Friday, February 16, 2007
Hey Fellas
I finally figured out why I couldn't post onthe blogger. My computer is dumb. So, Anyway, I have been keeping up with Posts, and lots of interesting topics have been discussed. Unfortunately, I haven't been keeping up with current reformed issues, althouh I did take a look at the site J.P. put up in his recent post. That kids is a loser, and I tend to agree with J.P., he really isn't worth my time. Anyway, I will try and be a more productive participant in this blogspot. Oh, Mikey T., got a question for you. What is your stance on pedobaptism? Melissa and I are joining a PCA church this Sunday, and we have had at length discussions with the pastor about it. Just curious if you had similiar talks with your pastor, his stance on it, your stance on it, anybody else's stance on it and the like. Also, is there a diffence whether you are sprinkled or emersed (i think that is the correct spelling) under water for baptism? Be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts on either topic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Nate,
There is a lot of debate about "mode" of baptism: sprinkiling, dunking, etc.
But Scripturally, baptism is immersion. Anything other than the bodily immersion of a believer is simply not baptism.
I would suggest Fred Malone's book "The Baptism of Disciples Alone". If you want a more short and concise book, Brian Russell has a book called "Baptism".
Hope that helps.
Man, I can't type today...."sprinkiling"? LOL.
nate,
the book jason recomended is a good one, i have read it myself. there is another one that has recently come out that is a little more brief and concise. it is "Understanding four views on Baptism" by John Armstrong (editor). This is actually a presentation by four different people of four different views on baptism, two of which are the Baptist view and presbyterian view. Tom Nettles presents and defends the baptist view while richard pratt presents and defends the presbyterian view. It appears to be a pretty good treatment of our reformed baptist position.
I will come back later with a morre detail explanation with what i have learned about the presbyterian view in the past three years. It has recently been a hotly discussed topic in our pca church here amongst all the young adults and there is infact some disagreement in the pca itself about "covenant infants" and the meaning of their covenant membership. but like i said more on that in a little while. i got to run, but the two aforementioned books are great resources. Richard pratt explains the presbyterian view quite well and of course nettles is a great reformed baptist defender
ok i'm back nate,
For us reformed baptist who were raised arminian, dispentational southern baptist this infant baptism stuff can be a little confusing. The baptist church has lost not only its reformed roots but also its covental roots. So, it is quite a weird thing for us to see someone baptizing an individual and not correlate that to salvation.
Presbyterians are not claiming that infants are saved or that they will definitely be saved at some point in the future when they baptize their infants (although most think that a baptized infant has a greater chance of being saved). They believe that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant and that covenant membership is still tied to physical decent as it was with the Jewish Nation. So what this means is that any child born to at least one beilieving parent is in the New Covenant and therefore must receive the sign of the new Covenant i.e. baptism. However they separate Covenant membership from salvation. What this means is that you have three categories of people, heathen outside of the church, covenant members in the church and not saved, and covenant members who are saved.
Now, i would agree somewhat with the idea that baptism has replaced circumcision. However it is only indirectly connected to circumcision because water baptism actually represents regeneration (or spirit baptism). Circumcision actually pointed to regeneration not water baptism. If you remember it was a call to circumcise our hearts. This is what God has done with the new Covenant and baptism is a symbol or representation (sign) of this.
So, baptism states what God has done, circumcision points to what god was going to do in Christ.
I don't however agree that the new covenant passes through physical descent. If you recall Paul's words in Romans "not all who are descendents of israel belong to israel"(9:6-8) It is not children of the flesh but children of the promise that are counted as offspring. In acts 2:33 Peter tells us that the "promise" is the giving of the Holy Spirit, and that if we will repent (v38) and be baptized we will receive the promised holy sprit and be saved. So you see that repentance is required to receive the promise. Infants can't repent. Furthermore, the new Covenant and salvation can't be separated, the New Covenant IS salvation. Membership passes down through SPIRITUAL descent(rom 9:6-8) not physical descent.
Now, the new covenant is not really new. Paul refers to the Church in Ephesians as being the "mystery that has been hidden". So salvation and true covenant membership have always been by faith and the covenant has always been truly made up of the decendants of Christ alone and by no other way than faith.
This is just the tip of the iceburg, but please feel free to shoot me any other questions you might have. as a note, it is important to remember that most everyday presbyterians don't know what they beleive because it is really quite difficult to explain this and keep it hermenutically consistant and theologically consistant. it is for this reason that there is some controversy in the reformed/presbyterian realm surrounding the meaning of covenant. It is actually connected to the "Federal Vision" post i posted earlier. But, that is a whole other topic.
one more thing...
because as baptist we don't have a well developed covenantal theology we as lay people and even some pastors find it difficult to debate infant baptism with a presbyterian. A lot of unasuming baptist get talked into baptizing their kids because that don't really understand covenant theology. I know several that have been talked into doing it and afterwards they begin to study and they wonder if they have done the right thing.
For your information it is possible to be a good reformed covenantalist and not baptize your infants, do not let anyone tell you otherwize. The subtle attack that I have received has been that I am Dipensational because I don't beleive in peodobaptism. Nothing could be further for the truth. I am a full blown covenantalist.
Post a Comment