Read a thought provoking article today on baptism

[5solasmom]

From Nathan Pitchford's blog:

http://pitch.fitzage.com/2006/02/04/baptism-in-the-old-testament

As one who spent a good deal of time last year studying the issue of credo/paedo baptism with my husband (and as a result, leaving our beloved reformed baptist congregation), this article really deals with the perspective we once held as credo baptists (that paedobaptists went beyond explicit scripture in baptizing their children, and as such, were on shaky ground). Though I obviously no longer hold this view (and believe the foundation for covenant baptism is in the Abrahamic covenant), Pitchfords article shows that there indeed are examples in scripture of believers being baptized with their children.



Just wanted to share - I'm not as theologically "literate" as many of you all here...so please go easy on me - I didn't post to "debate".

 

[Larry Hughes]

That’s a good article. That general concept really has much profound affect on one’s reading of the NT as fulfillment of the OT shadows and etc… It has a profound reassessment of one’s “view or angle” in the “seeing” of the NT, because the NT reads for the most part as present tense record and WITHIN that very record when Jesus, Paul and the others quote “Scripture” saying they are referring to Scripture, they are in fact quoting the OT Scripture and not NT Scripture which they are speaking/writing as “they speak/write”. The NT is historic revelatory record to us but it was pretty much contemporary happening for them and the OT to them was historic revelatory record.

That alone is rather eye opening. Because when we today quote NT Scripture, our mind set is that of quoting something past, not all that dissimilar to Jesus and the Apostles quoting OT Scriptures. Don’t you find it amazing that they so EASILY in the NT record, after Jesus reveals Himself in the OT to them, that they almost respond, “Aaaaaahhhh! It’s obvious now.” Yet, we, for the most part read the OT and can hardly see Christ in it excepting the most obvious passages (e.g. Gen. 3:15).

What you begin to see is “principles” that show forth baptism OT and NT, rather than getting hung up on a word “b-a-p-t-i-s-m” and missing the point. What you begin to see for example is “mode” is a worthless argument and pointless Cross obscuring distraction, and that identity with the name of the One Who makes you clean is the real point, and THAT gives one GREAT joy in the mercy of God. What you begin to see is that baptism is God’s gracious GIFT and not my doing in any sense, and THAT gives you joy in the Gospel of Christ, and THAT actually begins to change you – having all you need more and more assuredly to yourself in Christ alone, you begin to really love. What you begin to see is you can throw baptism in the face of the devil rather than him throwing it in your face and make Him flee with this watery Word of Christ. What you begin to see is that the Eunice, a man of the nations/gentiles, is greatly rejoicing because in Isa. 53 he’s heard the Good News of Jesus, with NO NT references, as recorded in that OT text, seeing that HE (Jesus) will sprinkle the nations/gentiles, who he the Eunice is. The Good News came to him, a nations man, and it was time for rejoicing. This is why he said, “here is water, what prevents me from being baptized.” OR to capture the thought, “here is water, since this man, Jesus you have pointed out to me is THE ONE and not another we must further wait upon, He has come and NOW this tremendous covenant of Grace has opened up to the nations and is not just of the Jews only any longer –since God has opened forth this covenant of grace NOW in Jesus to the nations (the point of Acts, not believers only) what in the WORLD prevents me from being baptized being God has done this?” That was his joy! And finally you begin to see that YOU ACTUALLY have been given BY GOD the name of God in holy Baptism, and specifically the name that means the most to you and is dear to your soul, your coming suffering death, the name of “Jesus”. The name of Jesus is upon you, the temple, and His name means, “He will save them from their sins.” All of that and much much more with the objective Gospel, covenant of Grace grasp is just a HINT of the richness of holy baptism. It is in the end NO mere thing of indifference, but a deep rich and powerful testimony immediately of the Gospel to you and all who behold it.

Blessings and thanks for the article link,

Larry

 

[5solasmom]

That’s a good article. That general concept really has much profound affect on one’s reading of the NT as fulfillment of the OT shadows and etc… It has a profound reassessment of one’s “view or angle” in the “seeing” of the NT, because the NT reads for the most part as present tense record and WITHIN that very record when Jesus, Paul and the others quote “Scripture” saying they are referring to Scripture, they are in fact quoting the OT Scripture and not NT Scripture which they are speaking/writing as “they speak/write”.

Yep!

 

[lv1nothr]

Hi Dawn,

thank you for posting this, timely...as hubby and I too have studied the baptism issue and have just recently changed our view from credo to paedo and due to it left a church.

We've not yet read the article, but I just wanted to thank you for sharing, it is good to know we're not alone!

 

[Augusta]

Great article. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Robert Truelove]

I might also point out...

To whatever degree one sees "and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea" as being in support of paedobaptism...

One must logically see "and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ" as being in support of paedocommunion. The context clearly places this as a comparison to communion (v. 14-22).

To reject the connection to paedocommunion here is to mitigate the arguement for paedobaptism as they go hand in hand in this text.

 

[5solasmom]

I might also point out...

To whatever degree one sees "and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea" as being in support of paedobaptism...

One must logically see "and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ" as being in support of paedocommunion. The context clearly places this as a comparison to communion (v. 14-22).

To reject the connection to paedocommunion here is to mitigate the arguement for paedobaptism as they go hand in hand in this text.

That thought occured to me too, although I'm not in support of paedocommunion.

Could you expand on what your thoughts are on this? I'd be curious to know. Do you believe it supports both legitimately or would you then specifically reject Pitchford's argument?

 

[Robert Truelove]

To be honest with you...I think using 1 Cor 10 to defend either infant baptism or infant communion is bad hermeneutics. In Paul's arguement, he presents Israel in the wilderness as a type (v. 6) of the New Covenant Church BUT this is by way of analogy. It's not that Israel was the type and the New Covenant Church is the anti-type (a semi-dispensational notion at best). Old Covenant Isreal was every bit as much the church as the New Covenant Church, just under a different administration (which is the primary point Paul is making in this regards). That consideration along with the arguement Paul is making, drives us to understand this text primarily as an analogy; not type/anti-type.

It is bad hermeneutics, when dealing with analogy, to stray from the primary point that the author is trying to make.

Furthermore, the 'baptism' and the communion in this text is highly figurative. The same rule as above should be applied to figurative language.

That thought occured to me too, although I'm not in support of paedocommunion.

Could you expand on what your thoughts are on this? I'd be curious to know. Do you believe it supports both legitimately or would you then specifically reject Pitchford's argument?

 

[Robert Truelove]

I wan't trying anything with my post.

I was only pointing out that if one was going to use this text to defend infant baptism, than based on both the text and that sort of hermeneutical approach, one would have to accept paedocommunion.

Please see my follow-up post above for how I view the use of this text in regards to paedobaptism and/or paedocommunion.

A paedocommunionist tried this one on me before. Here was my brief response:

**********

RON WROTE:
>And when they were wondering about in the desert, would you have
>starved them because there was nothing but Christ to eat and drink?

Several issues:

1. Was the manna given sacramentaly?

2. It says that "all Israel" grumbled. Hence showing, once again, that "all Israel" does not necessarily include infants.

3. The word translated "meat" in verse 3 is brw'ma, which Paul earlier told the Corinthians they were unable to bear. The reference in First Corinthians 3:2 is to solid food as opposed to milk. In other words, the food referenced in First Corinthians 10:3 was food unfit for babes!

4. Since the passing through the red sea is not talking about individual baptism, but the baptism of the Chruch qua Chruch on the day of Pentecost, then you have the burden of proof to show that the manna and water (not wine!) has to do with the Lord's Supper.

5. They at miraculous food (and that's what "spiritual" means here).

6. The primary purpose of the mana was for physical hunger, precisely the opposite with respects to the Lord's Supper; at least according to what Paul said: "If any man hunger, let him eat at home" (First Corinthians 11:34, emphasis added).

7. The manna was a miracle, so "ye shall know that I the Lord am your God." This is one of the main reasons God performs miracle. And that's the purpose of the story in Exodus 16.

8. Exodus 16 has more parralles with John 6 than anything. The people follow God into the wilderness, complain that they are hungry, and then Jesus "miraculously" feeds them with bread and fish.

9. Baxter comments: "Psalm 106:32 clearly teaches that when the Israelites murmured for water at Kadesh, God was angry with them. Yes, God supplied them with water, but overthrew them for their unbelief. This is the same lesson Paul wanted the Corinthians to learn. The lesson of First Corinthians 10 is the danger of unbelief. Any attempt to read paedocommunion into the passage depends upon superficial similarities and not careful exegesis."

10. Lastly, Ron, do you have any pets? I ask because, as the Bible tells us in Numbers 20:8, the livestock also drank the water and, if you're going to be really consistent, why not smuggle some wine home for your gold fish so that they too can drink "the spiritual drink?" You see, on Ron's reading, the cattle drank Christ!

~Paul