Baptism and Faith - a consistent relationship

[PieterHKruger]

I would like to know how a paedobaptist would consistently keep the relationship between faith and baptism in both infant baptism and adult baptism. Would a paedobaptist contend that baptism is always prior to faith (where faith is perceived not as an event of a moment, but as a continuous virtue throughout life) as a sign and seal of a promise which is unto faith, with the requirement of faith before adult baptism being solely ecclesiologically motivated – i.e. faith is the only way by which a “heathen” can become part of the visible church, and being part of the visible church is the only requirement to be baptised? In that case, how would one account for the soteriological dimension of baptism suggested by texts such as Acts 22:16 and 1 Pet. 3:21? And also, why the requirement for the convert to (personally) let himself be baptised if baptism has no soteriological significance other than pointing to and confirming the witness of Scripture (as if Scripture is not sufficient in itself), demanding future faith?

 

[PieterHKruger]

I suppose it might be helpful to unpack the issue raised with regards to the relationship between faith and baptism.

Baptism is an event that is conducted at a specific point in time. This implies a chronological order between faith (which is not bound to a moment only, but does start at a point in time) and baptism, which might or might not be significant for consistency between infant and adult baptism.

If faith – or at least the inception thereof – is taken as a prerequisite for baptism (as Baptists would argue), a chronological relationship between faith and baptism is implied: faith should precede baptism. However, if baptism is consistently perceived as a sign and seal unto faith (as in a Reformed paedobaptistic view), or as a promise that demands faith, a chronological relationship between faith and baptism is still implied, but the order is the other way round. For if baptism acts as "visual words" of that which Scripture teaches, then a chronological relationship is immediately implied: preaching/revealing/promising comes BEFORE belief. But how can faith then be a requirement for adult baptism?

It would seem that the only way to be consistent is to find another reason (not related to the relationship between faith and baptism) why faith is required of a “heathen” to be baptised: faith is necessary for those outside the church (and the children of believers are regarded as inside) to become part of the church (or “covenant community”). And baptism is interpreted as only relevant to those who have become part of the church. Thus, the requirement of faith in the case of converts is solely ecclesiologically motivated. The "preaching" (promise/Word) that is associated with baptism, is effectively only for those "in the church". And this Word demands future faith (regardless of whether faith is already present or not), because even those who have already believed, need to remain in the faith until the end.

Such a view might seem sensible, but the question is whether or not it accords with Scripture. The problem is that there is a soteriological dimension related to baptism (which I don’t claim to be baptismal regeneration or salvation ex opere operato) that does not agree with such a view – as far as I can see. When Paul gets baptised in Acts 22:16, what Ananias says does not seem to boil down to anything like: “Be baptised [because you are already part of the covenant community] to signify the reality of the washing away of your sins [and be called unto future faith].” However, a soteriological dimension of baptism comes through the requirement of faith (implied by the words “calling on the name of the Lord”) when Ananias says: “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (NKJV). Such a soteriological dimension also seems to be assumed in Acts 2:38 when Peter says: “Repent and be baptized … for [or unto] the remission of sins” (NKJV). 1 Pet. 3:21 also links baptism (also in its subjective capacity as an eperōtēma – appeal or pledge) to salvation.

Another question arising from a “baptism unto faith”-view is why baptism is necessary at all. Is Scripture not enough for proclaiming the Gospel and the promise of the forgiveness of sin? Is it necessary to add a visual sign to ratify the witness of Scripture? Here the soteriological meaning of baptism is equivalent to the soteriological meaning of the Word being preached: without revelation of truth there can be no faith in the truth, and therefore no salvation. But Scripture does not require more than faith which comes by hearing; it does not claim that faith must also come through seeing (the visible sign of baptism). Faith cannot exist without preaching, but surely faith can exist without baptism. So why the need to baptise or be baptised?
Presumably the paedobaptist's answer would be: because it is God’s command. But now a new issue arises: if being baptised is done in obedience, does that not imply the necessity of faith? For are we to obey without having the obedience imbedded in faith? But then there must be another relationship between baptism and faith if baptism is an act of obedience through faith! When the convert presents himself to be baptised, it should be an act done in faith (and not legalistically), and thus baptism requires faith to be present in the one being baptised precisely because God commanded it. And here one cannot consistently maintain that baptism is only a sign and seal unto faith, but it must also be an act of obedience arising from faith.

 

[Jack K]

I'll confess I couldn't quite follow all your post. But I think this might help in part: A paedo-baptist is not so individualistic. He thinks in terms of families as well as individuals. So faith is present at the time of an infant's baptism. It's present in the parents. And it is expressed by them. God may also be working faith already in the life of the infant. But, if so, we can't see that or base the baptism upon that. The baptism is conferred on the basis of the parent's faith, which puts the child within the covenant family.

 

[jwithnell]

Would a paedobaptist contend that baptism is always prior to faith

No, we don't always know when we are saved. The main consideration here, and one I believe you mayhave missed, is that covenant children are baptized because they have a right to all the means of grace because they are born into a church (with at least one believing parent). Someone who has never been baptized, who comes to Christ, has no right to the means of grace beyond the teaching of the word (faith comes by hearing). For this reason, baptism and the Lord's table are with held until the person makes a credible profession of faith.

where faith is perceived not as an event of a moment

At some point, a heart of stone is turned to a heart of flesh. In a covenant child, this could be any time. My oldest daughter does not remember a time when she didn't trust in Christ. In an older person, this might be perceived as a "conversion at a specific point int time," this was true of me coming out of a liberal denomination.

 

[PieterHKruger]

A paedo-baptist is not so individualistic. He thinks in terms of families as well as individuals.

I am not sure what you mean by the word "individualistic"? Faith has both an individual and social dimension attached to its meaning; God deals with individuals and broader social groupings (families, nations); baptism relates to the individual and has meaning for the individual, but baptism is not performed in isolation from a community, i.e. the church. But both Baptists and Paedobaptists believe that salvation (to which baptism is in some way attached, even if only as sign and seal thereof) is dependent on the (perhaps future) faith of the individual - also of the infant that gets baptised. Texts such as Ezek. 18 supports this principle of individual responsibility. And do Paedobaptists not also (at least tacitly) hold to an individual character of faith and participation in the church when practicing confirmation? So where would you draw the line between "individualism" and "non-individualism" - i.e. according to what definition of "individualism"?

Seeing that my quest is for the relationship between faith and baptism that is to be consistently held, the dimension of individual and corporate participation should be (correctly and consistently) brought into the relationship. More closely connected to this then is the idea of some faith (not necessarily that of the individual being baptised) still being deemed necessary for baptism:

The baptism is conferred on the basis of the parent's faith, which puts the child within the covenant family.

Would you then argue that faith is a prerequisite for anyone to be baptised – but it may be faith of the one being baptised or the faith of his/her parent(s)? So it doesn’t matter who’s faith, as long as there is faith? But in that case, what is the relationship between faith (as prerequisite) and baptism? I mean, why would it be a prerequisite (if one is to look either at the nature of faith or the meaning and role of baptism)? And also, where would you draw the line and why? Would you baptise an unbelieving adult if his/her parents got converted?

 

[PieterHKruger]

Would a paedobaptist contend that baptism is always prior to faith

No, we don't always know when we are saved.

Perhaps it wasn't clear that when I said

Would a paedobaptist contend that baptism is always prior to faith ... as a sign and seal of a promise which is unto faith, with the requirement of faith before adult baptism being solely ecclesiologically motivated

and later added:

if baptism is consistently perceived as a sign and seal unto faith (as in a Reformed paedobaptistic view), or as a promise that demands faith, a chronological relationship between faith and baptism is still implied, but the order is the other way round. For if baptism acts as "visual words" of that which Scripture teaches, then a chronological relationship is immediately implied: preaching/revealing/promising comes BEFORE belief. But how can faith then be a requirement for adult baptism?

that I did not mean to say baptism is not at times conducted after someone has believed / has been saved (in Paedobaptist circles), but rather that the consistency sought by perceiving baptism as sign and seal unto faith (in both infant and adult baptism) places baptism before faith in this relationship.

I contended that when there is a requirement that faith be present in an individual before baptism - for the Paedobaptist that would be when someone gets converted to Christianity - there is no direct relationship between faith and baptism. The only reason why faith is a prerequisite (if consistency is required), is because belonging-to-the-church or belonging-to-the-covenant-community is really what it is all about (in the Paedobaptistic view), and the role of faith in this regard is merely that of adding someone from the "outside" to this community. This is the idea that I challenged.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Pieter,
It seems to me you posit that precisely the same conditions must be required (infants vs. adults) for the sake of "consistency." To the Presbyterian, this is simply ineffective as an objection. The objection makes sense to you, I think, because you are approaching the question from within your presuppositions.

But consider it from within ours, for just a moment. This objection would obtain with the same force and leverage against the Old Covenant sign of circumcision, as against the New Covenant sign of the same import, namely baptism. We understand both were/are signs and seals unto faith. The persons and conditions for application of covenant sign were initially given to Abraham, Gen.17, and thus the basics parameters of "consistency" are set there. We begin there, in order to determine the ordinary expectations for right administration. If something would seem "inconsistent" under those conditions, then the problem must be in my expectations.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[PieterHKruger]

It seems to me you posit that precisely the same conditions must be required (infants vs. adults) for the sake of "consistency." To the Presbyterian, this is simply ineffective as an objection. The objection makes sense to you, I think, because you are approaching the question from within your presuppositions.

Surely we all have presuppositions; but a proper discussion/debate should bring these presuppositions to the fore, so that they may be tested against Scripture – is that not so? Now, it would not be exactly true to say that I require “precisely the same conditions must be required (infants vs adults)” merely for the sake consistency. The requirement of consistency only holds as long as inconsistency in some respect would imply two kinds of baptism – one for infants and a different one for converts. Such a consequence I would deem unacceptable on account of Eph. 4:5, for even if the reference is not to water baptism as such, I don’t think the meaning could be divorced from the significance of water baptism.

But consider it from within ours, for just a moment. This objection would obtain with the same force and leverage against the Old Covenant sign of circumcision, as against the New Covenant sign of the same import, namely baptism. We understand both were/are signs and seals unto faith. The persons and conditions for application of covenant sign were initially given to Abraham, Gen.17, and thus the basics parameters of "consistency" are set there. We begin there, in order to determine the ordinary expectations for right administration. If something would seem "inconsistent" under those conditions, then the problem must be in my expectations.

On what grounds do you argue that the objection raised “would obtain with the same force and leverage against the Old Covenant sign of circumcision”? Isn’t that an assumption that may be challenged? Apart from all the presuppositions related to the connection between circumcision and baptism, when I draw a relationship between faith and baptism from Scripture, it adds a character and soteriological dimension to it that I cannot find with regards to circumcision. Scripture does not say that circumcision can in any way be “the answer of a good conscience toward God” that saves, but baptism is understood in this way (1 Pet. 3:21); Scripture does not say “Repent and … be circumcised … for [unto] the remission of sins” but it does say “Repent and … be baptized … for [unto] the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38); Scripture does not allude to the possibility that anyone could be “circumcised and wash away [his/her] sins, calling on the name of the Lord” in the OT, but it does say that in terms of baptism (Acts. 22:16). Unless the similarity between circumcision and baptism could be pointed out in this regard, how can I even consider applying the same objection to circumcision?

 

[Jack K]

Would you then argue that faith is a prerequisite for anyone to be baptised – but it may be faith of the one being baptised or the faith of his/her parent(s)? So it doesn’t matter who’s faith, as long as there is faith? But in that case, what is the relationship between faith (as prerequisite) and baptism? I mean, why would it be a prerequisite (if one is to look either at the nature of faith or the meaning and role of baptism)? And also, where would you draw the line and why? Would you baptise an unbelieving adult if his/her parents got converted?

Yes. Good Presbyterians believe, just like credobaptists, that a credible profession of faith is a prerequisite to baptism. But we also recognize that the covenant relationship with God and Christ's church encompasses the whole family, so that children of faith-confessing parents are in that sense considered holy along with mom and dad (1 Cor. 7:14). Not anyone's faith gives the child this status. It must be the parent's faith, because God has chosen to work though families. And if the child is grown and no longer a part of the parent's household, or is clearly old enough to be examined himself for evidence of faith, or if he shows resistance to the faith he's being brought up in... then we don't baptize the child. Where to draw those lines is sometimes a tough call, but no harder than that of a credobaptist trying to determine if a child is "of age" to confess and be baptized.

 

[PieterHKruger]

Good Presbyterians believe, just like credobaptists, that a credible profession of faith is a prerequisite to baptism.

My question is now: why? Why is a profession of faith a prerequisite? On what grounds? In other words, what is the meaning/purpose/role of baptism that renders faith a prerequisite?

 

[Jack K]

Good Presbyterians believe, just like credobaptists, that a credible profession of faith is a prerequisite to baptism.

My question is now: why? Why is a profession of faith a prerequisite? On what grounds? In other words, what is the meaning/purpose/role of baptism that renders faith a prerequisite?

Baptism is covenantal. It's a sign of the covenant and entrance into the covenant family (the church). Faith is what's required on the human side of that covenant, as it has been since Abraham.

 

[PieterHKruger]

Baptism is covenantal. It's a sign of the covenant and entrance into the covenant family (the church). Faith is what's required on the human side of that covenant, as it has been since Abraham.

So, the only reason why faith is a prerequisite to baptise converts is the fact that they (unlike children of believers - according the Paedobaptist view) enter the church/"covenant community" by means of faith? And baptism then follows as "sign of the covenant and entrance into the covenant family".
This was how I interpreted the Paedobaptist view when I previously mentioned that:

... the requirement of faith before adult baptism being solely ecclesiologically motivated

and

... faith is necessary for those outside the church (and the children of believers are regarded as inside) to become part of the church (or “covenant community”). And baptism is interpreted as only relevant to those who have become part of the church. Thus, the requirement of faith in the case of converts is solely ecclesiologically motivated.

At this point my question is: If faith is only required because it brings one into a covenant community, what do you do with texts that suggest a relationship between baptism and faith that has a stronger soteriological sense than an ecclesiological sense, such as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and 1 Pet 3:21 (and also Mark 16:16, if you believe in its canonicity). Where does 1 Pet. 3:21 fit into a covenantal view of baptism, when it says that baptism saves as an appeal or a pledge? How can baptism, together with repentance, be "unto (eis) the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38) if baptism only relates to being in the "covenant community"?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Surely we all have presuppositions; but a proper discussion/debate should bring these presuppositions to the fore, so that they may be tested against Scripture – is that not so?

This is true. But how you present your question, or express the terms you want to bring out is also important.

Now, it would not be exactly true to say that I require “precisely the same conditions must be required (infants vs adults)” merely for the sake consistency. The requirement of consistency only holds as long as inconsistency in some respect would imply two kinds of baptism – one for infants and a different one for converts.

Right, and I reject the claim from the credobaptist that paedobaptists practice "two kinds of baptism." There's only one baptism (and one Lord, and one Faith, Eph.4:5). It may look to you like two kinds are practiced here, but that's an outsider's perspective. From the inside, all we're doing is applying the one baptism to two different classes of recipient, as appropriate, and all according to Scripture's specific directions.

If the "rules" for baptism, and consistency in baptism, are what YOU say they are, then I suppose if we deviate from that, then we would be "inconsistent." But this is what I meant referring to beginning presuppositions. We either have to have common-ground basis from which to argue the other side is inconsistent with the shared principles; or you must perform an "internal critique," and show that the other side fails for being internally, self-referentially incoherent.

Such a consequence I would deem unacceptable on account of Eph. 4:5, for even if the reference is not to water baptism as such, I don’t think the meaning could be divorced from the significance of water baptism.

See here: both of us claim to take Eph.4:5 in a the simplest, most straightforward, unambiguous fashion. And yet, clearly, you don't think I practice "one baptism," and I believe I do. Depending on what you think about whether a particular mode of baptism is mandated (i.e. immersion), you may not even think we have THE one baptism, along with the "something else" we do for the infants.

What I'm suggesting is that you have begun this inquiry assuming more "common ground" basis than actually exists. And I have suggested that you may not know enough yet about the position with which you disagree, in order to mount any kind of reasonable internal critique.

I offered a biblically-grounded explanation for why we fail to see internally any inconsistency in ourselves. But your critique of it (see below) only says, "I think you're wrong." OK. But just because you think so, doesn't expose any kind of actual inconsistency.

On what grounds do you argue that the objection raised “would obtain with the same force and leverage against the Old Covenant sign of circumcision”? Isn’t that an assumption that may be challenged?

Of course, you are free to challenge it. The point was that your original proposal of "inconsistency" takes no consideration of the fact that, granting our primary assumptions (which you haven't challenged), there is no inconsistency, UNLESS one is also calling the "consistency" of the Abrahamic administration into question as well.

Because, once again from within our position, we're simply adopting the regulations for covenant-sign administration as they were given originally to Abraham, and which we believe haven't changed apart from dispensation-specific considerations that are not essential to the character of the ordinance.

Apart from all the presuppositions related to the connection between circumcision and baptism, when I draw a relationship between faith and baptism from Scripture, it adds a character and soteriological dimension to it that I cannot find with regards to circumcision. Scripture does not say that circumcision can in any way be “the answer of a good conscience toward God” that saves, but baptism is understood in this way (1 Pet. 3:21); Scripture does not say “Repent and … be circumcised … for [unto] the remission of sins” but it does say “Repent and … be baptized … for [unto] the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38); Scripture does not allude to the possibility that anyone could be “circumcised and wash away [his/her] sins, calling on the name of the Lord” in the OT, but it does say that in terms of baptism (Acts. 22:16). Unless the similarity between circumcision and baptism could be pointed out in this regard, how can I even consider applying the same objection to circumcision?

Here is a statement of your belief-system regarding these points. But I already knew (in general) what you believe regarding these things. A restatement of your convictions is completely unnecessary here, unless you were hoping to change someone's mind.

Does anything in your paragraph move toward a demonstration of the "inconsistency" in MY position that you think may be present? That would be something to argue for. Simply saying you think I'm wrong, and making a positive declaration of your thoughts on the (related) topic doesn't begin to unravel the internal coherence of my position.

Again, no offense, but you need to defend the assertion that this side is inconsistent by undermining its claims to consistency and coherence (common-ground method, or internal critique). If you can't, that failure is prima facie evidence you don't understand the position you are disputing, and you need to read and ask questions before you make the attempt. Saying: "Inconsistent is what it looks like to me," is not much of a critique, much less an argument.

It would help if, for example, you took the time to try to understand what has made the paedobaptist position somewhat "resilient" against the allegations of inconsistency. What internal considerations make us feel rather sure of the actual consistency?

For one person's look at purported similarities between circumcision and baptism, I humbly offer this: http://www.puritanboard.com/content/circumcision-baptism-compared-60/

 

[Jack K]

At this point my question is: If faith is only required because it brings one into a covenant community, what do you do with texts that suggest a relationship between baptism and faith that has a stronger soteriological sense than an ecclesiological sense, such as Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16 and 1 Pet 3:21 (and also Mark 16:16, if you believe in its canonicity). Where does 1 Pet. 3:21 fit into a covenantal view of baptism, when it says that baptism saves as an appeal or a pledge? How can baptism, together with repentance, be "unto (eis) the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38) if baptism only relates to being in the "covenant community"?

It sounds like you're making a too-sharp distinction between being saved and being a member of the church. Although such thinking is popular in today's evangelical culture, and is the normal way of thinking among many Baptists I know, I would say such a sharp distinction is not biblical. Salvation is generous and full and includes all the grace that comes to us through the church. Saved people are part of the church, and church people are members of a saved community. Or at least that's how the Bible envisions it. It's not possible to be "solely ecclesiological" because church life is not divorced from the rest of salvation.

Of course, we don't know who in the church (among adults or children) are actually elect. But still, the nature of the church is that it is a saved community. So it is appropriate to apply baptism, with its connections to the washing away of sins and the new life, to all who are part of the church.

 

[louis_jp]

Scripture does not say that circumcision can in any way be “the answer of a good conscience toward God” that saves, but baptism is understood in this way (1 Pet. 3:21); Scripture does not say “Repent and … be circumcised … for [unto] the remission of sins” but it does say “Repent and … be baptized … for [unto] the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38); Scripture does not allude to the possibility that anyone could be “circumcised and wash away [his/her] sins, calling on the name of the Lord” in the OT, but it does say that in terms of baptism (Acts. 22:16).

Well, scripture does say that circumcision is a sign and seal "of the righteousness that he had by faith" (Rom.4:11), which is essentially the same thing if I understand your objection correctly. And scripture often refers to circumcision as something like an "answer of a good conscience" when it connects it with the circumcision of the heart, which physical circumcision is supposed to represent. Along these lines, baptism itself is called circumcision: "you were circumcised.... having been buried with him in baptism...." (Col.2:11-12). So I think Rev. Buchanan was correct, your objection "would obtain with the same force and leverage" against circumcision.

 

[torstar]

This never really gets anywhere.

The only thing I hope someone (who doesn't agree) will understand is that one is baptized under Reformed theology either by:

a) being born a child of covenant believers; or

b) if not fulfilling a) then coming to faith later on and then getting baptized. Which was the path for many of us.

I don't expect someone to fully accept this if they don't want to, but I ask that they try to grasp this for future discussions.

 

[PieterHKruger]

It may look to you like two kinds are practiced here, but that's an outsider's perspective.

And I have suggested that you may not know enough yet about the position with which you disagree, in order to mount any kind of reasonable internal critique.

Again, no offense, but you need to defend the assertion that this side is inconsistent by undermining its claims to consistency and coherence (common-ground method, or internal critique). If you can't, that failure is prima facie evidence you don't understand the position you are disputing, and you need to read and ask questions before you make the attempt.

Rev. Buchanan,
It seems to me as if you perceive my objections as views coming as an outsider's perspective. But perhaps I am not as much of an outsider as you seem to suggest. I was raised in a Reformed Paedobaptist congregation, attending church services twice every Sunday and learning the Reformed doctrine in catechism. I also did quite a bit of reading in recent years. Perhaps it is rather a case of me not grasping all the ins and outs of all the intricacies on which the paedobaptist argument is built. But if I am nevertheless ignorant in this regard, I sincerely want that to be pointed out to me.

If the "rules" for baptism, and consistency in baptism, are what YOU say they are, then I suppose if we deviate from that, then we would be "inconsistent." But this is what I meant referring to beginning presuppositions. We either have to have common-ground basis from which to argue the other side is inconsistent with the shared principles; or you must perform an "internal critique," and show that the other side fails for being internally, self-referentially incoherent.

I am fully aware of the role of hermeneutical and other presuppositions in one's doctrinal views. To a great extend I don't think Baptists and Paedobaptists differ on hermeneutical principles, so at least there we should have a great amount of "common-ground basis" on which to build. This allows for transcendent critique along with immanent critique. When inconsistencies within a view is challenged, I perceive it as immanent (or internal) criticism, and when I appeal to Scripture, I perceive that to be transcendent critique. In what I have initially argued I have actually employed both kinds of critique.

And yet, clearly, you don't think I practice "one baptism," and I believe I do.

I offered a biblically-grounded explanation for why we fail to see internally any inconsistency in ourselves

The point was that your original proposal of "inconsistency" takes no consideration of the fact that, granting our primary assumptions (which you haven't challenged), there is no inconsistency,

Does anything in your paragraph move toward a demonstration of the "inconsistency" in MY position that you think may be present?

Again, no offense, but you need to defend the assertion that this side is inconsistent by undermining its claims to consistency and coherence (common-ground method, or internal critique)

It would help if, for example, you took the time to try to understand what has made the paedobaptist position somewhat "resilient" against the allegations of inconsistency.

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding in terms of my reference to consistency. Because actually I haven't claimed that the Paedobaptist position necessarily IS inconsistent (neither did I claim that with regard to your position) and needs to be critiqued by immanent criticism. My argument was more in the line of: IF Paedobaptists are to be consistent, then the faith preceding baptism in the case of converts relates to its ecclesiological meaning, OTHERWISE there seems to be an internal inconsistency. My claim was not that Paedobaptists perceive the faith that precedes baptism as having other dimensions in its relationship with baptism that would change its meaning, whereby an inconsistency would occur and two types of baptism could be implied (in my understanding). At this point, my argument was: IF Paedobaptists are consistent up to this point (and presumably many are), THEN my challenge is transcendental in nature, appealing to Scripture and demanding an answer. It is at this point, where I sincerely want to know what Paedobaptists would answer.

For one person's look at purported similarities between circumcision and baptism, I humbly offer this: http://www.puritanboard.com/content/...m-compared-60/

Thank you for this link. However, I don’t find it specific enough to be helpful for what I want to know. Perhaps you could elaborate on that? However, to say:

But I already knew (in general) what you believe regarding these things. A restatement of your convictions is completely unnecessary here, unless you were hoping to change someone's min

also doesn’t really help. I would like to know how a proper exegesis of the texts mentioned presents a view of baptism (and its relationship with faith, which is implied in them) that is entirely consistent with what circumcision is. To work from the premise that baptism replaced circumcision (based on inductive reasoning from similarities) and that they function in exactly the same fashion (even though there are some obvious differences) would really not help me to see how a Paedobaptist would use proper hermeneutical principles to exegete the texts and still maintain the correspondence between baptism and circumcision that they do, and also still remain internally consistent.

 

[PieterHKruger]

It sounds like you're making a too-sharp distinction between being saved and being a member of the church. Although such thinking is popular in today's evangelical culture, and is the normal way of thinking among many Baptists I know, I would say such a sharp distinction is not biblical. Salvation is generous and full and includes all the grace that comes to us through the church. Saved people are part of the church, and church people are members of a saved community. Or at least that's how the Bible envisions it. It's not possible to be "solely ecclesiological" because church life is not divorced from the rest of salvation.

Of course, we don't know who in the church (among adults or children) are actually elect. But still, the nature of the church is that it is a saved community. So it is appropriate to apply baptism, with its connections to the washing away of sins and the new life, to all who are part of the church.

Actually I don't hold to a very sharp distinction between being saved and being a member of the church. My argument is rather that the soteriological character of the faith required for a convert to be baptised, cannot bear on the meaning or purpose of baptism, otherwise there would, in my opinion, be an inconsistency between infant baptism and adult baptism (unless you want to purport that all infants have the kind of faith that saves). And at this point, my argument is that faith is more prominent in its soteriological dimension when reference is made to baptism in the texts mentioned. My challenge to the Paedobaptist at this point is to either to show that the soteriological dimension of faith is irrelevant to baptism and the meaning/purpose thereof (in these texts) or to show that, in spite of the soteriological dimension, infant and adult baptism remain consistent in this respect.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Pieter,
I'm worried I'm simply coming across as too condescending, and that's not my intention.

I really do think, based on more than a handful of these sorts of dialogs, that too much time is spent "backing up from here," because we find (after a lot of energy is expended) that the problem was we didn't have the common-ground beginning we thought we had.

What I picked up on earlier from your posts--and what I tried to address in a short, uncomplicated way--was your sense of "inconsistency" in the why of baptism (from our position). It is obvious that "why" a person is baptized has something to do with the reason for performing the rite.

From the position of the baptist, the reason a person is baptized has close to a one-to-one relationship to that person's open profession of his faith. That, right there, is the antecedent criterion, the sine qua non (that without which), the most necessary and sufficient condition that forms the basis or reason for baptizing, anyone.

And, you observe that in the Ref/Pres world, we also baptize adults upon their profession of faith; and we won't baptize such a person having normal cognitive development without that condition. ERGO, it seems as though the two sides share an identical basis (an antecedent soteriologically-related condition, but based on human observational criteria) for baptizing adults.

Consequently, if we then ALSO baptize infants (who lack the ordinary development required to make an open profession of faith--the presumed sine qua non), ERGO, we must have another "why", another reason for baptizing the infant. And this leads fairly surely and directly to the most rational conclusion that, in fact, this is "another baptism" (if it deserves the name).

Feel free to correct me, if in any way I have misrepresented your points (above) in any way. I think I have understood what you're saying, and the process by which you came to your conclusions.


Now, I'd like to return to my original, short and sweet reply. We do not baptize ANYONE--adult professors, or their children--because (reason, on the basis, because of the sine qua non) of a profession of faith. In the case of a normally developed ADULT, we consider his profession to be a necessary condition for that class of persons. But the profession of faith is NOT the necessary and sufficient condition for baptism. And because it isn't, it also cannot be the principal or fundamental reason why anyone is baptized at all, in our opinion.

OUR (Ref/Pres) ultimate basis for determining WHOM should be baptized is by an appeal to the Scriptures that we understand spell out clearly and unambiguously the designated recipients of the sign and seal of the covenant of grace. We find this first in Gen.17. The New Testament--not severed from the Old, but expanding and finishing the full revelation of Redemption--teaches us 1) what things have remained unchanged concerning God-in-covenant with his people, and 2) what things have changed.

For us, the question is the same as it was during the Old Testament eras: WHO are God's covenant-people? How are they known in the world, and how are they distinguished from the rest of the world. So, the "why" or the reason for baptizing ANYONE we say is determined by the question: does this person meet the outward and discernible criteria for being publicly identified as one of "God's people."

So, the criteria were set originally in Gen.17. There, one encounters the same sort of apparent "inconsistency" in application of the sign and seal of the covenant that you charged against this side. In fact, there's even MORE inconsistency. There, and of course later on in the history of Redemption as converts to the Israelite faith are added generation after generation, we have the "inconsistency" of adults who openly profess their desire to follow the God of Israel now taking on the sign of the covenant along with the rest of the males in their household. I say "even more inconsistency," because (who could deny) women were ALSO members of God's covenant people, they were even added in from outside through conversion (e.g. Ruth, the Moabitess)--and yet, they were incapable of personally receiving the sign of membership.

So, we had the case, in days of old, where God's people were distinguished from the world ONLY in the male representatives, and sometimes by profession (through conversion) and for many/most others by being born to previous professors--that is, to those who were publicly members of the Old Testament church, who had not left the covenant community or been excommunicated/banished.

It is for this cause that I said your objections to our position would just as easily and properly impugn the "consistency" or "propriety" of the Abrahamic administration of the same Covenant of Grace. Of course, if what Ref/Pres believe is the truth concerning the right application of the sign/seal, then the charge of "inconsistency" falls by the way just as easily for the New Covenant administration, as it would fall by the way for any previous era of Redemptive history, beginning with Abraham. The specific criteria for different classes of persons receiving the sign/seal can vary, depending on how one class is separated from another, without altering the fundamental unity of the people so designated.


Finally, as I anticipate your repeating your objection that the signs/seals (circumcision and baptism) represent different things, especially salvific connotations that you see exclusive to baptism, let me point out that the construction of your presentation was a parody of Scripture. You simply stated how verse X does not say... (and you stuck the word circumcision in for baptism). You were, in effect, proposing that for our position to be true/accurate, we need to have verses in the Bible that say the same things in so many words. Or else, we don't have correlation.

I pointed you to another page, where I laid out copious Scripture references, all together which I think is amply demonstrative of my contention that the two signs DO, in fact, have essentially the same import. The overlap between the two appears to be overwhelming. I have, actually, almost every single reference to both Baptism and Circumcision in the whole Bible on that one page, along with just a few other relevant Scripture that do not use the bare terminology, but which seemed to me to have some bearing on the matter. I think, at this point, it falls to those disagreeing with me to show otherwise, or at least offer a counter-proposal that deals as thoroughly with the available evidence.

Anyway, I wrote another looong post, when I meant initially to be brief. I hope I've been of assistance.

 

[jwithnell]

I think the inside-outside perception here comes because the Presbyterians in this forum, consistent with our confessional standards, are steeped in covenant theology. I don't think the term covenant emerged in your discussion until it was brought up by others, which immediately struck me as an odd omission, particularly if we are talking about the inclusion of someone into God's covenant people.

We believe that God has had one people through all time and that the fullest fruition of the covenant is seen in Christ, His church, and (this is where you can find some difference among Presbyterians) the current reality of Christ's kingdom. Yes, each individual is responsible before God. But a covenant child is given every advantage by his early recognition as part of God's people. The soteriological significance of this are many including:
> Revelation and redemption are intertwined. A covenant child will consistently be hearing God's word throughout his life if he is in a family and church that holds true to the faith.
>Baptism and communion are seen as means of grace for God's people. Neither "saves" in the modern usage of the word but when accompanied by other means, including hearing the word and prayer, we as covenant parents have great hope that our children will come to a saving faith in Christ. This precise moment does not have to be determined as it might in a more individualized "decisionism" theology.
> If our children do not come to faith as they reach adulthood, then the church must treat that individual as someone outside the covenant with the same end in mind as would be true for any case of church discipline: the hope that the individual will understand the true danger to his soul and return to the church. We've had a case like that in our church recently, and it was marvelous to see the young lady returning, growing rapidly in faith and being greatly blessed by God.
> As we interact with people outside the church, we hope that God will open their eyes to the scriptures and that they will come to saving faith. If not previously baptized that person, after making a credible profession of faith, will be joined to God's covenant people and baptized.

 

[PieterHKruger]

What I picked up on earlier from your posts--and what I tried to address in a short, uncomplicated way--was your sense of "inconsistency" in the why of baptism (from our position). It is obvious that "why" a person is baptized has something to do with the reason for performing the rite.

Yes, the possibility of inconsistency that I see is related to the reason for performing the rite. And I would add that the reason for performing the rite, must have something to do with the meaning (or purpose of role) of baptism - in my understanding.

And, you observe that in the Ref/Pres world, we also baptize adults upon their profession of faith; and we won't baptize such a person having normal cognitive development without that condition. ERGO, it seems as though the two sides share an identical basis (an antecedent soteriologically-related condition, but based on human observational criteria) for baptizing adults.

Not exactly my point: My point is that, although the requirement of a profession of faith is shared externally, the motivation for having the profession of faith as prerequisite differs: for Baptists, faith has a more direct relationship with the “why” (or with the meaning) of baptism, whereas Paedobaptists – if they want to be consistent – can only have that faith as a requirement based on the ecclesiological view of covenant theology. And, as far as my understanding goes, this is exactly why the discussion moves over to the relationship between baptism and circumcision at this point: the discussion is cast into ecclesiology / the covenant theological framework. At this point, however, I want to “interpose” as if to say: “Wait, before we go there, I would like to know whether it is justified to perceive the requirement of faith merely on ecclesiological grounds”.

Consequently, if we then ALSO baptize infants (who lack the ordinary development required to make an open profession of faith--the presumed sine qua non), ERGO, we must have another "why", another reason for baptizing the infant.

... UNLESS the “why” is embedded only in a view of who belongs to the church and who does not … then there is no other “why”. My question is: Are we justified to have that specific “why” – the covenant-“why”?

And this leads fairly surely and directly to the most rational conclusion that, in fact, this is "another baptism" (if it deserves the name).

I say “Yes” ONLY if there is something more in the relationship between faith and baptism in its regarded as the prerequisite of baptism. The Paedobaptist cannot postulate that the antecedent faith is in any sense a reason for baptism, except via the ecclesiological requirement of belonging to the “covenant people”. At this point I am asking: what do you do with the soteriological/salvific aspects clearly involved in a couple of texts where they don’t seem to refer to a promise that has to be appropriated by a future faith, but is more closely related to the “why” of baptism that asked for faith in the first place.

Now, I'd like to return to my original, short and sweet reply. We do not baptize ANYONE--adult professors, or their children--because (reason, on the basis, because of the sine qua non) of a profession of faith. In the case of a normally developed ADULT, we consider his profession to be a necessary condition for that class of persons. But the profession of faith is NOT the necessary and sufficient condition for baptism. And because it isn't, it also cannot be the principal or fundamental reason why anyone is baptized at all, in our opinion.

So, the "why" or the reason for baptizing ANYONE we say is determined by the question: does this person meet the outward and discernible criteria for being publicly identified as one of "God's people."

This is precisely the answer that I have expected when I said that the faith preceding baptism (in the case of converts) do not directly bear on the meaning of baptism, but that the need for that faith is ecclesiologically motivated: the person needs to belong to “the church”, i.e. to “the covenant community” to be baptised, and faith is merely the requirement for this class of persons (but not the requirement for the children of believers). In my opinion such a paedobaptistic view maintains the required internal consistency. (I was arguing, perhaps not with enough clarity, that you HAVE TO find the reason for having faith as prerequisite at a place where you can apply the same motivation to children, if you want to remain consistent. And in the Reformed/Presbyterian circles that other place is covenant theology / ecclesiology.) Assuming internal consistency, my question is (from a transcendental point of view): when a connection between baptism and faith is drawn in Scripture (whether explicitly or implicitly) when a convert is baptised, could that relationship between faith and baptism be merely ecclesiological if there are soteriological/salvific elements involved? Do the texts lend itself to a view that these elements become part of a proclaimed promise that is to be appropriated by future faith?

Finally, as I anticipate your repeating your objection that the signs/seals (circumcision and baptism) represent different things, especially salvific connotations that you see exclusive to baptism, let me point out that the construction of your presentation was a parody of Scripture. You simply stated how verse X does not say... (and you stuck the word circumcision in for baptism). You were, in effect, proposing that for our position to be true/accurate, we need to have verses in the Bible that say the same things in so many words. Or else, we don't have correlation.

Obviously I did not expect that the same things be said about circumcision in so many words. My objection was rather than I don’t see the same connotations with respect to circumcision. And you are partially correct in anticipating me repeating my objection in this respect. But there is a sense in which I don’t understand why texts concerning baptism cannot be judged on their own merits in their own contexts. (I don’t want to deny the hermeneutical circle involved in interpretation, in which parts cannot be isolated from broader doctrinal contexts, but why can 1 Pet. 3:21, for example, not have its meaning within its own context without starting with the premise that baptism and circumcision has virtually the same meaning and significance?) Moreover, the premise that circumcision and baptism have the same significance (or import) and function in the same manner as “signs/seals” are based on inductive reasoning (rather than deductive reasoning). To use inductive reasoning (i.e. by generalisation of some similarities to almost total agreement) to equate baptism and circumcision and to then move back to a particular feature (i.e. the salvific connotations) to claim that baptism and circumcision must be similar in this respect, does not seem to be the appropriate approach. First it must be proved how the salvific connotations [a particular aspect] agree, before it could be valid to claim that they are similar [in an overall sense]. (I presume that I don’t need to provide an analogy to demonstrate why I think the order of the approach is the wrong way round, but I will, if required). In other words, you would need to demonstrate (in my opinion) that all the texts in which salvific elements arise can validly be interpreted in such a way that the implied faith preceding baptism is only ecclesiologically motivated. I have difficulty seeing such a possibility in the mentioned texts:
Even though 1 Pet. 3:21 may theoretically be translated in about 8 different ways (if all the possible permutations are considered), there clearly is a sense in which baptism saves in its capacity as something subjective, i.e. as an “eperotema” (request/appeal OR pledge/promise). (In saying this, I don’t deny that the salvation involved has objective grounds: “the resurrection of Jesus Christ”). But how can baptism operate as an “eperotema”, and how can baptism in some sense “save” when operating in this capacity, if it does not imply the existence of faith? (For faith is closely connected to both a profession thereof and a commitment to that which is believed). If faith is implied, how can the meaning of a baptism that operates as an “eperotema” have a mere ecclesiological import? My reasoning/objection is this: if a paedobaptist wants to remain consistent, he cannot move beyond seeing any allusion to faith in 1 Pet. 3:21 as connected with being part of the one “covenant people” rather than with baptism. But how do you interpret 1 Pet. 3:21 then? That is what I want to know. To answer with a “that is not how it should be interpreted because it doesn’t fit the paradigm in which baptism and circumcision are virtually equivalent” seems to dismiss the fact that, hermeneutically, 1 Pet. 3:21 has a meaning on its own merits. What does 1 Pet. 3:21 say? How should it be interpreted?
Similarly, when Ananias said to Paul “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord,” (Acts. 22:16) the phrase “calling on the name of the Lord” suggests that faith should to be involved when he is baptised, and the phrase “wash away you sins” suggests a salvific connotation being attached to it. I cannot see how this verse could be understood in such a way that the required faith is detached from the motivation for baptism in this instance, and seen as having a mere ecclesiological significance. How would proper exegesis lead to such a conclusion? Again, to claim that baptism has essentially the same import as circumcision, and therefore the preceding faith does not bear on the “why” of the baptism in this text, really seems to shrug off the need to interpret the verse on its own merits.

I pointed you to another page, where I laid out copious Scripture references, all together which I think is amply demonstrative of my contention that the two signs DO, in fact, have essentially the same import. The overlap between the two appears to be overwhelming. I have, actually, almost every single reference to both Baptism and Circumcision in the whole Bible on that one page, along with just a few other relevant Scripture that do not use the bare terminology, but which seemed to me to have some bearing on the matter. I think, at this point, it falls to those disagreeing with me to show otherwise, or at least offer a counter-proposal that deals as thoroughly with the available evidence.

In terms of the texts on which I base my objection, the following:
You have categorised 1 Pet. 3:21, Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 in the same list under the heading of “cure/cleansing”. What you see as corresponding to that in terms of circumcision are Gen.34:14-24, Ex.6:12,30, Jer.6:10, Is.52:1 and Lev.19:23-25. In these latter texts, the negative word “uncircumcised” is used, and mostly metaphorically. I have at least two problems with the claim that these texts correspond to the texts on baptism. Firstly, I am more careful to interpret the metaphorical sense strictly as “cure/cleansing” or “offense” in all instances. Brown-Driver-Briggs, for example, takes the metaphorical sense of Jer. 6:10 to mean “unreceptive”. In Exo. 6:12, 30 the word seems to suggest some kind of lack in terms of Moses’ ability to speak eloquently. Secondly, it seems inappropriate to compare texts in which a word (“uncircumcised”) is used metaphorically with texts in which another word (“baptism”) is not used in a metaphorical sense. Thus, simply put: unless the correspondence between the baptism texts (1Pet.3:21; Mk.1:4; Act.2:38; Act.22:16; Heb.10:22; Heb.9:22) and the (un)circumcision texts (Gen.34:14-24; Ex.6:12,30; Jer.6:10; Is.52:1; cf.Lev.19:23-25) could be demonstrated more methodically and unambiguously, the similarities truly seem to be too superficial or even artificial to me - and I don't mean to offend in saying this; it just doesn't make sense to me. Furthermore, I don’t see any allusion to an implied faith in the texts using the word “uncircumcised,” but I do see faith being implied in texts such as 1 Pet. 3:21, Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16. And this is more to the heart of my objection.

---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:33 PM ----------

scripture often refers to circumcision as something like an "answer of a good conscience" when it connects it with the circumcision of the heart, which physical circumcision is supposed to represent.

I really don’t see how the connection between circumcision, AS a SYMBOL of circumcision of the heart, could be equated with baptism in its capacity AS AN ANSWER of a good conscience. Moreover, circumcision of the heart is often interpreted as regeneration, and I also cannot see how regeneration is the same as “an answer of a good conscience”.

 

[louis_jp]

I really don’t see how the connection between circumcision, AS a SYMBOL of circumcision of the heart, could be equated with baptism in its capacity AS AN ANSWER of a good conscience.

Baptism is also connected with the circumcision of the heart. (Col.2:11-12: "a circumcision made without hands... having been buried with him in baptism"). As regards "an answer of a good conscience," are you looking for so many words again? The Jews were told to circumcise their hearts (Deut.10:16) -- that is an answer to God.

Circumcision was a sign and seal of righteousness by faith. (Rom.4:11). It pointed to an inward reality, or what should have been an inward reality, which is called circumcision of the heart. (Rom.2:28-29). Baptism likewise points to an inward reality. It is not the outward washing, but the inward condition of the heart that "now saves you." (1 Pet.3:21). So they are signs and seals, and they point to the same thing.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Pieter,
Thanks for clarifying. You have focussed in on a key difference in how these two camps (within Protestantism) understand baptism. I can't say if you've clearly perceived the issues yet (hence your attempt to ask good questions), however I commend you for avoiding much of the clutter.

The symbol and the reality belong together. We do not deny this truth; we affirm it. We are personally united to Christ by the instrument of faith (instrumental cause) arising from the true believer's regenerated spirit. Whereas, the union with Christ is grounded (basis/basic cause) on a personal justification, through the merits of Christ. I argue, baptism is emblematic of the whole work of God in redemption, primarily in its objective accomplishment in Christ, and secondarily in its subjective application to individuals.

Here's a fundamental difference between the Credo- and the Paedo- position:

1) The C-B teaches that baptism is fundamentally a "ratification" moment. It is a subjective statement about what I say I believe God has done for ME (and by extension, the church that baptizes me agrees with me in principle); so clearly the statement invariably follows the presumed reality in the nature of the case. It is important to remember that no baptism takes place in this scenario if genuine faith is not ALREADY present. The truth-value of the witness of this event is contingent on the sincerity of the baptized.

2) The P-B teaches that baptism is fundamentally a "proclamation" moment. It is an objective statement about what GOD says He has done for sinners in Jesus Christ (the church being the proclaimer of the gospel); so, as a witness to the monergistic work of God in salvation that is antecedent to ANY human testimony, it is not necessary to place a personal claim in advance of the baptism (any farther than the Scriptures direct it--the Bible determines what is "appropriate" or not). The water does not need to symbolize (in the case of an infant) a regeneration that has already occurred, because in the case of an elect child it will in providential course symbolize this order: regeneration-followed-by-faith; i.e. the saving work of God symbolized by baptism, resulting in the personal confession "Jesus is Lord."

Thus, in this scenario a genuine baptism takes place EVERY TIME such an even is rightly administered. The Spiritual efficiency of a baptism is only present WHEN faith lays hold of the promises baptism holds forth; but someone baptized as an infant may just as easily lay hold of the promise held forth in baptism when he is age 3, 5, or 35; as another man does when he is converted and comes into the church through baptism for the first time at age 53. There is never any reason or purpose in re-baptizing, because the truth-value of the witness of this event is NOT contingent on the sincerity of the baptized. Rather, there is an implicit condition in every baptism--just as there is an implicit condition in every gospel proclamation--that apart from faith, the promise of God to save those who hear the saving message will not be realized. And instead, the judgment illustrated by baptism will be borne by the faithless one.​

As to this question:

what do you do with the soteriological/salvific aspects clearly involved in a couple of texts where they don’t seem to refer to a promise that has to be appropriated by a future faith, but is more closely related to the “why” of baptism that asked for faith in the first place[?]

You originally mentioned Act.22:16 & 1Pet.3:21.

First, comes the issue of how to begin structuring one's theology of baptism. Why should I choose to begin at Act.22:16 or 1Pet.3:21? Act.22:16 is particularly problematic because 1) it is a narrative passage, and thus descriptive rather than prescriptive or didactic; 2) it is dialogical, meaning that it rehearses verbal exchange that typically assumes the world of discourse, and a significant amount of preunderstanding. Studying Acts effectively assumes the student is passing familiar with the theological background at least of the teachings of Christ that formed the basis of the apostolic witness, and the doctrinal, practical, and ethical content of the primitive church's teaching preserved (a posteriori) for us mainly in the Epistles. Ideally, one would possess an acquaintance with the extant "Scriptures" (i.e., the Old Testament), because that was the entirety of the Bible of the earliest Christians.

Is Act.22:16 the plainest text indicating the proper posture for baptism, i.e. "standing"? Did Ananias indicate that this bodily activity would literally cleanse Paul of the sin of his soul? These are all questions that are immediately raised by this text, for which alone it provides no helpful direction. So, one must reason on several cogent grounds this text presents ALL interpreters with only a minuscule amount of positive content, from which to draw conclusions. A relationship between baptism, and cleansing and confession appears to be affirmed; but what that relationship amounts to is NOT defined here. Nor can it be stated what many aspects of baptism are left out.

1Pet.3:21. It seems to me, based on what I've read of your comments, that you understand "answer" here to be equivalent to "reply," and the genitive construction "of a good conscience," as a description of an antecedent-condition obtained, out of which proceeds the answer. And you thus interpret the baptismal-service as being the witness of the answer.

That is certainly one way of interpreting that verse. But even if it is the correct one, this reading has certainly not shown that there are no other possible conditions, nor that the same conditions are improperly obtained posterior to the baptismal service. Such a conclusion is simply NOT ruled out. The negation is missing; and if it be positively stated elsewhere, in another fashion, that is sufficient to show that this text is not an exclusive description.

But then, also, the text is readable in other ways. Take the ESV translation, for example. "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Note that the Gk επερωτημα is given as "appeal," (more like request than reply); and the genitive is given as for instead of of. Taken together, this reading presents baptism as the posture adopted by a person in the position of a suppliant, a needy person, who desires the cleansing of his conscience (not simply the external washing dirt). So in this case, so far from this alone text presuming to teach an always, antecedent conscience-state of purity; rather, the act of baptism is taken as reflecting the sinners need for the power of God to cleanse (and go on cleansing) his guilty conscience.

I understand baptism to bear the dual-character of both the initial and definitive act of God to unite his believers to Christ their Savior; and a repetitive reminder that every day we die to self in our baptism in order to live unto God. Therefore, I am constantly looking back on my baptism, and asking God to fulfill the promise he makes generally in baptism, but to me in a uniquely personal way at MY baptism. In other worlds, baptism isn't simply "regeneration," or "faith," or "justification," or "union;" but all these AND "perseverance" as well to his elect.
____________________

(This is already another too-long post)

You want to judge "baptism texts" on their own, in their "own" context, as if it was possible to rightly understand any portion of Scripture rightly--or at least completely--as if it had no organic relation to the rest of the Bible. I'm tempted to leave it there, and just demand to know "Why?" What other doctrine do you treat that way? That's just not how Christian theology is done.

But to try to meet you on your own turf, I would say that I have No Problem dealing with a particular text in its "narrow" context. Please note the above handling of the text of 1Pet.3:21, case in point. I will simply reiterate here, that even making a positive-case, and sticking to the facts of particular texts cannot, by a rule of logic, preclude other conclusions, taken from other texts. Not unless the requisite universals (all, every, none, never, etc.) have been demonstrated from said text. And even then, as we well know, the appearance of universal terms is not alone a sufficient condition to prove exclusivity, if other texts rightly interpreted compel us "relativize" a universal term to a smaller "world" of discourse.

Your "rule" to reduce right-interpretation to matters of deduction (and minimize the importance and value of induction) is arbitrary. I reject both the distinction and the disjunction. Besides, I am most certain that you cannot live up to your own standard; at least, I do not recommend trying. Many who have made the attempt have made shipwreck of their faith. I'm not saying you are on that path. As I said, I don't really think you believe your own statement, at least not enough to commit unreservedly to it.

This is really just a version of the Systematic Theology vs. Exegetical Theology (or Biblical Theology) argument. And it is nonsense. Beside which, a complete (or completely relevant) induction is THE SAME as deduction. The only thing that makes the "all crows are black" argument formally fallacious is the fact that no human observer is omniscient. On the other hand, the collocation of relevant biblical data is (at least theoretically) possible, because we possess the whole, and it has limits. If new insights are gained from overlooked angles on the revelatory deposit, then we simply add the data to the store, and recalibrate our conclusions.

It is a mildly amusing to deal with the repetitive canard that the problem with the P-B is that he isn't "exegetical" enough, and is dependent on his "system" (covenant theology) to explain (and explain away) data. One advantage to being embedded in a tradition and a "system" is: we are usually honest enough to admit the contours of our system, and we benefit from a public and shared commitment to that tradition/system, by which we are checked from our tendency to excess of self-confidence. The "biblicist" on the other hand, acknowledges no debt to a tradition or "system," and is a free-radical. Hence, the "if you just let the Bible speak for itself, you'd be a..." fill in the blank. "Baptist." "Dispensationalist." "Whatever."

No, we're exegetical and systematic, and any attempt to prejudice the one for the other is a recipe for confusion--eventually, if not immediately. And it's basically impossible to do, if one has a prior commitment to the harmony of revelation. In the end, it will be an acknowledged, public, shared system; or an individual, ad hoc tradition-of-one. And if you acknowledge that you have and depend on the first (and thus admit to a reliance on induction), then your methodological objection to my demonstrating the correlation between baptism and circumcision is moot. Why do they "appear" to correlate, if indeed they do not?


Here are questions for you:
What do you mean by "salvific connotations" respecting baptism? Obviously (if you believe your own Confession), you don't mean that water-baptism literally saves the soul. So, have you begun constructing the foundations of a theology-of-baptism on an "order" supposedly taught/expressed in 1Pet.3:21 & Act.22:16? How many assumptions have you brought with you to those texts?

You posit baptism as a practice on the existential state of true saving-faith. Baptism isn't valid (in the C-B sense) if saving faith isn't present, so how can you ever be sure ANY person is baptized, other than yourself (assuming you aren't self-deceived)? Can you read a heart? The church that baptizes on this basis is simply practicing (good?) guess-work, since no one has infallible knowledge about the state of any soul.

Consequently, what is YOUR take on the "salvific connotations" of various baptismal texts? They obviously cannot mean that the certainty of faith precedes all "attempts" at baptizing. Not even the apostles could read the hearts of their converts, so for example Simon Magus, Act.8:13. Therefore, you must be proposing something relative to baptism and salvation that is true, regardless of the subjective state of the soul of anyone who encounters those waters.

So, if you can recognize that this is the case for your own position, then what is the nature of your objection to ours (as it relates to "salvific connotations"), other than protesting the absence of a universal, ineluctable requirement for a personal (and fallible) assertion of a claim to immediate possession of that salvation? The C-Bs are making an unverifiable claim every time they baptize someone: that this person IS a child of God, that he IS what he claims to be... unless he isn't.

In comparison, our claims are both more objective, and more modest: God promises to save each recipient of baptism, who embraces Jesus Christ by faith. That promise is made individually to people who claim to have already embraced Jesus Christ by faith (who may or may not be sincere, but the promise is true irrespectively), as well as to those who have yet to make such a claim. We don't make any claims whatever about the subjective truth of the person submitting to the rite. So, we don't deny in any way the proper and true "salvific connotations" of baptism.
____________________

As for treating with the texts adduced to show the correlation between circumcision and baptism:
The notion of or "washing/cleansing" is the ONE thing that Act.22:16 & 1Pet.3:21 most assuredly have in common. Not all the OT texts only mention UNcircumcision, but besides, that's a total dodge of the issue. Especially as the opening text mentions BOTH, and contrast the states. UNcircumcision only has a comprehensible meaning in comparison to the other, positive state. Thus, the implication of the contrasting state is part of a correct and proper interpretation of each text!

If you went through the texts, starting in Gen.34, you would have seen the contrast. Gen.34:14 speaks directly to the "reproach" of those who are uncircumcised, and the removal of that offense by the cleansing of the organ. There's an ironic statement at the end of the passage, as furious Jacob denounces his murderous sons for making him "a stink" to the inhabitants of the land.

The Ex.6:12,30 passage reveals Moses' self-contempt and his expectation of similar reproach from Pharaoh, because of his "gutter" speech. How will this problem be "cured" I wonder?

Jer.6:10, the "uncircumcised ear" is unclean, blocked up, it cannot hear. What is required for this situation to be "cured"?

Is 52:1, makes the most explicit connection between "uncircumcised" and "unclean" so far encountered, equating the terms.

Lev.19:23-25, the fruit of the trees planted by ISRAELITES in the ground contaminated by the Canaanites is "uncircumcised" for THREE years. The fourth year, the fruit is practically "cherem," holy, devoted to the Lord, inedible for that reason. And in the fifth year, it became edible. The people couldn't eat anything that wasn't CLEAN. The "cleansing/curing" process took FIVE YEARS. That's the point of the text.

The whole point of a series of passages like this is to show that the MEANING of a concept is the point, and not the specific terminology. How does the theological apprehensions of OT saints and prophets contribute to our knowledge of how we should be understanding these things? Because these people understood what fleshly circumcision MEANT, Moses and the prophets can presume on that knowledge as they apply the spiritual (what you call "metaphorical") sense to a variety of contexts.

Frankly, what you've done with your "dictionary" exegesis, is sought to AVOID making the obvious linguistic connection between the more concrete notion, and its "spiritual/metaphorical" application. WHY would Moses or Isaiah use such a word in such a place? This is a question for which exegesis seeks the answer. You also chose to "respond" only to the texts for which you found a solution that might put you as far as possible from the notion of "cure/cleansing," without actually dealing with the meaning of the passages. That's simply dodging.

So tell me, is Act.22:16 speaking to Paul of a "physical" washing away of his sins? Does 1Pet.3:21 speak of baptism as WATER that removes the GUILT of sin from the soul? No? I didn't think so. Those are "spiritual," invisible," "intangible," "metaphorical," "applicational," notions that are tied to the representational depictions seen in baptism. 1Pet.3:21 goes so far as to explicitly highlight the difference (without losing the connection) between what is symbolized on the outside (water removing dirt), and the reality so needful on the inside, for eternal salvation (the Spirit removing sin). You may split hairs if you will, over putative differences between "spiritual" and "metaphorical" and all that, if you so desire. It is a distinction without a meaningful difference.


The real "issue" or "rub" is that you have a precommitment to a major difference between the ages; a major difference between the people of God then, and now; a major difference between the signs of covenant pre-Christ and post-resurrection, that no amount of evidence will overcome. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your attempt to make the most of a distinction between texts that speak of "circumcision" and those that speak of "UNcircumcision." What do you do with all those OLD TESTAMENT texts, from Moses to Jeremiah--the breadth (nearly) of the whole Old Covenant era--that speak of heart-circumcision (or the lack therof)?

You seem already precommitted to the principle that OT flesh-circumcision corresponds to NT baptism (or heart-circumcision). But the OT speaks of BOTH heart-circumcision, and its correlate: flesh-circumcision! And the NT speaks of flesh-baptism, and its correlate: spirit-baptism! Is it any wonder, if Paul takes an OT flesh-type and connects it with a NT spirit-reality? No, it isn't surprising at all, especially when a flesh-flesh and spirit-spirit correlation across the divide is explicit.

 

[PieterHKruger]

Thank you, Rev. Buchanan,

I will respond as soon as possible. Firstly I have enough to ponder over at this point, and secondly I don't foresee any real opportunity to respond within the next three or four days.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thank you, Rev. Buchanan,

I will respond as soon as possible. Firstly I have enough to ponder over at this point, and secondly I don't foresee any real opportunity to respond within the next three or four days.

ADMIN HAT ON

There is no requirement that you "respond" Pieter. Let me remind you that this forum is Paedobaptist ANSWERS. It is meant for people to ask questions in order to receive answers from the paedobaptist perspective. I've let this run a bit but it appears you are interested in debating the point rather than seeking clarification on the issue. If you wish to debate the answers given then you need to do so in the Baptism forum. Your thread started more with a charge than a question: that the paedobaptist view is internally inconsistent. In fact, as Bruce demonstrated, you only demonstrated that it was not externally consistent.

I may not agree with the CB view but the reason Baptists do not baptize infants is consistent with their view. I cannot charge a CB with being inconsistent if I disagree with the reason he is not baptizing an infant child. I may accuse him with error on the foundational reason but it would be facile of me to accuse him of inconsistency.

In other words, please stick to the OP or this thread is going to close. You have failed to demonstrate internal inconsistency. Do you have anything to offer toward that end?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Pieter, thanks. Rich, thanks.

I think I've said more than enough, and the responses just keep lengthening to meet the expansion.

I can't keep that up. I'm overcommitted right now.

 

[PieterHKruger]

Sorry, it was never my intention to engage in any debate here (but rather to understand how certain Scriptures get interpreted if consistency is maintained), and I also did not mean that when saying that I would “respond”. But we can leave the discussion at this point then. Thank you for all your efforts. It was not without any value to me.