more baptism and covenant

Here.

BAPTiSM?

FIDES ALIENA

Augustine admitted that baptism must have faith as its prerequisite. He also admitted that infants can't do that. So, for Augustine, the church believes for the infant.

ECCLESIA TRIUMPHANS

Many scholastics who followed Augustine then said that the triumphant church in heaven is the source of "faith" for infants. But how so? Because they no longer need their faith and it is deposited into a treasury of merits.

FIDES PROPRIA or FIDES INFANTIUM

When our hot-headed friend Luther took the stage, he too insisted that faith and baptism must not be divorced. But for Luther, the issue was the faith of the one being baptized ["propria"]. Because he followed the robust rationale of much Medieval thought, he did not hesitate to say that reason is often a hinderance to faith. Thus, infants, because they are unscathed by reason, actually can have faith. "In baptism, the infants themselves believe and have their own faith."

DE BAPTISMO

"De Baptismo" was a powerful tract published by Zwingli in which he parted ways with Rome, Luther, and many of his Anabaptist friends. In it, he wrote,

In this matter of baptism, if I may be pardoned for saying it, I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles. This is a serious assertion, and I make it with such reluctance that I had not been compelled to do so by contentious spirits, I would have preferred to remain silent.

Zwingli divorced faith and baptism and went on to maintain the covenantal argument for baptism that is commonly held today among most paedobaptists. He was not the first to do so, but definitely one of the most polemically outspoken of his time.

For anyone who has read to this point, you're a nerd. I just needed to iron this out on a keyboard.

I've just recently read the best defense of infant baptism I've ever read. It is still unconvincing, but well-argued. It's called "What About Baptism?" by Ralph E. Bass, Jr. There are some blatant slips and errors in the book, but it's still quite direct and thoughtful. For example, he claims that the Greek word "didache" means "twelve." He was just wrongly taught on that one. It means "teaching." He also makes several systematic assumptions on the text. We all do, but Ralph's are a little too strong.

I still find "Believer's Baptism" by Schreiner and Wright to be more faithful to the biblical witness. Does it have it's own scattering of questionable logic? Sometimes. Do I agree with every jot and tittle of interpretation? Not necessarily. Do they understand the covenantal nature of the story of God revealed in the Scriptures? You bet. Is there a type-o on page 230 in my copy? Yes. But still, this book seems to put baptism closer to the final exhortation of Jesus to His disciples in Mt 28.18-20. I feel that it keeps baptism closer to the gospel, the new covenant, and the consummation of the eschaton.

Now, to both of you who endured this, leave some comment expressing your disapproval that I will likely not respond to :)

St Paul First Reformed Bapti-costal Holiness Tabernacle of the Second Coming

Here's a random list of things I believe. I think it is important try to articulate some of this stuff. I try to explain why at the bottom. And if these beliefs had a local church name, I'm hoping it would be the one above :)

Eschatologically, I'm probably an optimistic Amellinialist. People get beat up for that sometimes. But Augustine, Greg Beale, NT Wright, and Tim Keller are decent company. Moreover, we are the temple [1 Cor 3.16, 6.19]. He has made us a kingdom of priests [Rev 1.6-9]. The kingdom is here AND it is coming [Mt 4.17, 6.10].

Ecclesiastically, I am congregational and baptistic. Of course, if we are in Christ, we must all be catholic with a little "c" because this just means universal. When Paul wrote to Thessalonica, he addressed them as the church. He also said that Jesus died for the church. These aren't the same. We are part of A church local and THE church universal and eternal.

Soteriologically, I'm more Reformed. God saves people for the great glory of Jesus. Quit fighting about it already. Just believe and behave the gospel.

Spiritually and affectionately, I have a little charismatic in me. The gifts of the Spirit are still here. He Himself is still here and moving mightily! Get your head out of the theoretical and Dispensational ground. They were not just for the apostles. They are for us too [Rom 8, Gal 3, 1 Cor 12-14, Jn 14-17, 1 Ths 5, Rom 12]! If you abide by a system, you don't abide fully in Christ.

Sacramentally, I believe that baptism should follow faith and repentance. This seems to be the pattern in Acts and the NT. But as far as the weight given to the Lord's Table and Baptism, I'm somewhere between an Anglican and a Baptist [don't worry Presby friends, I understand the covenantal hermeneutic as well]. I enjoy some of the liturgy as well. I also respect how the Free Will Baptist denomination holds a third ordinance: foot-washing [Jn 13, 1 Tim 5.10].

Regarding church polity and church offices, the NT always refers to elders in the plural. I'm all for that. I believe women can and should be deacons [Rom 16.1-5]. I believe the office of elder-bishop-pastor-shepherd should only be held by a man. Call me sexist.

I say all of this for several reasons:

1. I've been thinking for a while about what a theological mutt I am. It makes me laugh.
   
2. Nobody fits a mold. Fitting a mold is arelational and not gospel-centered.
3. I'm not trying to be Brian McLaren and throw everybody's name in the hat so I'll be loved by millions [I'm sure Brian is a nice guy, but he needs to read the pastoral epistles and get a theological backbone].
4. I am saying this because I feel [after being with God, with His church, and in His Scriptures] that these are views that most honor Jesus in some way or another. Go ahead and shoot me for this, but this is what we're called to do - not just give a WHAT we believe, but a WHY we believe it.

SO... to Him and for Him and from Him are all things. To Him be glory in the Church both now and forevermore. Amen.

CALViN and LUTHER ON BAPTiSM [for john paulling]

Calvin:

From these words, John 3.23, it may be inferred, that baptism was administered by John and Christ by plunging the whole body under water. Here we perceive how baptism was administered among the ancients; for they immersed the whole body in water.

Luther:

The term baptism is a Greek word. It may be rendered immersion, as when we plunge something in water, that it may be entirely covered with water. And though that custom is now abolished among the generality [for even children are not entirely immersed, but only have a little water poured on them] nevertheless, they ought to be completely immersed, and immediately drawn out. For the etymology of the word evidently requires it.