The Great Commission of Jesus Himself teaches us to proclaim the Good News, to make converts and disciples, and water baptizing them who have received Jesus as Lord. Also, is the Abrahamic Covenant the same as the NC or not?True.
I understand this and thought you would take the argument in that direction. I also acknowledge my Baptist argument for the New Covenant is not a solid argument. I have admitted that for some time
I think the argument is a little more nuanced than this for Reformed Baptists. The 1689 Baptist Confession 7:3 says "This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect". So a Reformed Baptist can say first and foremost it is something God does.
I agree with this point.
What gives baptism its validity?
- Thread starter greenbaggins
- Start date
- Status
This is not a conclusion drawn from the syntax of the Greek here. The participle βαπτίζοντες is easily (and I think most naturally) understood as a participle of means: "make disciples by baptizing them," not "make disciples then baptize them." (Of course, this would be applied differently depending on whether the individual is a new convert or a covenant child; this passage speaks generally and not specifically in this case.)
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Is the gospel different for either timeframe?
The New One is a new and better Covenant.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
That didn’t answer the question....
Well noted.
Matt 28:19-20:
19 πορευθέντες ⸀οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ⸁βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος,
20 διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν·*
The actual imperative is "make disciples"-
Rough translation:
Going, therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all my commandments....
The command "make disciples" is accomplished by the means of baptism and the teaching of all Christ's commandments.
The testimony of the NT is exactly this formula. The Apostles did not teach people to obey all of Christ's commandments and then making them disciples through baptism. In other words, it is not:
teach everything I've commanded -> baptize -> become disciple
Rather it is:
disciple -> baptize -> teach everything
The basis for baptism in Acts is the reception of the preached Word and response for the adult hearers and they then are baptized not on the basis of their full knowledge of what Christ has commanded but baptism is the means by which the person becomes a disciple so that they may be taught and grow to maturity. This was also the way Christ and His Disciples operate in the Gospel accounts. People receive a very basic Gospel message (kerygma) and then are made part of the circle of those who follow and listen to Christ to be taught.
Leaving aside infants for a moment, the important thing here is that the basis for baptism is not a full-orbed understanding nor is there any indication that the bar for discipleship is set to some standard that excludes the possibility of a "mixed multitude" in Christ's followers. Quite the contrary, many of Christ's followers abandoned him and not merely Judas.
The Baptist assumption that the baptism of those who might fall away was accidental in the work of the Apostles is simply not born out by the text of Scripture. The preaching of the Gospel is wide to all who will hear. The invitation to follow Jesus and become a disciple is likewise wide. Christ even employs several Parables to note the danger of being too discriminate in the pulling up of perceived weeds that grow among the spreading of the Word in the world.
One can make the argument that there seems to be a restricting of baptism to those who profess faith in Christ and that the Church baptizes liberally on the basis of that profession and leaves the hidden things to God. I don't agree with this restriction to mere adult professors on other grounds but I can agree with this liberality of baptism as it can be derived from the text.
What one cannot demonstrate from the Scriptures is the notion that either Christ or the Apostles ever restricted baptism on the basis that it wanted to protect the Church from those who might be baptized and fall away. This is based on a theological system that is thrust on the text.
Paul states to us that we identify with the truth that now being in Christ, we share in His death and in His resurrection. One needs to understand who they now are in Christ in order to identify with Him. The water baptism represents to them an illustration of what already happened to them.
Paul is not the speaker in Matt 28:18-20. Do you have an exegetical argument to make on that text?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
