corresponds to what?

Kobra came back to the meta last night to make his first pass at my response to him, for which I credit him. Here's what he said:

First, the corresponding "this" in the beginning of the quoted passage is Noah's Ark and the events surrounding it. Peter is saying that just as Noah was saved from the flood via his ark, so now it is Baptism that "now saves you." BUT before we focus on that I hope that you will answer a couple of questions.

1.) Is the "appeal to God for a good conscience" necessary for salvation?
2.) Is there a means, apart from Baptism, to make an "appeal to God for a good conscience?"

To which I say (and have already said in the meta):

[1] Yes.

[2] Yes. The thief on the cross apparently made one, unless you would argue he did not get saved by Christ.

Kobra's problem is that he thinks that the appeal in baptism is the sine qua non -- that without which there is nothing, for those of you who didn't have the Jesuits torture you with Latin in H.S. -- and that one can make that appeal for someone else. The text here, however, makes it clear that it saves "you" because "you" make an appeal to God.

I have to admit that this passage speaks of baptism in the highest terms -- higher, in my view, than the correspondence to Noah. And here's what I mean by that, From 1 Peter 3:

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 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, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Now, the reason the first clause is highlighted is to point out that it is the main clause of this sentence. That is: the point of what Peter is writing here is that Christ died for sins, as the great exchange, put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. That's his main point, which is the Gospel.

After he concludes his subordinate flourish, which expounds on what Christ did for us and also for those who were even disobedient to Noah, he then says, "Baptism corresponds to this". And I would be willing to admit that almost all readers of this passage think the "this" refers to "the saving in the ark". But that makes the antecedent of "this" the subordinate issue which Peter was talking about rather than the main issue which Peter was talking about -- which is the death and resurrection of Christ.

Peter is saying here that Christ suffered and died, and was raised from the dead, and now baptism corresponds to Christ's work -- showing we have died and have been raised to new life, not as a washing away of dirt but as a plea for a new conscience.

This is a much higher expression of what we mean in baptism, but ironically it is the correspondence view of the work itself: baptism is not the work of Christ, but it corresponds to the work of Christ, and shows the work of Christ.

I am more than willing to admit that baptism saves as it corresponds to Christ's work. But Kobra has to admit that it speaks of baptism in which the believer interacts with God.

---

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

Our friendly adversary Patrick Kyle has pointed out that "this" here is actually a referent to the "water" in the previous passage by virtue of Greek Grammar. He is 100% correct, so insofar as you can detach that from what I said here and still have what I said here make any sense at all, do so. We don't anathemtize posts here, but we do offer corrections whem we make mistakes, so note my mistake and more on.

Kobra Konquest

Well, the meta was down yesterday for some inexplicable reason, and while the good people at haloscan tended to their wounds I had a moment to consider a link from our, um, friend “Kobra”, the Lutheran advocate from our baptism posts, who has posted a link he is happy with about what Baptism is good for. This is how he tells it:

I really enjoy talk radio. My absolute favorite radio-talker is a man by the name of Dennis Prager. He is not my favorite simply because I agree with his political views or his understanding of specific events, but because he is truly wise. One of his joys, and great pleasures, is in finding clarity above and beyond finding agreement. I hope to do the same here. While I'd love that all Baptists become Lutheran in their theology after reading this post, I'll be satisfied if those who read it find clarity. I just want Baptists, and the Reformed, to walk away, after reading this, saying, "Ok, I think I understand where Lutherans are coming from now."

I think one of the problems here is that Kobra, as he has been wont to do since I have known him, thinks that somehow Baptists have never poked their heads out of their sad little non-conformist circles and seen the world.

We have read, Luther, Kobra, and we find him less than convincing. Prager notwithstanding.

One thing that must be understood is that Lutheranism is a top-down theology. For example, Reformed theologians, when speaking of God, begin with an abstract, philosophical concept of who God is. The Reformed begin to explain their understanding of God through statements like, "God is sovereign," and "God is immutable," etc... Lutherans, on the other hand, do not begin with what Luther might call, "the hidden things of God" but rather, they start to understand God through the incarnation of Christ. Christ is, after all, "the express representation of the Godhead." Further, if you have seen Christ you have seen the Father. Thus, Lutherans begin with Christ and work out from Him when seeking to understand the truth of God.

Fair enough, I guess. A little smug, but Lutheranism is itself a little smug. Go on.

Why this is important to understand when approaching the topic of Baptism is that it helps us to see just why God would choose elemental means for the communication of the Gospel. Just as God had to descend from Heaven in Christ, so He now descends again to meet us where we live, face to face in the muck and mire of our fallen world. Only when He does descend are we able to meet Him and receive all the benefits of fellowship with Him--peace, a clean conscience, the washing away of sin. We still, even as Christians, cannot ascend to meet God in the nether regions of a non-elemental world.

See: this is where the smugness shows up – in the slipping in of 1 Peter 3 as if that passage says Baptism bestows a clean conscience rather than this:

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, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

You know: that baptism is itself an appeal from you, through Christ, to God as an act of repentence, an act of faith.

Listen: I don’t mind coming to a place where we have clarity, but what has to be clear here is that the confessional Lutheran approach to that passage is, at best, atomistic as it breaks off the “saves you” from the other things which are “from you” in that passage. I can grasp that the Lutheran reads this passage as baptism bestowing grace; I cannot grasp how he gets there from the text.

The place to start when discussing Christian Baptism is Scripture. We must begin by asking the question, "What does the Bible say?" This question isn't one that first and foremost demands an intricate and nuanced systematic answer. All that it demands is that one look to the passages that address Baptism, and try to first understand them for what they are. What they are, these passages, are simple sentences that carry a simple, grammatical meaning. How these sentences fit into the larger scheme of Lutheran theology can be dealt with in future posts. But first, as one prominent Lutheran professor passionately commands, "Just read the texts!" In doing so I think that we can arrive at a point of clarity.

I cannot agree too much with that affirmation. But if we go with “just the texts”, the Lutheran has a lot more reconsidering to do than the Baptist.

Let’s see ...

The first passage one needs to look at is Acts 2:38. Peter has just preached a sermon and now calls for people to react to the words he's spoken. He says:

"And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

What is Baptism for according to this passage? The Greek word eis is translated for in this passage, and it means more specifically into. It is through the act of Baptism that one is united with Christ into his death and resurrection. It would be a grammatical error to read the passage as if it were saying that Baptism were merely a symbol of something that had already occurred. Baptism here is the means by which one enters into remission, and not something that one enters into after remission has taken place. For instance, doesn't the grammar demand that we understand Baptism to be the entrance into remission of sins and not merely the representation of something that has already occurred?

Um, wow. Where to start then?

I don’t know anyone who would use this passage to underscore that baptism is “merely a symbol”, and for those who are actually serious about Baptist theology, I don’t know who would say “merely a symbol” in the sense Kobra is here arguing against. What this passage does, in fact, say is that it is repentance and baptism which is “[eis] the forgiveness of your sins”.

Another relevant point here should be noted from the translator’s note for this passage from the NET Bible:

There is debate over the meaning of εἰς in the prepositional phrase εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν (eis afesin twn Jamartiwn Jumwn, “for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins”). Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here. ExSyn 369-71 discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: (1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and εἰς has the meaning of “for” or “unto.” Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works – an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18); (2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts – especially in this text (cf. 2:41); (3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling εἰς, but its subtlety and awkwardness count against it; (4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, “Acts,” EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BDAG 290 s.v. εἰς 4.f.

That is, Kobra’s theological predisposition to this passage isn’t necessarily warranted by the Greek in spite of his retreat to that place.

Also in the book of Acts we find an interesting dialogue between Ananias and the apostle Paul. We are made privy to this as Paul gives his "testimony" or "confession" concerning his shift in behavior. Paul is, in other words, offering an apology for his theological change in thinking. He relays the story of his confrontation by Christ on the road to Damascus. He tells of how he was blinded and sent to the house of Ananias. After speaking with Paul Ananias says to him:

"And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

Hadn't Paul's sins already been removed from him? Wouldn't Ananias have done better to say, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and testify that your sins have already been washed away, calling on his name." This simply would not make sense.

What is troubling here is trying to interpret what Ananias did say by what he might have said or by what he didn’t say. I would be wholly-willing to accept at face-value the commendation from Ananias that baptism will “wash away sins” if, indeed, Kobra would be willing to admit that baptism is also Paul’s action of calling upon the Lord. See: Kobra – indeed, the traditional Lutheran approach to this matter – grabs at the saving value apparently implied here without accounting for the “calling on his name” part. Somehow, Scripture says both are necessary – whatever theological explanation we adopt, we should also say both are necessary.

Later on in Paul's apostolic ministry his teachings on baptism are concordant with both the words of Peter and the words of Ananias. Paul in his letter to the Galatians states:

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Which, again, is the full context of the “put on Christ” language – and the “putting on” is subsequent to the question of “your” “faith”.

Baptism cannot come before faith – and the Lutheran view simply ignores this.

In the book of Romans he asks his readers:

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"

Likewise “all of us” who have been baptized in Rom 6 are the “all of us” who have faith in Rom 5. The precondition of being baptized is faith.

We can talk as long as anyone wants about what happens to us in baptism after we have, as Kobra might say, “clarity” about what constitutes an actual baptism.

So, let this start a discussion on Baptism. It could have been a much more extensive post, but I've found that when participating in internet discussions less can be more. Here are a few starter questions:

I’m in for the starter questions, after we have clarified the errors listed above. However, as a sign of good faith, I’ll offer preliminary answers to those question.

Does Baptism deliver the forgiveness of sins that Christ won upon the cross?

Yes, when we understand that baptism is the place where a person publicly makes (cf. 1 Peter 3) a plea for a good conscience in Christ.

Where is Baptism mentioned as a mere symbolic act or a representation of what the person being baptized already possesses?

Baptism is never mentioned apart from the precondition of faith – it is a consequence of faith, and act of faith. In that, there is nothing “mere” about this act. The question is only if somehow the words “sign” or “symbol” do any injustice to what is said, for example, in 1 Peter 3 where baptism is explicitly said not to be a washing but a plea. We know that it is in fact a washing; if by washing we make a plea, I suggesting the washing represents something else, making it a sign and a seal.

Have at it.

Just to say it out loud

Welty on Baptism.

Who doesn't love him some Welty?

Have a second helping because you're looking a little peaked. (that link's a PDF, so right-click to download)

dreadfulness

One of the things I omitted yesterday (I had an engagement problems, is in, “I couldn’t really get engaged in anything yesterday as I felt worn down”) from Dr. Piper’s sermon is this:

There are godly, Bible-believing, Christ-exalting, God-centered followers of Jesus who fail to see the dreadfulness of not being baptized as a believer. And there are godly, Bible-believing, Christ-exalting, God-centered followers of Jesus who fail to see the dreadfulness of excluding such people from church membership.

Now, Dr. Piper's concluding benediction aside (which I think is the right prayer to make in this case), the problem is not intransigence on the part of the credobaptists -- because we want these people of good faith, these people who have a faith we credit as good and from God and as a miracle of the Holy Spirit, to join us as a church. The question is simply not whether we call them to join us: please, in the name of the savior, join us!

But join us by being baptized. You say you were baptized as an infant, but the New Testament says that baptism is for believers and not merely those whom we hope will someday be believers. Baptism is a plea for a good conscience before God.

I want anyone who has good faith to join with my local church. I want none to be excluded. What I don't want is to do that apart from the obedience of faith, either on my part or theirs.

I honor Dr. Piper's zeal to be visibly in union with other believers. That is a goal which must be unity in truth or else it is a superficial and false unity.

First up, the Lutherans

Over at BHT, John H ponies up this thought about Dr. Piper's sermon on baptism:

However, while for you that is a link setting out an argument which supports the intellectual and theological position you hold concerning the subject of baptism, for me it’s a link telling me why I’m not actually baptised (and why I shouldn’t listen to Jesus when he tells me I am). So you’ll appreciate I’m not rushing to print it out and read it carefully over a coffee. (jn)

Snark aside there at the end, the underlined part is where John goes south. John -- where exactly does "Jesus" say your sprinkling as an infant equals baptism? Name one infant in the NT who was "baptized" by drizzling his forehead with water.

Seriously: before anyone goes ballistic over me calling John "not christian", or that I have labelled his view of this rite "heresy", all I am saying is that what John says he got doesn't look anything like what was presented in the NT as baptism -- not in sequence, not in call, not in process, and not in purpose.

One of the things, historically, that the average baptist preacher has done in this matter is bury his head in the sand and not review what the presbyterian or the lutheran means by baptizing an infant. My opinion is that historically, even the most erudite presbyterians and lutherans are guilty of the same sin but to a lesser degree when dealing with the credobaptist case for what baptism is.

So go get your coffee and a print-out of Dr. Piper's sermon, and read it again -- and then formulate something a little more compelling than "Jesus told me" when in fact Jesus doesn't tell you: you tell you. What Jesus says about this doesn't really enter into it.

Seriously: from a Lutheran point of view, making the validity of baptism dependent on whether there was enough faith and enough water present at the ceremony completely negates the purpose of baptism, which is to assure us that – whatever our own doubts and uncertainties may be about the strength and quality of our faith – we belong to Christ by his own word and according to his own promises.

That, of course, is ludicrous. The question is not whether there was enough "faith" present -- because even a lutheran would confess that an agnostic hobo can't sprinkle the guy in the next trash can who has never heard the Gospel with water from a public fountain and that be called a valid baptism.

And this is the classic paedo dodge: the atomization of faith in order to say that the credo makes baptism about faith rather than about Christ. The problem is that the credo -- the confessional credo -- says everything the paedo would say about baptism except when it comes to the transferrability of the faith of one's parents. Doug Wilson says that one baptizes rather than circumcises in order to prove the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant because it is at least as inclusive; The WHI guys say that we baptize infants on the promise of faith, overlooking that their foundational passage there in Acts 2 doesn't just say "and your children", but also "for all who are far off" -- and none of them would baptize every person they see on the street on the promise that those who are called will then come.

What the NT demonstrates for us is that faith precedes baptism in order that our baptism can testify to our faith. Faith causes obedience, and baptism is the first act one can make in obedience to God's call to repent and turn away from our old life of sin and rebellion.

Not just the promises which are made generally in the Bible and in preaching: for us, what happens in baptism is that Jesus (through his minister) declares those promises to us personally, as individuals: “I baptize you…”.

That's your spin on it. That's not what the Bible says happens.

Never mind the issue of whether (and/or which) infants should be baptised. This is the real difference: does our faith assure us that our baptism was real, or does our baptism assure us that our faith is real?

And that, John, is the phony dichotomy that all paedos retreat to in the end. Our faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen; our baptism is evidence of our faith. It can be both: it can be that our faith causes our baptism, and our baptism improves out faith.

In fact, I would argue, it must be both.
____________________

UPDATED: John H. has declined to engage this post as he has better things to do. Like Ministry, I am sure.

More classic: baptism

Dr. Piper explains he is actually a baptist.

Let the further merciless beating on this topic continue.

Classic: communion

Yeah, I didn't want to bring it up, but somebody pointed me at this and I want to abstract it from any one person as much as possible. However, the opinion expressed here is one which is "going around", it seems related to the Piper thing from Monday, and I have a minute this week.

Then I should be addressed as an unbeliever, and treated as such. Forgive me, but what we have here is the creation of a special category that allows closed communion churches to say things like “we’re not denying your faith in Christ and that you are a Christian brother” and also say “You’re an unbeliever in what amounts to an incarnation level truth.”

Some context here, in case you can't draw it out from this quote. The conversation is about the Lord's Table, and the question is whether or not a "closed communion" is proper or improper, called-for or uncalled-for.

In that, how does one bridge the logical leap between "you can't partake in the table with us" and "you are, de facto, an unbeliever"? I can think of at least two good, biblical reasons not to partake in the Lord's table and to be rightly cautioned by the administer of the table not to partake, even if the person is a baptized believer and member:

[1] One is himself drunk -- that is a direct application of Paul's warning to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11.

[2] One is seeking the ceremony for status rather than humility in the face of Christ's work -- also in 1 Cor 11. For example, one who wants to be seen taking the bread and wine in the Capital Cathedral prolly should just go home rather than try to make a name for himself using the remembrance of Christ.

Those aren't examples which say someone is an "unbeliever": they are examples of rightly-discerning the body, rightly seeking to remember Christ and not to make His table into something it is not. For the minister to say, "those who are drunk, or are here to be recognized as somehow special by being here -- please, do not partake. This table is not for those reasons," is not to also say, "you dirty unbelievers." It is to say, "be serious about what we are doing here because this is how we remember what Jesus has done for us."

When Fr. Charles says in public, “We’re so glad to have our Christian brother [name omitted] here with us today,” he really looks like a great guy. Catholic ecumenism and all those good Vatican II statements about how grieved everyone is about these divisions. But when we (and Baptists do the same) turn one another away from the table and say “Not just the words of Jesus, but the words of men are required to come to this table. Not just a belief in the real Christ and the real presence of the real Christ, but a belief in the real presence the way we understand 'really real,'" then the previous proclamation of our brother’s faith is blatantly contradicted.

I disagree whole-heartedly. I disagree because the refusal of the minister (in this case, the priest) to hand over the sacrament, which is what he believes he is dispensing, has that implication that he is responsible to dispense it in a worthy manner.

I think it is wholly inside the parameters of consideration to think that Fr. Charles has an obligation to abide by church discipline, which is what is at stake when a Protestant comes through the line to take the bread and the cup. His statement that he is "grieved" reflects something other than being "sorry" in some way he can fix: he is "grieved" because a Protestant is under discipline and is separated until he comes under the obedience of the Church (big "C" in his mind).

Being under discipline is not the same as being an unbeliever: it is a call to repentence. Whether you're a Catholic or not, that is actually a biblical principle: believers under discipline are spiritually separated from the church, and have to be treated that way until they repent. This is one reason why confession is such a big deal for the Catholic, btw: he doesn't want to be separated from the church by his sin and unworthily take the eucharist.

I think there is a way to see what Fr. Charles is doing here which does not speak to the soteriological condition of the person seeking to partake but who is turned away -- and it's not a very convoluted way to see it, either.

The fundamentalists I grew up with were far more consistent. They weren’t going to take fact that you said you loved Jesus as evidence of your Christianity. Nope. Until you’d been baptized by them and confessed their faith their way in their church, then you became a brother. Until then, you were lost and needed to believe the Gospel.

That's certainly more black-and-white. That's not hardly more consistent.

For example, where did they call their pastors from? Did they raise up a man from inside the congregation based on the letters to Timoth and Titus, or did they call a man from the outside? Did that man have to be baptized in that particular church (again) in order to have his confession of faith be believed? Prolly not.

So as far as consistency goes, as they say on the internet, meh.

Fr. Charles is being consistent both historically and, ironically, biblically. The table is closed to those who are sepaparted from the Church -- and it ought to be.

Now, the chat about Fr. Charles was interesting, but this bit to follow is even moreso:

The Table is the essence of the invitation of Jesus to come to him. It is thereby the primary evidence that Christ has received a person as his own through faith and, at least in most understandings, after baptism. Tossing around the term “Christian brother” in the same room where you’lll telegraph to me that I’m not able to come to the table of Jesus says much louder “NOT a Christian brother.” It really does take a theologian to make it say anything else. Even a 4th grader knows what exclusion is and what it means.

Wow. I've been through my NT a couple of times trying to find out where it says that, and I can't find it. Jesus says that the cup is the cup of the covenant of which He will not drink again until the final establishment of the Kingdom (Mt, Mk); Luke adds it's a "remembrance" of what He will have done with His body for us; Paul adds that it be taken in a worthy manner rather than in a drunken or selfish manner.

The implication that the meal is for the sake of unity can be drawn 1 Cor 11 -- no question. But I think Paul's "unity" point is rather one of not seeking to use the table as a means of garnering status, a lesser version of his complaint to the Galatians. I'm not sure how one goes from there to a place there the Table is the sine qua non of Christian fellowship, and that all-comers must be admitted or else they are de facto unbelievers.

Seriously: the man Paul commanded to be cast out in 1 Cor 5 -- should he be admitted to the table before he returns to obedience and repentance? I think his return to fellowship in 2 Cor speaks to that clearly -- and the answer is "no". In disobeying the Church (big "C") as Protestants, we should expect that Church (big "C") to hold us apart from fellowship.

So the problem may not be my lack of Lutheran or Catholic theology. The problem may be how that theology works with the intention to relate to other Christians. Fundamentalists would tell me I was not a Christian and treat me as such. (Think Phil Johnson would let me near a communion table?) But the “inclusive” closed communionist is going to tell me I am the brother for whom Christ died, but then refuse to commune with me.

Yeah, I think Phil Johnson is not the problem here -- because Phil, as I understand it, would hold closed communion at his church for members only for the sake of protecting the table from unworthy use. It wouldn't be a personal, subjective thing: it would be a pragmatic application of a Scriptural command that the table not be used in an unworthy manner. Very much, btw, the way Fr. Charles would administer his "sacrament".

I don’t think the problem is that I feel rejected. I think the problem is that some people think they’ve included me on some level. And I’ll tell you why I think that happens: because exclusion of those with a living faith in Christ is so un-Jesus shaped that a lot of people aren’t comfortable doing it. So they find ways to come out of the logical implications of their beliefs and instead treat other “Christians” as if they are really there.

Yeah, no. One of the great inequalities between me and Christ (and there are many of them) is that Jesus knew what was in the hearts of men -- so when he called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs", he knew from filthy and rotten. For me, all I know is my filthy and rotten, and most people, frankly, look pretty good when you compare them to me.

But when Jesus said, in words to this effect, "be like me", He didn't mean, "look into people's hearts so you can know them; see what's there and that's how you treat them." He said things like, "remember the widowed and the orphan," and "keep the Law in letter and spirit," and "do this in memory of me." But then He also had this guy Paul who said things like, "let him who has done this be removed from among you," and "rebuke those who contradict sound doctrine". So the "Jesus shape" we have to get to has the condition that we know where the boundaries of Jesus-likeness lie for us on this side of glory.

Jesus loves church discipline. I know because the Bible says so. Sometimes that means that people with good faith but bad practice have to see that in "incarnational" ways. And let me say this frankly: maybe the problem is that the one giving out the bread and wine is the one who is wrong. You know: maybe when the Westminster divines called their mass "idolatry", they were right -- and taking the idol is itself a kind of disobedience which one might be glad to be separated from.

Where I grew up, the church leaders didn’t feel bad about excluding other Christians from being called or treated as Christians. They took it as their duty to address them as lost and their churches as false and their faith as mere religion. Their version of Jesus was on their side on these issues. No stress involved in considering the possibility of Christians outside of [church name omitted]. It just wasn’t possible.

My opinion is that this is, in the best case, hyperbole. Even if they may have had a pigeon ecclesiology, however, that's besides the point. The question is whether the church -- in all its forms -- has an obligation to have an open table or a table which is used in a worthy manner. It plainly has the obligation for the latter.

Classic: Baptism

Dr. Piper opens up the can of worms at his church again by beginning a series on baptism and church membership.

The long-time readers of this blog know for a fact that this topic is near to me and dear to me -- because it's one of the topics I have blogged about most often. And in that, I think I am more a Baptist for it today than I was 3 years ago.

I respect Dr. Piper and the elders of his church wanting to have an open door at their church for all believers in Christ -- for wanting, as they have said, to keep the front door of the local church as wide as the front door of the universal church -- namely, all who believe in Jesus Christ.

Dr. Piper's message yesterday delivered a stirring call for the importance of church membership -- one with which I would agree almost entirely. Almost.

He says this in the middle of his message:

One of the key convictions behind the elder proposal (that was made and then withdrawn) is that excluding from membership a truly born-again person who gives credible evidence of his saving faith is a more serious mistake than receiving into membership a true believer who is not biblically baptized though, according to his own conscience, he believes he is. But that conviction assumes church membership is really important, so that excluding a person from it is very serious.

So one of the arguments against the elder proposal was that membership in a local church like Bethlehem does not matter very much—certainly not as much as baptism—because a non-member can worship and take the Lord’s Supper and go to Sunday School and be a part of a small group and be visited by a pastor in the hospital; or he can simply go to another church that shares his view of baptism.

So if membership is not that important, then excluding someone from membership will not seem a serious problem. That would mean that the elders are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist. This is one of the most crucial issues we need to think through as a church: How serious is it to say to a regenerate person: “You are not permitted to be a member of this church”?

Let me say frankly that this is not a matter either of subjective belief or of merely-judicial or -authoritarian caveat. This is the place where the reasoning at Bethlehem goes of the rails, in my opinion, and let me explain briefly why I would say that.

In Acts 19, Paul finds the "disciples" at Corinth who had received John's baptism but not the baptism of Jesus. Those people there sincerely believed they had been baptized, but in fact they had not been baptized into Christ. That example speaks clearly, I think, to the question of whether or not what one thinks about one's baptism is what we should weigh when we are considering them as members of our fellowship and churches. We are not saying they are not disciples: we are saying they are not baptized, and they should hear that call plainly for what it is: a call to be obedient to what God has ordained for the church and for the believer.

In that way, we are not questioning anyone's status as being regenerate or not regenerate. We are calling them to do what God has called them to do. The excuse, "I think I already have done it," is dispelled by they fact that they did not, in fact, do it -- it was done to them before they could agree or decline. What they have had done is not objectively the same as what we are calling them to.

By saying that, we are not saying to a regenerate person, "your salvation doesn't matter to us and you cannot join our church." We -- that is, the church and specifically its elders -- are saying what the elders ought to say in the name of Jesus Christ: if you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Baptism is a commandment from God for the believer. And without overstating this matter, it is the charge of the elder to exhort the believer to do what God has commanded, and not merely settle for what seems good to every man in his own eyes. Someone who doesn't want to do what God has commanded is someone, I think, who is not under the authority of the elders but on his own program.

I really love that Bethlehem Baptist church is thinking deeply about this matter. But one of the most deeply-resounding themes of its preaching pastor is the matter of obedience to God out of love and joy for what God has done for us. Is it really such a hard thing, in that context, to tell those who want to fellowship in an assembly which hears the Lord commanding us to baptize the believer that this is their first step in truly desiring God?

which flesh and blood has not revealed

Well, baptism. It started up at Doug Wilson's blog, and because I am the resident intransigent baptist over here, we got to the place where I said this:

imagine a community where the pastor doesn't have faith, none of the congregants have faith, and they are baptizing babies into the community. The FV guy (and honestly: even the non-FV presbyterian) has to at least say, "well, not a church in spite of meeting all the external requirements, blahblahblah," but I think the consistent FV guy says, "a church which is under the curses of God."

To which I am somewhat flabbergasted -- because that event (which is hardly a hypothtical one here in 21st century America) leads us to ask upon what Rock will Christ build His church? The promise of faith? The external, objective act of baptism and then the table?

Or is it instead that which flesh and blood has not revealed, but that which the Father who is in heaven have revealed? See: the church without faith -- in spite of the objective signs -- is no church.

Somebody's going to call that "gnostic", I am sure, but I'll wait for that coin to drop. And I'm getting the 'bot editor here telling me I need to be more punchy.

And to that, Mablog commenter "Xon" has come back with a noteworthy and rebuttal come-back:

You propose a false dilemma of your own when you ask us to choose between Christ building his church on faith or on the sacraments? Faithful people trust Christ to be there when they do the sacraments because that is what He promises to do. At least, that's the "FV" view.

Which, I think, is standard FV smoke-and-mirrors. They assume that doing the sacraments (Baptists: bear with me) means "demonstrating the faith", but then say something like "Mormon", and it's all yeah-buts. Suddenly non-objective realities like what someone believes about Jesus and the Father are material.

We baptists simply call the bluff before all that turns into questions about paedocommunion and/or the necessity (though biblically-unwarranted) of the practice of Confirmation come up. Sacraments are for the believer, and that keeps all the non-biblical exercises out of the picture. More or less.

"Build" is ambiguous. Does it mean that Christ is literally not going to be there at all if none of the people have faith?

Yup. Think "rolling stone concert".

(And has there ever been a church where every last person lacked faith despite their profession? How do we know?)

I love that -- not one person on Earth today has ever witnessed "paedofaith" except where John the Baptist demonstrates it in the womb, but somehow a baptist view of regenerate church membership which says that faith precedes Baptism precedes inclusion in the body suddenly requires that we can't understand what's happening inside a Mormon temple -- or a PCUSA church or the most liberal, mostly-unitarian stripe.

Or does it mean that the way Christ "grows", "builds up into strength," "establishes on an unbreakable foundation" His Church is by faith. But when the riff raff wander in and take the things of God lightly and do not trust in Him, they are going to get hammered eventually. But they get hammered in part because they were in Christ's Church and they trifled with it by refusing to obey God's command to trust in Him alone. When you come in without the right kinds of garments, that's a bad thing. But there had to be somewhere for you to be "in" in the first place.

I would propose two things here:

[1] Every single church in the history of the world has some mixture of error in it, and has some chaff among the wheat. All of them. That doesn't prove or disprove anything except that what the Bible says is true: some creep in.

[2] Some "churches" are no longer such a thing, having become synagogues of Satan. That being the case -- the confessional case -- what exactly is being said there? What's being said is that at some point, God is not being served by the community, and the community ceases to be a church. That's a baptist premise, through and through. It hangs almost all of the weight of fidelity not on the external, objective issues of word and sacrament but on the teleological problem of whether or not the men in the church are men of faith or men without faith. And I don;t think anyone writing the WCF or the LBCF was a gnostic.

Presby-schmerians

There's this little throw-down opening up at Doug Wilson's blog over what credobaptism "means", and one commenter tossed out this doozy:

A word about baptistic baptism. I grew up in the Church of Christ, where, even though they'd rather be stoned to death than be called a "Baptist," nevertheless their concept of baptism is uber-baptistic.

There is more to the credo part of credobaptism than just a "background check," or even "confirmation." Underlying the baptistic concept of baptism is the philosophical premise that God does not interfere with the unadulterated, absolute free will of men (who, by the way, are morally tabula-rasa at birth).

In other words, credobaptism, at its foundation, is an explicit denial of both God's sovereignty in the area of human will, and the fact that man is dead in sin. This is why it is so repulsive. And this is primarily why I left the COC ("this" being the denials, not the symptomatic credo-stuff).

So when a COC elder or a Baptist pastor starts the interrogation, what they're looking for is: 1)some kind of evidence that the baptismal candidate has reached the mental age where (the philosophical argument goes) she can be reasonably expected to exercise a high level of beloved rationality, and 2)some evidence that the candidate has in fact used her rational ability to remove her own heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh (all by herself).

Uuugghhhh... I believed that stuff for 30 years...

Yeah. Whatever. My first response was that this was dumb-factor of 12 on a scale of 5, and I invited our blog friend here to D-Blog this subject, but he passed. Instead, he wanted to know where his opinion went south, and I told him something like what follows.

That said, the "interview" is seeking evidence of faith. Just like in a paedo church prior to confirmation when they comb over the catechism so as to confirm (hence ...) the evidence of faith, so does the ordained baptist malcontent when he asks for one's "testimony".

Seeking the evidence of faith does not imply the superiority of free will over God's sovereignty. It seeks to announce His sovereign action through Baptism. Baptism is for the faithful not for anyone we hope will get faith.
For example, when John the Alcoholic gets baptized at age 47 because Pastor Abe at First Proper Presbyterian evangelized him at the barber shop, presbyterians would not then go an baptize all of Abe's college age atheist children, would they? Why not -- because human free will is sovereign? Or because baptism is for those in faith? See - if what is at issue is that faith is promised to the children of the faithful, then the age of the person gaining faith shouldn't matter. And that goes double for the classic "household baptisms" defense. "Households" in those days were often extended family deals - so what do we do with that if we go paedo on the one hand?

Those adult kids of John the Alcoholic don't have a reservation at the fount just because Dad is suddenly regenerate: why would the infant kids?
I know there's a WCF answer to this, but it only answers the latter half of the question -- not the former half. It ignores the former half.
The comeback was classic:

Whoa, hoss. First, adults who display an obvious lack of faith are presumed to be unfaithful precisely because all the evidence says that they are. Infant children of covenant parents are presumed to be faithful precisely because all the evidence says they are.

Second, you must recognise that credo-baptism is no more "reliable" a measure of true faith than paedobaptism. In both cases, those administering the sign of the covenant are relying upon God's promises concerning covenant status. John says that no man can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit (good enough for the credo-b). And Paul says "but now your children are holy" (good enough for the paedo-b). In neither case do you get a signed, notarized certificate, and in both cases you get the occasional bad apple, which apparently is okay with God, if circumcission is any indicator.

See: the presumption that someone has faith because their parents have faith is fine - unless they do things bad by their own free will. Then we can judge them sinners who need to repent. So while LongShot here wants to pin some kind of crypto-pelagianism on baptists, he's a crypto-pelagian as well because of the value he hangs on bad works.

See: what makes us sinners is not the sin we do - it's our nature. We have this sin nature which makes us sinners. And the question is whether there is a faith which lives inside us as a result of Grace. Baptism is a demonstration of what God has done in us, not what he might do in the future.

Last off, there’s no question there are some false credobaptisms. But let’s be serious: is anyone saying there are –fewer- false paedobaptisms? How about in churches ordaining women and openly-gay men? The objection is hollow when we think about what one of the objectives of baptism is – which is that it brings those who are called by God to Him and demonstrates His work upon them.

No seriously: NOW I am going on vacation.

Wet one

Baptism alert.

All hands to battle stations.

Hot Spots

Coupla things going on in the Theoblogosphere that I think you might find interesting:

The Pulpit blog is considering John MacArthur's affirmation that Calvinism demands pre-mil eschatology. They are fielding questions there, and because Nathan B is running the show over there, it will be informative, I am sure.

For those still somewhat giddy over the topic of baptism, the FV/paedo/credo thing is going full-tilt in the meta of the linked post at Doug Wilson's blog. Who knew that when you get down to the question of what the church ought to be doing, you have to concede that the only way the church can do it is if it is full of regenerate people? Well, Paul knew that -- that's what he told the Corinthians, anyway.

I tell you this because I am tied up today and it is unlikely that I will be blogging much. But I want you to be stimulated so that you will return to catch a fix.

Dippy

I promised part 5 of the "Another Dip" series for this week, and I got overloaded at work. Sorry, folks. I should have some down-time over the long weekend to get a couple of posts together on this topic so those of you who are being edified by it can stop mumbling curses at me as you pray for my sanctification.

Thanks for your patience.

Another Dip [4.5]

I gave you-all a head-fake in the last installment because I said out next installment in this series was going to be Ignatius to the Philippians. Before I get to that, let’s keep something in mind: this series is not as simple as it seems on the surface. One of the big reasons you don’t see a lot of books on this subject is because the primary question – which is, “What did the Ante-Nicene Fathers write?” – is somewhat complicated. It’s not that we don’t know who they are: it’s that there are a lot of issues regarding which letters are real and which are fakes. In Schaff’s ANF, for example, he lists all the genuine letters and all the forgeries but for the most part separates which are which in the intro to the sections.

See: the forgeries have some value as historic documents when they are properly dated, but they’re not very useful for determining what the alleged author had in mind because the alleged author is not the actual author. That seems rudimentary, but it’s part of the reason this series goes so slow: I’d rather talk about the non-phony letters and discourses than all of them as if they all had the same kind of usefulness, but sorting through takes time and attention.

Which, by the way, is why Ignatius to the Philippians was a head-fake: I personally had not been reading far enough ahead, and if it had not been for an alert reader (Jason Engwer) I might have made a research error because I got in a rush to get the next item up in the series. Ignatius to the Philippians is a forgery, so it will not be the next letter in the series.

As I said up above, if this was an easy walk, every kook with a baptismal axe to grind would have his own survey of ECFs posted and QED’d. And because what I do full-time is not research ECFs or church history, I appreciate your patience.

Part 5 of this series will be up this week.

Another Dip [4]

AHA! I have cleared my calendar, and the next installment of the ECFs as they mention baptism is FINALLY HERE.

Why is it I only hear crickets? Am I alone in this post? Hello?

OK, last time we had a little bit from Ignatius, and we have a bit more from him today. In his letter to Polycarp, Chapter VI, Ignatius said this:

Look ye to the bishop, that God also may look upon you. I will be instead of the souls of those who are subject to the bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons; with them may I have a portion in the presence of God! Labour together with one another, act as athletes together, run together, suffer together, sleep together, rise together. As stewards of God, and of His household, and His servants, please Him and serve Him, that ye may receive from Him the wages [promised]. Let none of you be rebellious. Let your baptism be to you as armour, and faith as a spear, and love as a helmet, and patience as a panoply. Let your treasures be your good works, that ye may receive the gift of God, as is just. Let your spirit be long-suffering towards each other with meekness, even as God [is] toward you. As for me, I rejoice in you at all times.

I find this passage interesting because of its relationship in structure to the previous letter we reviewed. These letters are both written at the same time, as Ignatius is being handed over for death in the Arena.

Last time we noticed that Ignatius said that Baptism should be our “arms”, and here our “armor”. In that, why exactly does Ignatius use these terms interchangeably here? My opinion – and if yours is different I’m interested in it – is that Ignatius is implying that baptism is a kind of protection for the believer. In his list, faith is the spear (that with which one attacks or advances his position), love is a helmet (that which guards the head or mind); patience is a “panoply” (which is lost on the modern reader; a “panoply” is the full array of battlements – the full supply and resources of a warrior). The believer, in Ignatius’ view here, is fully equipped for his task.

So if baptism is a protection, what does it protect against? Does Ignatius here say that it’s a supernatural protection, or some kind of spirit warding equipment? No: he places this description of baptism immediately after his admonition “let none of you be rebellious”. In the same way he has previously said, “let baptism be your arms”, he is saying here that it is a protection against rebellion. In the same way he was saying not to “abandon your post” in the previous letter we took a quick look at, here he is saying “defend yourself against being rebellious toward each other”. And the primary object of that protection, in his view, is baptism. Somehow (which he does not elaborate here), baptism is an “armor” against rebellion.

In the next installment, which is Ignatius’ letter to the Phillipians, he does elaborate briefly. If you’re really anxious or clever, you’ll read ahead and think about it before we post anything here.

Another Dip [3]

es, you thought I forgot about the baptism thing, didn’t you? I cannot forget about baptism, people. It’s like a song I cannot get out of my head.

So that nobody thinks I’m shirking my agenda here, I was going to “do” Ignatius (c. AD 50 – 107?) next, but for those of you in the know, the references to “baptism” in his letters are all in the controversial longer versions and not in the more-traditionally accepted shorter versions.

Well, you know: except. Except in Ignatius’ epistle to Polycarp:

Chapter VI.—The duties of the Christian flock.

Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God! Labour together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together; sleep together; and awake together, as the stewards, and associates, and servants of God. Please ye Him under whom ye fight, and from whom ye receive your wages. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that ye may receive a worthy recompense. Be long-suffering, therefore, with one another, in meekness, as God is towards you. May I have joy of you for ever!

It’s the highlighted part that is somewhat engrossing. Ignatius is here using the “full armor” metaphor, and perhaps composing one of the first versions of “Onward Christian Soldiers” – because he is exhorting the believers (to and thru Polycarp) to be soldiers who do not abandon their posts.

Do not be deserters, he says. And the first item on the list of supplies is . . . baptism! “Let Baptism endure as your arms,” he writes, and in that, we have to consider what he means by that. For example, it’s clear he means “arms” in the sense of “weapons” or “equipment of war”, and not merely your beefy pythons. But in that he calls on those submissive to the bishop to let this weapon “endure”.

The good Presbyterians reading this know already what this means because they are not ashamed to use with the phrase, “improve our baptism”. Warfield said it this way:

Thus we shall, as our fathers expressed it, "improve our baptism." We improve it "by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein: by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ, and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body." Surely, he who does these things shall never stumble, but shall be fully girded for entrance into that eternal Kingdom for which we are marked and sealed in our baptism.
Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, vol. 1, Edited by John E. Meeter, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970. originally from a pamphlet of eight pages published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia, 1920.

Now, given that we are reading the ECFs to gain an understanding of how they thought about baptism, I’m not sure the part, in yellow above, is of much help. We’re trying to figure out or deduce the meaning of baptism from the ECFs, so assuming it has one which is 20th-century Presbyterian in meaning is not quite inside the methodology. But it seems to me that the rest of this is exactly what Ignatius is talking about. That is: baptism is surely something more than a bath – it is a sign of something in which we stand. I think it does Ignatius no injustice to say it is a sign of the Gospel itself from which we may desert if we are not watchful. In that, it seems clear to me that Ignatius calls our baptism part of the equipment of our faith. But it is no mere device: it is our arms, something with which we can act to advance our cause.

That’s an interesting affirmation as far as it goes.

Your turn: what’s Ignatius talking about here?

Another Dip [2]

OK – so we touched on Justin Martyr’s (for the sake of the vulgar, Justin lived c. 100-165 AD) bit on baptism in First Apology, and we don’t see any covenantal implications to baptism in his short mention. He wasn’t really writing a systematic treatment (to be fair to our paedo brothers and sisters) but it just didn’t come up. For those following along, I’m using Schaff as a kind of surveying tool to get to the first pass of ECFs talking about this topic, and we’ll make a second pass as we go based on recommendations from you readers and other troublemakers who happen to pass through.

In that, the first suggestion that intrigues me is the Didache. Given that this document is pretty hard to date, I think its use is not as influential as something written which is not anonymous and not difficult to date in this discussion. The consensus is that it’s “early”, prolly about the time of Justin’s birth. The current thinking is that it’s c. 100 AD. Fair enough?

It mentions baptism twice (J.B.Lightfoot’s translation):

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

And then again:

9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
9:2 First, as regards the cup:
9:3 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:4 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
9:6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
9:9 for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}

And all the Baptists in the reading audience started holding their breaths, if they have any good sense. Now, why? Listen: section 7 again simply cannot be any reference to infant baptisms. The admonition to fast “for a day or two” prior to being baptized cannot be thought to be for infants, and there is no exception listed for one too young to fast. It’s a great tacit endorsement of credobaptism as far as it goes.

The part that should be putting a knot in the tummies of Baptists is the second section which tells us about the proper administration of the eucharist. In the first place, it is pretty, um, liturgical, right? It smacks of a rite. It makes me woozy just to glance it over.

But more challenging, look at the matter of who may and may not receive the eucharist: only the baptized my eat or drink; none which are not baptized may eat or drink because they are dogs and unholy.

“Cent, I’m a Baptist, and I don’t get any chill-bumps over that,” says one guy with a black Scofield. “We Baptists don’t let the unbaptized up to the table of the Lord. What’s the problem?”

The problem, my dear sock puppet, is that the distinction baptized=holy, unbaptized=unholy is precisely the FV view of the matter. That is to say, the Didache doesn’t say, “if he’s baptized and he’s still inside the bounds of orthodoxy,” or “if he’s baptized and the elders haven’t beat him up for reading from the Greek OT rather than the Hebrew OT,” or what have you: it makes the plain analogy that unbaptized is to unholy as baptized is holy.

Even if Didache does implicitly talk about baptizing grown-ups only, it says a lot more about baptism in that single analogy than a lot of Baptists can muster in a 20-page white paper on the topic.

BTW, this is exactly the kind of trouble Doug Wilson was talking about over at his blog. And before anybody starts e-mailing my pastor over this, let’s be clear that I’m not saying this is right Baptist teaching. I’m saying that the Didache plainly thinks more of baptism than the average Baptist does.

I am sure a healthy discussion of what kind of document the Didache is ought to ensue here. That’s what the meta is for.

Another dip

WELCOME BLOG and MABLOG READERS!

Yeah, so I was reading along as if I didn’t have anything else to do. I’ve been working on the rough outline of what to say to Doug Wilson’s To a Thousand Generations for a while now – at least since his office sent me a copy to review – and since I have spouted off about this elsewhere, I’ll spout a little here today and let you good people have a whack at what I’m thinking.

The first thing I’d say about Presbyterian baptismal theology is this: it’s consistent. That is to say, it hangs together very well. It’s obviously well-considered. All the pieces fit the way I’d like them to fit. It’s very systematic, which of course is very appealing. So they baptize babies, and they have this long list of reasons why it’s a great idea to do so, and the ideas seem to flow one from another.

And in Mr. Wilson’s case, he does one better than most of them: he means it and is willing to live with all the consequences. That’s not saying that many Presbyterians are hypocrites (not any worse than most Baptists are, anyway), but it is saying that, for example, if baptism equals covenant membership, and somebody gets covenant membership, we can’t go and start ex-covenanting them because we didn't really in-coveant them. So some baby that grows up to be Pope, to use the most aggravating example available, can’t be said to be “not a Christian” even though he necessarily advocates the essential belief that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven, or that one earns forgiveness in confession through penance. In Mr. Wilson’s view, if you got baptized, you’re in – and you put yourself at great peril if you behave as if you are actually “out”.

And that’s based on the whole matter of the covenant, right? Baptism is the covenant sign; it’s the initiation into the covenant, and that covenant is manifest in the church. Covenantalism – seeing God as establishing relationship as covenant – is the backbone of this view, whether it be the “I abjure FV” Presbyterianism or “I affirm FV” Presbyterianism.

This is a brief(?!) summary, so please forgive (and feel free to amend in the comments for my edification) any oversimplifications or errors.

But I’m not announcing that I’ve left the Baptist church for Presbyterianism today, so where am I driving this bus? Well, I’m going to spend all summer (so clear your calendars) recapping as much of the first 3 centuries of written stuff about baptism as I can round up to see if that’s what the fellows leading the church and exhorting others were saying about this rite back in the proverbial day. And let's be honest: it's a mixed bag.

Now, why do that? Because, in the first place, I don’t think any of these guys came out and said, “Pheh! Baby Baptism!” But at the same time, what did they say about baby baptism? And most importantly, what did they say about what baptism is for, what it does, and what we can use it to understand. I know I have personally been thinking and journaling about this for more than 2 years, and I’m at the place where I’m ready to think and write about this from the perspective, “If Scriptures says only this much (which is enough, btw), what did that teaching produce in others?”

Thus, we begin with Justin, in his First Apology, Chapter LXI.—Christian baptism:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

As I read this, I find three key points of interest, not necessarily underlined for emphasis, above. The first is this: Justin is very keen on associating the act of baptism with something in particular, namely the forgiveness of sins. There can be no doubt about that – if you want to refute that, you’ll have to go do that someplace else. You can’t read his statement highlighted in yellow, above, and come away with the idea that he didn’t really think baptism was associated with regeneration.

The big question, however, is how is baptism associated with regeneration? Does baptism cause regeneration? The blue highlighted section speaks to that specifically – concluding with the final underlined section.

The second key point of interest is what Justin does not specifically associate with baptism – namely, the new covenant. He calls this act a “[rite] we have learned from the apostles”, but the particular reason for the rite is not inclusion in the new covenant: it is to actively demonstrate choice and knowledge in what Christ has done for us. What is so exciting – from my baptistic perch – about this affirmation is that Justin has here contrasted the act with what we receive as children from and by our parents. From our parents we have received bad habits, and wicked training, but in Christ we receive something else which we demonstrate in baptism.

The last key point I would underscore for you is that Justin says we “dedicate ourselves to God” in baptism. Notice that he doesn’t mean that we apply baptism to ourselves (as someone leads us “to the laver”, as Justin says), but that in baptism we “dedicate” ourselves – which is to say, we commit or devote ourselves. We are willing, in other words, to do this thing. I'm sure that will lead to an explosive paedofaith steel-cage match, but here there's no way to construe what Justin is talking about as being infants with an unobserved faith.

Now, many of the people who read this blog are about to say, “well, what about Ignatius? What about the Epistle of Barnabas?” Dude: I said I was going to take all summer. Don’t get crazy because I didn’t start with your favorite ECF on this topic. We will get there. Let’s talk about this one – and I’d be willing to take any other part of First Apology into account in order to get clarity on this passage and this point.

Have at it.

[#] Baptism

Leave you comments here. Especially if you're coming here from Doug Wilson's blog and you're itchin' for a fight interested in fraternal dialog.

[*] the material never runs dry

Before I get into this, let me warn you that the template will update sometime in the next 7 days. I have a great new ideaer for the blog's look, and I'm sure nobody will like it but me, but them's the breaks. Stay tuned.

OK: while I was out of town at a funeral (thanks to all who were praying for my wife's family, btw; they still need prayer if your knees aren't worn out), Tim Enloe came by to add his few cents to my reply to him from Doug Wilson's blog.

He begins:

Good questions, and good to see an "incurable Baptist" asking them. Unfortunately for you, my answers to the first two are contained in the basic reasoning you dismissed as "Blah, blah, blah."

For the record, what I "blah-blah-blah'd" was this from Tim:

There is not a shred of Scriptural information anywhere which can, apart from a positivistic Bible-Only hermeneutic that looks more like Enlightenment humanism than Reformation faithfulness, be made to teach that the validity of GOD'S OWN sign depends upon subjective human appropriation of certain intellectual content.

Now, let's consider something: in the course of the last 4 weeks, I have unequivocally affirmed that the word "faith" does not mean "the theological contents of the mental cup", yes? Faith is more than just an idea about God. Faith is the harmony of Paul and James: it is the place where God demonstrates He is more than just a keen idea, and man demonstrates he has a greater relationship with said God than he does with, for example, his belief that democracy is a good idea and people ought to vote, but I can't get away at lunch this November.

In that – which is to say, in agreeing with Doug Wilson that saying works are the way faith is manifest – it is my further statement that faith is the basis for sacrament. That is to say, not a mental cup full of propositions but the second birth which results in a renewed mind and therefore a renewed repertoire of things one will do.

Yes: it is "GOD'S OWN" (note to Tim: Paul Owen doesn't read any better in all-caps than you do) sign – but a sign of what? Is it a sign of what could be, or what might be, or what potentially will be? Or is baptism – as with Christ's own baptism – a sign in which "it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness"? That is to say, rather than circumcision – which is actually a sign of a promise – we have baptism because we demonstrate the fulfillment of the promise.

If faith is more than a mental state, baptism is more than a sign of good will. Faith works out in Baptism. Baptism without faith is exactly the same kind of work as the Temple without faith, or the Law without faith, or frankly the Scripture without faith.

It is the cart put before the horse, with the great hope (in the best case) that the horse can still push the cart.

We don't need to first talk about "clear" verses of Scripture and what they "plainly" teach about baptism; we need to first talk about the sociological assumptions of baptism as a mere act, and what the catholic and baptistic visions of this respectively do to society. This information isn't contained in Scripture, which is exactly why a Bible Only view cannot ever answer the questions, but only produce endless rounds of Prooftext Wars.

Let me be honest enough to say that I think that the "popular" Baptist view of things is not great. There's an "s" word for it, and it's not "sacrament". So in the spirit of honesty without being vulgar, we can agree that the "me, my Bible and Jesus" vision of Christian life prevalent in Baptist circles is pretty bad.

The questions are, "is that the Reformed Baptist view of things?" and more importantly, "is that the view of the men at whom Tim Enloe has spit the lion's share of watermelon seeds?"

In that context, Tim's response here is more of the same from him to which I have said previously, "blah blah blah". For example, if for one second we allow the assertion that Tim makes here that there is something necessary for the Christian life which is not taught by Scripture, what does Sociology tell us about baptism? For example, Doug Wilson says that all the members of a Christian synagogue would have been both circumcised and baptized. That's an interesting assertion, but it turns out that even into the 3rd century the massive majority of baptisms were adult baptisms, with baptism being understood as a very serious and important act for the believer to accept. If the Jews were the first believers, and they were baptizing all their infants because they were circumcising all their male infants, why did they not baptize all the children of their Gentile converts in order to give them the same sign they felt compelled to give their own children?

See: I think the socio-historical evidence (talk about an enlightenment class – but it is Tim's class of choice, even above what Scripture teaches) points to something radically different than Tim would advocate. But for us to consider such a thing, we have to go back prior to the medieval church and risk being berated for some ad fonts claim for truth. And again, what we find is that to search the medieval period for the roots of the Reformation is not a bad ad fonts claim, but the search the period(s) prior to the medieval age for the roots of medieval churchiness – that's bad. That's Enlightenment propositionalism. That's Baptistic schismaticism in action.

If Baptism was instituted for the sake that Tim and Doug Wilson would advocate, why was it not practiced in the way that their view would have inspired if their view was present at all in those receiving the sacrament?

So I stand by "blah blah blah".

The answer to the third question is 'Of course the society does not contain people inside its boundaries who are outside its purpose.' This is because the society's purpose isn't to create an eensy "pure" enclave in the midst of vast realms falling away into perdition. The society has a larger purpose than the redemption of Private Individual Persons. But of course it's difficult for incurable Baptists to understand that, since their worldview ultimately reduces to the Private Individual Person, clutching Scripture Alone and never truly becoming able to grasp why the rest of the world "hates" him when all he's doing is humbly claiming to love pure, unadorned TRUTH more than them.

Again, it seems appropriate to say, "blah blah blah" to such hyper-polemical finger-pointing, but for the sake of my readers, let me flesh that out a bit.

The first thing to note is that, in spite of the ample and previously-stipulated set of examples of dumb Baptists, it is unfortunate for Tim that none of those people are here. And none of those people are present in the apologists/scholars/theologians upon whom he'd like to grind his axe. Just because they (and I) affirm the very well-attested reformational statement that the Pope is anti-christ, and in that we reject the orthodoxy of people with a baptism which is supposed to be regenerative into a salvation which is mediated in part by a woman about whom we must believe bodily-assumption into heaven (among other things), it is at best overzealous to assign us to some crazy semi-solipsistic theological worldview.

But in that, there is a very interesting aspect to Tim's complaint that ought to be reviewed: in response to the question, "does [the society of faith] ever have people inside its boundaries who are outside its purpose?", he says, 'Of course the society does not contain people inside its boundaries who are outside its purpose.' Now, if we take this reply at face value – and can we grant Tim the grace to say it's not a very nuanced reply, so the record stands open for him to revise and expand his remarks – we have to ask, "then what exactly is your point again?"

See: the point of the AA view of Baptism is to admit those who ought to be admitted to the Covenant (and therefore brought into the church) expressly for the reason of placing them inside the purpose of the covenant. In the best case – like the case where Pastor Wilson, in his debate last year with James White, said he took pleasure in baptizing his grandchildren into the covenant (which, for the record, was indeed cute) – that's a hope of the promise of Christ's work, but in the case at hand – like a Roman Catholic who buries icons in his yard to get his house sold and prays JPII's prayers to Mary – the purpose of the covenant is to lay down curses for covenant-breakers.

See: my view of the church is that it is a city on the hill into which some who are unworthy sneak but from which they do not benefit, a city which proclaims an offer which Christ can (and does) fulfill. In that, the Church's society – its sociological work, its historical presence, its hammers and tongs – draws its lines boldly, based on completed work and not on potential work. "We claim this one based on what God has already done," not "we claim this one and we hope we get to keep him when God does His work in the future."

And when we get through all of that, we are left with these two outcomes particularly for the case of the Roman Catholic. In my view, because his baptism is a phony promise of regeneration, and it is into a phony claim of someone who places himself in the place of Christ, and it demands phony acceptance of things like the mediation of Mary and the godhood of bread, he's no kind of Christian: his faith is phony because it's full of phony (essential) things. But Tim, who is apparently offering the olive branch to this person, would say that the promise of regeneration in Baptism is actually phony, the apostolic place-holding of the Pope is actually phony, and the godhood of the bread is actually phony, but because the baptism was itself made in the proper formula based on a set of pre-enlightenment propositions about the Tri-unity of God, this fellow is a brother: a bad, in-danger-of-covenant-curses, needing-broad-correction, holding-on-only-by-his-baptism brother.

I'm sure that's very consoling.