21.

Heb 9:13. Numbers 19:17-18
Heb 9:19. Exodus 24:6,8
Heb 9:21 Leviticus 8:19; 16:14

I find verses 19 through 21 very helpful in understanding what baptism really is, in these verses The old testament church had gathered to worship God and to receive the means of grace that was available to them through the old administration of the covenant of grace,the men women and children were sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice there by uniting them to that which the sacrifice represented.


----------



## jomawh

BG said:


> I happen to agree with Dr. J Adams on this point if Jesus was immersed then he is not the Anointed One.


What is the argument?


----------



## BG

https://www.christianbook.com/the-meaning-mode-of-baptism/jay-adams/9780875520438/pd/552043X

If the Anointed one ( prophet priest and king) had submitted to immersion he would have violated scripture.

In fulfilling all righteousness (matt 3:15) which is obedience to the law, Jesus could not have submitted to a proceeding which was not commanded nor prefigured in The OT scripture.

If anyone has not read this book, they should it's very good.


----------



## BG

Herald said:


> It would help if you will answer the question posed to you instead of responding with another question.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



Do the Scriptures anyplace say that people can break the new covenant?


----------



## jomawh

BG said:


> If the Anointed one ( prophet priest and king) had submitted to immersion he would have violated scripture.


Sorry, not buying it.

On the one hand, if true, the biblical authors chose the worst and most confusing word, which near-contemporaneous writers in Koiné used to describe a ship being "baptized" into the sea during a war, to describe pouring or sprinkling. Why did they not use rhantizō (to sprinkle) or cheō (to pour)? That the Greek church has always understood baptizō to mean "to immerse" should further evidence the plain definition.

Upon what basis do we then allow for immersion in baptism at all? 

On the other hand, immersion has precedent within the Mosaic law (Leviticus 14:8-9; 15:13-15, 19-27; 22:4-6; Numbers 19:19). To say that the requirement to bathe does not necessitate full immersion would mean to leave certain parts of the body ritually unclean, and further, John baptized Jesus _eis ton Iordanen_, "into the Jordan," plainly a statement of immersion.


----------



## Dachaser

jomawh said:


> Sorry, not buying it.
> 
> On the one hand, if true, the biblical authors chose the worst and most confusing word, which near-contemporaneous writers in Koiné used to describe a ship being "baptized" into the sea during a war, to describe pouring or sprinkling. Why did they not use rhantizō (to sprinkle) or cheō (to pour)? That the Greek church has always understood baptizō to mean "to immerse" should further evidence the plain definition.
> 
> Upon what basis do we then allow for immersion in baptism at all?
> 
> On the other hand, immersion has precedent within the Mosaic law (Leviticus 14:8-9; 15:13-15, 19-27; 22:4-6; Numbers 19:19). To say that the requirement to bathe does not necessitate full immersion would mean to leave certain parts of the body ritually unclean, and further, John baptized Jesus _eis ton Iordanen_, "into the Jordan," plainly a statement of immersion.


We have to take the inspired Greek term chosen to be used by the Holy Spirit as to what God meant by the term of Baptism, and to try to use it in another way would not make much sense to me. Again, this to me is not an issue to divide over, but to have an "in house" discussion over between saints.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> Do the Scriptures anyplace say that people can break the new covenant?


No, but you are assuming here that the NT baptism exactly corresponds to OT usage, and to have it as a direct equivalent of OT circumcision.


----------



## BG

Dachaser said:


> We have to take the inspired Greek term chosen to be used by the Holy Spirit as to what God meant by the term of Baptism, and to try to use it in another way would not make much sense to me. Again, this to me is not an issue to divide over, but to have an "in house" discussion over between saints.





Dachaser said:


> No, but you are assuming here that the NT baptism exactly corresponds to OT usage, and to have it as a direct equivalent of OT circumcision.



Scripture is self interpreting.
Try searching secular Greek for the meaning of The word God or justification.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> Scripture is self interpreting.
> Try searching secular Greek for the meaning of The word God or justification.


True it is, but it is also true the the Holy Spirit inspired down to every word, and he could have Had Paul choose to use a different Greek term that would not mean to be immersed.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I actually don't want to get roped into another interminable debate over words.

Does βαπτίζω "mean" immerse? No, it has a _semantic range._
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:alphabetic+letter=*b:entry+group=8:entry=bapti/zw

If one must offer a single word for a "base-sense," that word in English would likely be "whelm." "Whem" and "immerse" are not perfectly synonymous (especially as the latter is almost exclusively taken today in the _all/entirely at once_ sense). βαπτίζω works quite well as a flexible term, fully capable of supporting a range of use, including metaphorical.

As for jangling over questions like: "why not use ῥαντίζω, to avoid confusion?"--as if the question of "mode" was decisive-- http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:alphabetic+letter=*r:entry+group=3:entry=r(anti/zw
best to just turn the issue about, and ask the question the opposite way: "why not use ἐγκαταδύνω, to avoid confusion?"
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:alphabetic+letter=*e:entry+group=6:entry=e)gkatadu/nw

See how nonsensical it becomes? Each side can throw out a linguistic distraction like its an ace.

OK, now back to whatever you were doing...

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## jomawh

_I again realize that I am writing to an elder in Christ's church. If you find that I am disrespecting his due authority and position, please PM me. It is not my intention to be aggressive or combative._



Contra_Mundum said:


> βαπτίζω works quite well as a flexible term, fully capable of supporting a range of use, including metaphorical.



Granted there is a semantic range, but why here would we abandon the principle that we don't define a word on the basis of its metaphorical usage? To...is _expand_ the right word...the definition of baptizō to include sprinkling and pouring, which even the first-linked lexicon does not include, does not seem to me to do justice to its meaning. That Israel was baptized into Moses "in the cloud and the sea," though they weren't literally submersed, seems to be an appropriate(?) metaphorical usage of baptizō. "To stand" _can _have metaphorical connotations of defiance, but that's seems to be a different category than saying that "to stand" could also mean "to lean" or "to pose." Both are possible, sure, but we have different verbs for a reason. 

With regard to the standard historical-grammatical hermeneutic we also have to ask ourselves the question: "Would anyone in the first century audience have understood baptizō to mean sprinkle or pour?" Given the examples the lexicon you provided I would even question whether or not baptizō used with a preposition means anything other than "to immerse," or "to welm-" it'd be an interesting study. I admit that the testimony of the early church is perhaps ambiguous (given certain mosaics which clearly demonstrate pouring, others demonstrating an immersion), and the didache does not help (using baptizō without any leanings either way), while the ancient baptistries found in Roman catacombs were surely made deep enough for full immersion.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Mason,
You don't have to walk on eggshells around me. I don't _want _you apologizing for or soft-pedaling your views. If you get up to defend them, you should hold them firmly and with conviction that allows you to represent them accurately and boldly, with grace. Those who are too bold, they should not enter the lists, in my opinion.

I'm reluctant to get in the weeds about the issue. I'm aware of some resentment I have created by some bullheaded intimidation the past (not that I meant ill by it). I'm serious when I say how little I desire to see someone "flip" on baptism. Now, sometimes, I see arguments that are among the worst (for any position) set forth like show-stoppers; and I feel the need to say to "my guy" or "the other guy": please do better than that. Impressionable people are watching.

I don't _define _the term "baptism" _by the mode._ I don't feel any duty to do so, certainly none imposed by the _term _itself. Why? because the term is applied to many situations where the mode is either irrelevant, or as evident from the text (of Scripture or Gk. lit.) is something _other than _a *whelming*. If we had such an obligation to terms, then a word like "horses" would be inapplicable to situations where horses were utterly foreign (as when short for _horsepower,_ and used in a multitude of senses).

Your choice of "metaphorical" text, 1Cor.10:2, seems to follow an interpretation that _imagines_ a submerging in the Red Sea; which I think is actually alien to Paul's intent (Israel isn't remotely baptized into the sea, but into Moses; and the water of cloud and sea are _instrumental _in the first word, Ps.77:17-20, and _locative _in the second). As far as my interpretation is concerned, there is zero sensory aspect introduced there about Israel being "below the waterline." That's not something that the word "baptized" brings to my mind.

I'm not saying that to change your mind; but to prove to you that people who take the text seriously aren't always obligated by what first may strike you as something obvious. You may feel something similar about Rom.6:4, that there's a "burial" that's even less _metaphorical_ being illustrated by going under, and a "resurrection" implied by coming up. To me, it's still metaphorical, and the mode is largely immaterial.

And my reason (again, I'm not seeking to impose it) is: I see no reason to privilege the "burial" metaphor, over the "drinking glass" metaphor, 1Cor.12:13; or the "suit of clothes" metaphor, Gal.3:27. In neither of the latter metaphors do I find but the loosest connection to a literal whelming. These are illustrative cases of the _theology _of baptism, and they belong--as far as I'm concerned--to the same category as Rom.6:3-4, and 1Cor.10:2. Yet, though I do not share it, I can appreciate your interpretation and engagement with all those texts, in a way that is consistent and satisfying to your convictions.

Is there any reason I might connect "pouring" to baptism? I don't know... maybe Act.2? Act.10:44-48? I find "sprinkling" and baptism connected explicitly in Heb.9:10, followed thereafter less explicitly at 10:22. I'm not asking Liddel & Scott, or the BADG, to prescribe for me _a priori_ the limit to which baptizo can be stretched.

I do not wish to delve into a discussion of early church architecture, illustrations, practices, inscriptions; or the relation of baptism to Jewish practices or to Gnostic mysteries; or anything similar while on this thread. All these subjects may be examined and judged consistent with whatever prior convictions one may hold. If summoned to this discussion, my aim is to keep to the text of Scripture. And I am sure you can appreciate that! Amen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

Eis can be translated in many ways in this case (MK 1:9) I will go with in or at maybe even unto.


----------



## Dachaser

jomawh said:


> _I again realize that I am writing to an elder in Christ's church. If you find that I am disrespecting his due authority and position, please PM me. It is not my intention to be aggressive or combative._
> 
> 
> 
> Granted there is a semantic range, but why here would we abandon the principle that we don't define a word on the basis of its metaphorical usage? To...is _expand_ the right word...the definition of baptizō to include sprinkling and pouring, which even the first-linked lexicon does not include, does not seem to me to do justice to its meaning. That Israel was baptized into Moses "in the cloud and the sea," though they weren't literally submersed, seems to be an appropriate(?) metaphorical usage of baptizō. "To stand" _can _have metaphorical connotations of defiance, but that's seems to be a different category than saying that "to stand" could also mean "to lean" or "to pose." Both are possible, sure, but we have different verbs for a reason.
> 
> With regard to the standard historical-grammatical hermeneutic we also have to ask ourselves the question: "Would anyone in the first century audience have understood baptizō to mean sprinkle or pour?" Given the examples the lexicon you provided I would even question whether or not baptizō used with a preposition means anything other than "to immerse," or "to welm-" it'd be an interesting study. I admit that the testimony of the early church is perhaps ambiguous (given certain mosaics which clearly demonstrate pouring, others demonstrating an immersion), and the didache does not help (using baptizō without any leanings either way), while the ancient baptistries found in Roman catacombs were surely made deep enough for full immersion.


When Paul stated to us that in our water Baptism we go down into the water and rise back up now as being identified into/with Christ, how can that not be immersion?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> When Paul stated to us that in our water Baptism we go down into the water and rise back up now as being identified into/with Christ, how can that not be immersion?


Scripture citation would be helpful here.


----------



## Romans922

Dachaser said:


> When Paul stated to us that in our water Baptism we go down into the water and rise back up now as being identified into/with Christ, how can that not be immersion?



Because just as Bill responded in the comment before yours, _eis_ can mean different things. For example, there's nothing from keeping it from saying "into" or "to". Jesus went to the water and was baptized. That doesn't even necessarily mean he went *into* the water. He could've stood outside of the water or just His feet, etc. It can mean many different things. In the end, the passage doesn't say anything with any clarity about the mode of baptism of Christ.

On top of this, Christ's baptism doesn't necessarily help us understand Christian baptism except in a general meaning of what baptism can mean. In such a passage, we would learn what baptism communicates but not so much the actual action of baptism taken (i.e. mode).


If one wants to do their best to figure out the mode of baptism, it would be best to look at the theology surrounding baptisms and Scripture that concerns baptism throughout the Bible to show first what is baptism to communicate or be a 'sign' of. If you know what it ought to communicate, it will better help understanding the proper mode to communicate those truths. 

A good book I have found in considering these things is "William the Baptist". Very basic book.


----------



## Dachaser

Romans922 said:


> Because just as Bill responded in the comment before yours, _eis_ can mean different things. For example, there's nothing from keeping it from saying "into" or "to". Jesus went to the water and was baptized. That doesn't even necessarily mean he went *into* the water. He could've stood outside of the water or just His feet, etc. It can mean many different things. In the end, the passage doesn't say anything with any clarity about the mode of baptism of Christ.
> 
> On top of this, Christ's baptism doesn't necessarily help us understand Christian baptism except in a general meaning of what baptism can mean. In such a passage, we would learn what baptism communicates but not so much the actual action of baptism taken (i.e. mode).
> 
> 
> If one wants to do their best to figure out the mode of baptism, it would be best to look at the theology surrounding baptisms and Scripture that concerns baptism throughout the Bible to show first what is baptism to communicate or be a 'sign' of. If you know what it ought to communicate, it will better help understanding the proper mode to communicate those truths.
> 
> A good book I have found in considering these things is "William the Baptist". Very basic book.


I have no problem with Jesus not being Immersed, but when Paul describes this act being done to Christians now, seems to indicate immersion mode .


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Scripture citation would be helpful here.


Romans 6:1-4


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> When Paul stated to us that in our water Baptism we go down into the water and rise back up now as being identified into/with Christ, how can that not be immersion?





Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Scripture citation would be helpful here.





Dachaser said:


> Romans 6:1-4



Please demonstrate from the passage below, your claim that "_Paul stated to us that in our water Baptism we go down into the water and rise back up now as being identified into/with Christ_" and that what Paul states can only mean _immersion_.

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 

How is Paul's teaching here of the fellowship in death and fellowship in life we undergo with Our Lord in our baptism is in any way teaching something about the _mechanics _of baptism? You are asking the passage to bear more interpretative freight than it possesses.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Parmenas

Dachaser said:


> When Paul stated to us that in our water Baptism we go down into the water and rise back up now as being identified into/with Christ, how can that not be immersion?



Jesus was buried in a sepulchre, not in a coffin six feet under the surface.

Matthew 27:59-60 Authorized (King James) Version
59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 
60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

I believe affusion (and possibly aspersion, I have not decided on that yet) to be the only biblical, regular, and apostolic mode of baptism. Of course, I recognize immersion (or more properly _submersion_) as valid but highly irregular. I was baptized by immersion myself.


----------



## Parmenas

This thread seems relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Please demonstrate from the passage below, your claim that "_Paul stated to us that in our water Baptism we go down into the water and rise back up now as being identified into/with Christ_" and that what Paul states can only mean _immersion_.
> 
> Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
> Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
> Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
> Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
> 
> How is Paul's teaching here of the fellowship in death and fellowship in life we undergo with Our Lord in our baptism is in any way teaching something about the _mechanics _of baptism? You are asking the passage to bear more interpretative freight than it possesses.


I might be reading too much imagery in this passage, but I see the going down in the water as us being immersed into the death of Christ by an act testifying to that fact, and being now raised up to new life in him by coming back up from the waters. This is why Baptists tend to see water Baptism has been the outward sign of an inward work already done by God to us, as the going down in water and back up is a witness to for new life in Christ.


----------



## Silas22

Dachaser said:


> I might be reading too much imagery in this passage, but I see the going down in the water as us being immersed into the death of Christ by an act testifying to that fact, and being now raised up to new life in him by coming back up from the waters. This is why Baptists tend to see water Baptism has been the outward sign of an inward work already done by God to us, as the going down in water and back up is a witness to for new life in Christ.



David, I would commend to you the small book "William the Baptist". It helped me understand the Presbyterian view of baptism, and also explains the verses you mentioned.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

YRRSBCGuy said:


> David, I would commend to you the small book "William the Baptist". It helped me understand the Presbyterian view of baptism, and also explains the verses you mentioned.


Read it here:
http://www.covenantofgrace.com/william_the_baptist.htm

The particulars related to the passage in question are here:
http://www.covenantofgrace.com/william_the_baptist5.htm
http://www.covenantofgrace.com/william_the_baptist6.htm

The book comprises a conversation between William (*W*), a Baptist, and a Presbyterian pastor, Rev. Cowan (*P*). William has married a Presbyterian woman and some years into the marriage decides to meet with Rev. Cowan to discuss the mode and administration of baptism.

All in all, worth a read, despite some nits: claims sprinkling to be the exclusive mode of baptism, despite the historical Reformed position that sprinkling, pouring, or immersion are acceptable, with the first two modes generally preferred; overly focused upon the Holy Spirit's work (at the expense of our union with Our Lord) to answer "burial" theories used by Baptists. None of these detract from the presentation therein to explain and hopefully correct often held misunderstandings, especially related to the verses in question.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> I might be reading too much imagery in this passage, but I see the going down in the water as us being immersed into the death of Christ by an act testifying to that fact, and being now raised up to new life in him by coming back up from the waters.


Indeed, you are importing imagery and presuppositions not supported by the text in question. Then you compound it by _"I see the going down in the water_". Where is "the going down in the water" being immersion as a "fact" in this passage? If you want to make a case for immersion, these verses are not the ones to use.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

The good thing about this topic on water Baptism is that while I do indeed hold with Immersion as the mode best fitting the scripture viewpoint under the NC now, I also would see as being valid those who choose to do the mode that is normally associated with Presbyterians.

I would see this issue as one to discuss, but not to separate over, or to get upset .


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> I might be reading too much imagery in this passage, but I see the going down in the water as us being immersed into the death of Christ by an act testifying to that fact, and being now raised up to new life in him by coming back up from the waters. This is why Baptists tend to see water Baptism has been the outward sign of an inward work already done by God to us, as the going down in water and back up is a witness to for new life in Christ.



*Matthew 3:16 *

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 

*Mark 1:10 *

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 

*Acts 8:39 *

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 

The idea doesn't show immersion, per se. If one looks closely, it could just mean that the persons baptized walked out of the water.....For example, Matt 3 could read: 

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, immediately walked out of the Jordan.....

as well Acts 8 helps-unless u want to hold to both people were baptized as this verse shows both came 'out of the water'.





_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 3:16–Ac 8:39.


----------



## jomawh

Dachaser said:


> I would see this issue as one to discuss, but not to separate over, or to get upset .


As Baptists we ought to be among the first to jump up and down yelling "It's regeneration by the Spirit that seals and brings someone into the Covenant of Grace, not the mode of the sign- Dummy!" 

Ironically, that unity I feel with my Presbyterian brothers is, to borrow a phrase from Ligon Duncan, so very much connected to the fact that we might be the last people on the planet to be able to have an honest theological disagreement.


----------



## Dachaser

jomawh said:


> As Baptists we ought to be among the first to jump up and down yelling "It's regeneration by the Spirit that seals and brings someone into the Covenant of Grace, not the mode of the sign- Dummy!"
> 
> Ironically, that unity I feel with my Presbyterian brothers is, to borrow a phrase from Ligon Duncan, so very much connected to the fact that we might be the last people on the planet to be able to have an honest theological disagreement.


This discussion on Baptism mode just highlights to me that we do have some honest disagreements on some areas of Covenant theology among us.


----------



## josiahrussell

Seems to be a lot of debate between the mode of baptism. What would you call someone who believes in sprinkling for the infants of believing parents, and full immersion for adult new converts? That is how I have always understood it to be


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BG

Dachaser said:


> This discussion on Baptism mode just highlights to me that we do have some honest disagreements on some areas of Covenant theology among us.



The debate is not so much over Covenant theology, but the debate is over the way we interpret scripture and the presuppositions that we bring to Scripture.

If you believe that Israel and the church are substantially the same thing and that the Scriptures present a harmonious continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament then you will probably be a Presbyterian.


If you believe that Israel and the church are substantially different and that the scripture presents a disharmony and disunity between the old and New Testament then you will probably be a Baptist.

Just a side note to all of this the Greek word
For church " kuriakon " never once appears in the scripture. 

One contributing factor to the debate is the substitution of the words church and synagogue in place of congregation and assembly.


----------



## Dachaser

Many Baptists would tend to see the church in the wilderness as being the called out for God, but not the church proper itself.

Think the problem is that it seems, at least to my understanding,is that there is not a totally continuity nor a total discontinuity between Israel and the church on the scriptures, hence the 2 positions here.


----------



## jomawh

Dachaser said:


> Many Baptists would tend to see the church in the wilderness as being the called out for God, but not the church proper itself.


The problem I have with that view of the Church is that Israel was in the wilderness _as an act of judgment and a punishment for their collective sin. _The analogue is just not there.


----------



## Dachaser

jomawh said:


> The problem I have with that view of the Church is that Israel was in the wilderness _as an act of judgment and a punishment for their collective sin. _The analogue is just not there.


Your point is well taken, as I was just suggesting that the term for the church used in the OT is not an exact correspondence to the church of the NC/NT.


----------



## Romans922

jomawh said:


> The problem I have with that view of the Church is that Israel was in the wilderness _as an act of judgment and a punishment for their collective sin._



You guys have said before that the New Covenant cannot be broken? Where do you support the view that it is unbreakable?

There's other references but just looking at the many passages in Hebrews suggests that the covenant may be broken.

For example, two passages, 

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 
Heb 6:7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 
Heb 6:8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. 

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


----------



## jomawh

Romans922 said:


> There's other references but just looking at the many passages in Hebrews suggests that the covenant may be broken.


And let's not forget Matthew 3:10, 7:19, John 15:2, and 15:16.


----------



## Dachaser

Romans922 said:


> You guys have said before that the New Covenant cannot be broken? Where do you support the view that it is unbreakable?
> 
> There's other references but just looking at the many passages in Hebrews suggests that the covenant may be broken.
> 
> For example, two passages,
> 
> Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
> Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
> Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
> Heb 6:7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
> Heb 6:8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
> 
> Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
> Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
> Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
> Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
> Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
> Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.


The first passage would be speaking of those who were giving a mere profession of being saved by trusting Christ, but that they showed their real natures by in the end turning away and never were saved, as being like Judas in the assembly.
The second case were those who wanted to have both Jesus and also keep up OT sacrifices, to keep both sides, but the author makes it clear that if one goes back to attempt to be saved under OT sacrificial system, there is no real salvation for them apart from death of Jesus as atonement for sin, for His death was/is the only sacrifice that really atones for sins...

Neither passage states that one really in the NC has broken it, just warnings to those who are not really saved to watch out and to make sure they are saved.


----------



## Romans922

Dachaser said:


> The first passage would be speaking of those who were giving a mere profession of being saved by trusting Christ, but that they showed their real natures by in the end turning away and never were saved, as being like Judas in the assembly.
> The second case were those who wanted to have both Jesus and also keep up OT sacrifices, to keep both sides, but the author makes it clear that if one goes back to being saved under OT system, there is no real salvation for them apart from death of Jesus as atonement for sin..
> 
> Neither passage states that one really in the NC has broken it, just warnings to those who are not really saved to watch out and to make sure they are saved.



This book of Hebrews is written to whom?

Sorry, I won't be commenting anymore. None of this concerns the question of the OP anymore.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> .......but the author makes it clear that if one goes back to being saved under OT system, there is no real salvation for them apart from death of Jesus as atonement for sin.



David,
How does one "go back to being saved under the OT system"? This sentence seems to have both biblical and systematic issues............

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

jomawh said:


> Israel was in the wilderness _as an act of judgment and a punishment for their collective sin. _The analogue is just not there.


At the risk of butting into the conversation of two other people, if I may add two cents here... (I'm not even clear who is advocating what above; I just want to shine some light and defend a particular position, so I'm riffing on the quote, not necessarily berating the writer)

Israel is called out _to the wilderness_ originally for their good; Ex.5:1 for example states this plainly. *Remaining* in the wilderness for 40yrs was collective judgment, rather than for a short _probation _lasting but a couple years.

For those who accede to the doctrine of the Covenant of Works, and Israel's national function as a lively sign to the whole world, this is an important point. Israel in the wilderness is emblematic of the church's sojourning separated from the world (which is Egypt) but still in the world (the wilderness) and not yet in heaven, symbolized by Canaan. The relatively short period of testing/probation turned into a lengthy ordeal, which was a form of judgment on the whole, but ultimately for the good of the elect.

We can draw numerous parallels. In terms of the original Edenic probation, the wilderness is an untamed world, while the camp of the saints is an Eden of order within it, and Israel begins right with God. And--again, almost immediately--falls from this blessed condition (Ex.32). And all of us their natural children have been in the wilderness now for quite some time.

Recall, as Jesus will later recapitulate the life of the nation by his life (e.g. Mt.2:15); so Israel recapitulates the story of the world. And in this manner, by light of Sinai (which essentially, substantively subsists--as it must ever since the fall--in the Covenant of Grace) one sees proof of the first Covenant of Works.

Our first parents are redeemed, as are all their elect offspring; but at the same time they struggle and eventually die in their flesh. Israel's exodus generation also dies off. Even the most saintly of them die (as did Moses) only glimpsing their heavenly home by faith.

Meanwhile, the church-in-the-world/wilderness is trained and disciplined for the duration. This time is not wasted. Yes, there is the feeling the effect of our first parents' error, compounded by our personal transgressions. We face the prospect of death in our flesh, if our generation is not the one appointed cross the Jordan walking dry-shod.

The reality of being in the wilderness is: we aren't in heaven yet. Heaven is in our midst, however; God is with us to lead us and dwell with us. He is purging and cleansing his church, making it fit for glory. And eventually, Jesus leads us in there, all of us (even those of ages past--as in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, along with Moses and Aaron) in solidarity.

So, I argue that the church-in-the-wilderness (Israel of old) does serve as an important analogue for the church of the present hour.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jomawh

Contra_Mundum said:


> At the risk of butting into the conversation of two other people, if I may add two cents here... (I'm not even clear who is advocating what above; I just want to shine some light and defend a particular position, so I'm riffing on the quote, not necessarily berating the writer)
> 
> Israel is called out _to the wilderness_ originally for their good; Ex.5:1 for example states this plainly. *Remaining* in the wilderness for 40yrs was collective judgment, rather than for a short _probation _lasting but a couple years.
> 
> For those who accede to the doctrine of the Covenant of Works, and Israel's national function as a lively sign to the whole world, this is an important point. Israel in the wilderness is emblematic of the church's sojourning separated from the world (which is Egypt) but still in the world (the wilderness) and not yet in heaven, symbolized by Canaan. The relatively short period of testing/probation turned into a lengthy ordeal, which was a form of judgment on the whole, but ultimately for the good of the elect.
> 
> We can draw numerous parallels. In terms of the original Edenic probation, the wilderness is an untamed world, while the camp of the saints is an Eden of order within it, and Israel begins right with God. And--again, almost immediately--falls from this blessed condition (Ex.32). And all of us their natural children have been in the wilderness now for quite some time.
> 
> Recall, as Jesus will later recapitulate the life of the nation by his life (e.g. Mt.2:15); so Israel recapitulates the story of the world. And in this manner, by light of Sinai (which essentially, substantively subsists--as it must ever since the fall--in the Covenant of Grace) one sees proof of the first Covenant of Works.
> 
> Our first parents are redeemed, as are all their elect offspring; but at the same time they struggle and eventually die in their flesh. Israel's exodus generation also dies off. Even the most saintly of them die (as did Moses) only glimpsing their heavenly home by faith.
> 
> Meanwhile, the church-in-the-world/wilderness is trained and disciplined for the duration. This time is not wasted. Yes, there is the feeling the effect of our first parents' error, compounded by our personal transgressions. We face the prospect of death in our flesh, if our generation is not the one appointed cross the Jordan walking dry-shod.
> 
> The reality of being in the wilderness is: we aren't in heaven yet. Heaven is in our midst, however; God is with us to lead us and dwell with us. He is purging and cleansing his church, making it fit for glory. And eventually, Jesus leads us in there, all of us (even those of ages past--as in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, along with Moses and Aaron) in solidarity.
> 
> So, I argue that the church-in-the-wilderness (Israel of old) does serve as an important analogue for the church of the present hour.



I've sincerely never thought of it that way, thank you.


----------



## Dachaser

Romans922 said:


> This book of Hebrews is written to whom?
> 
> Sorry, I won't be commenting anymore. None of this concerns the question of the OP anymore.


Jews who were now debating whether to stay with Jesus, or to go back to Judaism and the sacrificial system.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> How does one "go back to being saved under the OT system"? This sentence seems to have both biblical and systematic issues............


I will rewrite that part, as should have expressed better what I was attempting say on this issue.


----------



## Dachaser

jomawh said:


> I've sincerely never thought of it that way, thank you.


He makes excellent points, but I would still not see the actual church as a real entity until under the NC/NT one.


----------

