Paedo-Baptism Answers Help with an argument from Douglas Van Dorn's "waters of Creation"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Braden

Puritan Board Freshman
In it he argues for Credobaptism by beginning with OT baptism for priests, and arguing for believers only baptism from there (I think in the same vein as Pascal Denault linking the priesthood of all believers to the priestly baptism, and arguing therefore that only regerate 'priested' believers are eligible for it). It seems to be the whole foundation of his book, that "Christian baptism is based on the baptism of Jesus, and the baptism of Jesus corresponds to OT baptism, not OT circumcision.

Simplified, my question is this: Is it true that Baptism in the NT copies baptism from the OT? OT baptism was a ritual announcing of priests, which would (given the priesthood of all believers) likely mean that baptism is not for believers and their children, but only for the "priests", who are all believers.
 
In it he argues for Credobaptism by beginning with OT baptism for priests, and arguing for believers only baptism from there (I think in the same vein as Pascal Denault linking the priesthood of all believers to the priestly baptism, and arguing therefore that only regerate 'priested' believers are eligible for it). It seems to be the whole foundation of his book, that "Christian baptism is based on the baptism of Jesus, and the baptism of Jesus corresponds to OT baptism, not OT circumcision.

Well, yea, he's a credo; he dispensationalizes the OT sign. He segregates, signage, when the sign is nothing more than a continuation. As previously mentioned, Gen 17 shows that the sign was to be for 'all generations'. If baptism is for only 'priested believers', what would Doug say about all the people that the credo has placed on people who have apostatized the faith, after they have placed the sign upon them?

Simplified, my question is this: Is it true that Baptism in the NT copies baptism from the OT? OT baptism was a ritual announcing of priests, which would (given the priesthood of all believers) likely mean that baptism is not for believers and their children, but only for the "priests", who are all believers.

Well, not really; the sign of circumcision was to be placed, according to Gen 17. Ritual washings, accompanied OT saints. They were regular; in my opinion, they were submission baptisms. They never replaced circumcision.

See these examples for more on ritual washings:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2017/11/immersion-baths-were-typical-for-jews-in-christs-day/

https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=lgth&b=40&c=3
 
Well, yea, he's a credo; he dispensationalizes the OT sign. He segregates, signage, when the sign is nothing more than a continuation. As previously mentioned, Gen 17 shows that the sign was to be for 'all generations'. If baptism is for only 'priested believers', what would Doug say about all the people that the credo has placed on people who have apostatized the faith, after they have placed the sign upon them?



Well, not really; the sign of circumcision was to be placed, according to Gen 17. Ritual washings, accompanied OT saints. They were regular; in my opinion, they were submission baptisms. They never replaced circumcision.

See these examples for more on ritual washings:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2017/11/immersion-baths-were-typical-for-jews-in-christs-day/

https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=lgth&b=40&c=3
The Mikveh idea actually sounds exactly what New Testament Baptism is based on. Have I misunderstood?
 
I agree. The remnant rests in what John was doing @ the Jordan.
So the idea that Mikveh corresponds with New Testament Baptism, along with this quote:

"For baptism, very many centuries of years backwards, had been both known and received in most frequent use among the Jews,--and for the very same end as it now obtains among Christians,--namely, that by it proselytes might be admitted into the church; and hence it was called Baptism for proselytism"

Makes it sound like Baptism doesn't replace circumcision, but Mikveh or Proselyte baptism, and is therefore not "to believers and their children".
 
So the idea that Mikveh corresponds with New Testament Baptism, along with this quote:

"For baptism, very many centuries of years backwards, had been both known and received in most frequent use among the Jews,--and for the very same end as it now obtains among Christians,--namely, that by it proselytes might be admitted into the church; and hence it was called Baptism for proselytism"

Makes it sound like Baptism doesn't replace circumcision, but Mikveh or Proselyte baptism, and is therefore not "to believers and their children".

This is because you are not seeing the transition; a sign is a sign. Whether it be circumcision or water.
 
This is because you are not seeing the transition; a sign is a sign. Whether it be circumcision or water.
Maybe you could help me to see? These links seem like Credobaptist arguments to me. I'm sorry if I'm slow on the uptake.

So baptism doesn't replace circumcision, NT baptism replaces OT baptism?
 
Maybe you could help me to see? These links seem like Credobaptist arguments to me. I'm sorry if I'm slow on the uptake.

They can't be credo arguments as they were ritual washings that accompanied covenanted people of the OT. They were not the sign then. They were commanded washings.

So baptism doesn't replace circumcision, NT baptism replaces OT baptism?

No. Again, washings were ritual, ceremonial commands. They were not signage.
 
A
They can't be credo arguments as they were ritual washings that accompanied covenanted people of the OT. They were not the sign then. They were commanded washings.



No. Again, washings were ritual, ceremonial commands. They were not signage.
Ah, ok. I see. But the Reformed Baptist argument is that these washings are the NT sign, not circumcision, and that's why we only baptize believers.

That's what John Lightfoot seems to be saying; that this ceremonial washing served as the covenant sign.

"First, You see baptism inseparably joined to the circumcision of proselytes. There was, indeed, some little distance of time; for "they were not baptized till the pain of circumcision was healed, because water might be injurious to the wound." But certainly baptism ever followed. We acknowledge, indeed, that circumcision was plainly of divine institution; but by whom baptism, that was inseparable from it, was instituted, is doubtful. And yet it is worthy of observation, our Saviour rejected circumcision, and retained the appendix to it: and when all the Gentiles were now to be introduced into the true religion, he preferred this 'proselytical introductory' (pardon the expression) unto the sacrament of entrance into the gospel."

So he seems to be arguing that, yes, baptism in the NT replaces baptism in the OT, and circumcision simply fades away.
 
Ah, ok. I see. But the Reformed Baptist argument is that these washings are the NT sign, not circumcision, and that's why we only baptize believers.

These OT washings did transition into the NT sign, i.e. John the Baptist. Credo's would like to say they only baptize 'believers'. No one knows who the Judas' are. Everyone places the sign based on confession; which is presumption at best. Consider how many credo baptized believers have apostatized the faith over the last 2k years. Preposterous.

That's what John Lightfoot seems to be saying; that this ceremonial washing served as the covenant sign.

"We acknowledge, indeed, that circumcision was plainly of divine institution; but by whom baptism, that was inseparable from it, was instituted, is doubtful. "

I believe u are misunderstanding Lightfoot. The above is hard to parse. But the following portion, shows timing in the days of Christ when he goes on to mention the transition period when he mentions Christ and the gentiles. Possibly what Lightfoot is saying above is that washings and the sign were bedfellows. Both had always been in use in Christ's church.
 
Credo's would like to say they only baptize 'believers'. No one knows who the Judas' are. Everyone places the sign based on confession; which is presumption at best. Consider how many credo baptized believers have apostatized the faith over the last 2k years. Preposterous.

There are some who are baptized who aren't real Christians, yes, but to argue that some pastors mistakenly baptize these people therefore baptism is given to unbelievers by divine appointment is a different matter.

So if John's baptism isn't Christian baptism, how does it become the sign?

EDIT: And wouldn't approving baptism be approving will-worship? It was not divinely appointed, as Lightfoot says.
 
There are some who are baptized who aren't real Christians, yes, but to argue that some pastors mistakenly baptize these people therefore baptism is given to unbelievers by divine appointment is a different matter.

Not really, it is the point that the sign goes on all of our family members becuase it is commanded and we leave the rest to God.

So if John's baptism isn't Christian baptism, how does it become the sign?

Simply, by Christ's command.

EDIT: And wouldn't approving baptism be approving will-worship? It was not divinely appointed, as Lightfoot says.

I don't believe Lightfoot is saying that. I believe u are misreading him, given his acumen and Christ's command.
 
I believe Lightfoot is just showing that John was washing people and that these 'baptisms' were not Christian baptisms. After all, Christ had not yet given the command to replace circumcision with water yet; Surely u don't believe that John was telling these covenant people that their covenant sign was foolishness, do u? God commanded it. That would be blasphemous.
 
Maybe you could help me to see? These links seem like Credobaptist arguments to me. I'm sorry if I'm slow on the uptake.

So baptism doesn't replace circumcision, NT baptism replaces OT baptism?

Circumcision points to the work of Christ. Baptism points to the work of Christ. That is why Paul links them so closely in Col. 2:11.

I know that baptists want a statement like "baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign", but that statement does not exist. We have to use what the WCF calls "good and necessary consequence".

In the OT:

Man comes to faith - all males of household are circumcised (see Gen. 17, Ex. 12). Circumcision is the sign that you now belong to the people of God. This is not just for ethnic Jews, but for all those who profess faith in the one true God, YHWH (see Ex. 12 which requires circumcision of foreigners who profess the true religion). The passages make no mention of the faith of anyone else in the household.

In the NT:

Man (or woman) comes to faith - all members of household are baptized (see Acts 16). The passages do not mention the faith of anyone else in the household. Baptism is the sign that you now belong to the people of God. This sign is clearly for all the nations as outlined in the great commission.

So we have these things to consider:

1. Paul explicitly links the two signs as both ultimately pointing to the work of Christ in Col. 2.

2. Both signs are for all who profess faith in YHWH, regardless of ethnicity.

3. Both signs are "entrance signs", given upon faith of at least the head of the household.

4. In both testaments the sign is given covenantally, that is, to believers and those who belong to them.

With all of this said, it is perfectly reasonable, actually more than reasonable to conclude that all those in the household of a believer should be baptized. The burden of proof is on the baptist. You have to prove that baptism should not be applied like circumcision.
 
As a credo I'm technically not allowed to participate in this thread, and the mods can delete this post if doing so is deemed appropriate. But I would like to offer some basic historical points related to proselyte baptism, hoping they can be useful and taking care not to slant things in favor of my own position on baptism.

Overall, modern scholarship seems to favor the pre-apostolic origins of proselyte baptism, but the actual historical record in support of that position is tenuous. The first specific mention of Jewish proselyte baptism occurs in the Babylonian Talmud (6th century AD). The Talmudic rabbis insisted that the practice had its roots in Genesis 35:2, where "be clean" is taken to mean a purificatory immersion.

Lightfoot agreed with the Talmudic understanding of Gen. 35:2 and their view that proselytes to Judaism underwent a multifaceted process that included both immersion and circumcision. The immersion was seen as a symbolic cleansing from the idolatry that heathen proselytes were renouncing, corresponding to the ritual bathings seen throughout the Levitical law for various conditions of uncleanness, while circumcision was the lasting outward sign of Covenant membership.
 
Circumcision points to the work of Christ. Baptism points to the work of Christ. That is why Paul links them so closely in Col. 2:11.

I know that baptists want a statement like "baptism replaces circumcision as the covenant sign", but that statement does not exist. We have to use what the WCF calls "good and necessary consequence".

In the OT:

Man comes to faith - all males of household are circumcised (see Gen. 17, Ex. 12). Circumcision is the sign that you now belong to the people of God. This is not just for ethnic Jews, but for all those who profess faith in the one true God, YHWH (see Ex. 12 which requires circumcision of foreigners who profess the true religion). The passages make no mention of the faith of anyone else in the household.

In the NT:

Man (or woman) comes to faith - all members of household are baptized (see Acts 16). The passages do not mention the faith of anyone else in the household. Baptism is the sign that you now belong to the people of God. This sign is clearly for all the nations as outlined in the great commission.

So we have these things to consider:

1. Paul explicitly links the two signs as both ultimately pointing to the work of Christ in Col. 2.

2. Both signs are for all who profess faith in YHWH, regardless of ethnicity.

3. Both signs are "entrance signs", given upon faith of at least the head of the household.

4. In both testaments the sign is given covenantally, that is, to believers and those who belong to them.

With all of this said, it is perfectly reasonable, actually more than reasonable to conclude that all those in the household of a believer should be baptized. The burden of proof is on the baptist. You have to prove that baptism should not be applied like circumcision.
My understanding is that, if baptism in NT corresponds with baptism in the OT, then it wouldn't be given to believers and their children, because that was a command associated with circumcision. But from the sounds of it my reasoning is false?
 
My understanding is that, if baptism in NT corresponds with baptism in the OT, then it wouldn't be given to believers and their children, because that was a command associated with circumcision. But from the sounds of it my reasoning is false?


13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. 14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. 15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there.

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Ac 16:13–15.


27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here. 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Ac 16:27–34.

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), 1 Co 1:14–16.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that, if baptism in NT corresponds with baptism in the OT, then it wouldn't be given to believers and their children, because that was a command associated with circumcision. But from the sounds of it my reasoning is false?

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that NT baptism corresponds to OT baptism. Just because they are both baptisms, does not mean that they serve the same function.

In the NT, baptism clearly is an entrance rite into the visible community of God. Everyone agrees on that. Thus, it is given to new converts and their households.

In the OT, I believe that the washings or baptisms (like the ones referred to in Hebrews 9) were given to people who were already inside the visible covenant community. Even John's baptism was applied to those already inside the covenant community.

So we see that just because the sign is the same, does not mean the function is the same.

Then, looking at circumcision, we also see that it is an entrance rite into the visible covenant community. We see it applied to believers and their households. Look at Exodus 12 - here you have the requirement of circumcision for a proselyte and his household if he wishes to join the people of God. So you can see that the continuity between baptism and circumcision is not in the mechanics of the sign itself, but in it's function. Both are entrance rites. And both point toward the work of Christ (Col. 2).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top