MENU

baptism
Tag Archive

On November 12, 2014 By In Theology

Living Water: Foundations of Baptism in Creation

Why do we baptize with water? Since Scripture gives us a water ritual to perform, the element used in that ritual must contain some essential significance. How might we deepen our understanding of baptism by reflecting on the element of water?

One way to fill out our understanding of the waters of baptism would be to reflect on the import of water in our everyday experience, then apply those insights to baptism. Typically, reflection on the elements of the rite of baptism centers on the cleansing properties of water. Water washes away dirt and impurity. Water aids healing. This is quite true, and an important component of our understanding of baptism. This is also something readily discerned from Scripture (especially the law). However, the role of water as a cleansing agent doesn’t really emerge in Scripture until the time of the flood (at the earliest). Yet we read plenty about water in just the first two chapters of Genesis.

To fully understand the significance of the waters of baptism, we need to consider the nature of the world God created and how water functions in Scripture from the very beginning. If we read the creation narrative carefully, we will see that water figures prominently as a primal and vital element – a source of life for the world.1 (more…)

Read more

On October 31, 2014 By In Scribblings

Martin Luther’s Baptismal Prayer

Almighty, Eternal God, Who, according to Thy righteous judgment, didst condemn the unbelieving world through the flood and, in Thy great mercy, didst preserve believing Noah and his family; and Who didst drown hardhearted Pharaoh with all his host in the Red Sea and didst lead Thy people Israel through the same on dry ground, thereby prefiguring this bath of Thy baptism; and Who, through the baptism of Thy dear Child, our Lord Jesus Christ, hast consecrated and set apart the Jordan and all water as a salutary flood and a rich and full washing away of sins: We pray through the same Thy groundless mercy, that Thou wilt graciously behold this [child] and bless him with true faith in spirit, that by means of this saving flood all that has been born in him from Adam and which he himself has added thereto may be drowned in him and engulfed, and that he may be sundered from the number of the unbelieving, preserved dry and secure in the Holy Ark of Christendom, serve Thy Name at all times fervent in spirit and joyful in hope, so that with all believers he may be made worthy to attain eternal life according to Thy promise; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.<>реклама в google недорого

Read more

Pope Francis What the Priesthood of All Believers is NOT

On July 17, 2014 By In Theology, Worship

What the Priesthood of All Believers is NOT

Two Controversial Concepts

There are few ideas as likely to breed contention as the two I intend to discuss below. Both relate to how a Christian is counted in the body of Christ and both speak to how we understand the Church’s catholicity. The first idea, sure to cause a stir anywhere it may appear, is the notion of hierarchy. Merely mentioning the existence of such a dirty thing as hierarchy comes across as un-American and surely anti-Christian in many modern circles, but if we take our Bibles seriously, we must recognize that hierarchy is inescapable. The second idea, which sorely needs to be discussed in Christendom, is the pernicious heresy of individualism. An idea which again brings forward, in American Christians, a tenet that may be seen as central to our faith and devotion. Yet despite the number of “Independent Bible Churches” erected, the nature of this oxymoron remains glaring. A Christian cannot be born, exist, or grow independent of the body.

These two concepts, hierarchy and individualism, are often given the syncopated resolution of the “priesthood of all believers.” In the minds of many, this doctrine is understood to mean that all the priestly functions of the clergy are available to all those who are believers, that our equal access to God means that we all have equal roles and rights in the Church. I believe much of this is due to our strong apprehension to any thing “Roman Catholic-y.” The result is the deletion of any distinction between the ordained ministry and the laity. This flattened view of the Apostolic order either obliterates the concept of ordination or undermines the meaning of the sacraments, oftentimes accomplishing both.

Understanding the “priesthood of all believers” begins with recognizing what this concept is not.

Pope Francis What the Priesthood of All Believers is NOT

The priesthood of all believers in NOT the Papacy of all believers.

The Papacy does not have its own direct divine revelation from God, the Pope is not infallible, the Pope does not have universal jurisdiction, and neither do we. The priesthood of all believers is not an opportunity for each individual Christian to develop their own theology. No believer today comes to Christ through their own innovation, for we all must come to Christ through the historic community of believers. Too often have I heard, “All I need is my Bible.” This is the formula for a new cult, not orthodox Christianity. “My Bible” through the work of the Holy Ghost was given to the care of the Church. As the body of Christ, the Church has recognized, preserved, taught, translated, printed, and distributed “my Bible” to the Christians of the world throughout history.

“Me and my Bible” individualistic Christianity does not promote the purity of the Gospel, but serves instead to create mini-popes. If we are entitled to our own interpretation, who is to say what is correct? Like the Pope, we don’t speak ex cathedra. We have the received faith of the Bible, of the Creeds, and of the Church. Which in the progression of history have served to conciliate each other against individualism.

Snake Bible What the Priesthood of All Believers is NOT

The priesthood of all believers in NOT the Presbytery of all believers.

What is the true Church?  Who are the True Christians? Are Roman Catholics Christians? How about Mormons?

The priesthood of all believers is not an invitation for Christians to sit in judgement of the salvation of other Christians or to develop their own standards for what constitutes a Christian Church. For those unfamiliar with the term, a presbytery (or classis) is a leadership council of higher ranking clergy that rule over various issues that may arise from the church. As a human institution, the Church will always face a degree of scandal throughout history, but Christ appointed Apostles who appointed Overseers, Presbyters and Deacons to handle human conflict that may arise in the church.

This hierarchy was established to protect the unity of the Church and the verity of the Holy Gospel. Returning again to the idea of a received faith, the Bible serves as the ultimate authority in establishing the various Church officers and our historic faith outlines the basics of what it means to be a Christian.  It is this emphasis on our continuity with the historic Church that explicitly limits women and homosexuals from serving as Overseers, Presbyters and Deacons. To ordain a woman or a homosexual not only serves as a contradiction to the Bible, but is also against the accepted order of ministry we have in the writings of those serving at the time of the Apostles through the Ecumenical councils and to very recent Christian history.

Remembering that the intention of the Reformation was to restore the Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, not to create a new Church. Their goal was to return to the undivided Church of the Creeds. No Christian alone acts as an Ecumenical council and cannot impose their particular dogmas upon the conscience of otherwise faithful Christians. The “priesthood of all believers” does not give me the authority to excommunicate a papist unsubmissive to the five points of Calvinism, and it does not give Rome the right to excommunicate me for refusing to acknowledge the immaculate conception of Mary. Yet, refusing to recognize a Biblically ordained hierarchy creates this exact situation. To receive the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is to recognize that the councils of the first five centuries have spoken to all things necessary to salvation and upon these I can add no extra burdens.

St. Augustine Snake Bible What the Priesthood of All Believers is NOT

The priesthood of all believers in NOT the Piety of all believers.

Authority and hierarchy were quickly challenged after the establishment of the early Church. Roman persecution tested the integrity of the men assigned to protect the faith and while many were heroically martyred – some fled or gave over Bibles to the Romans. These leaders were then labeled, “traditores” and their entire ministry was called into question. Was their ordination invalidated by their lack of moral character? Was someone baptized by one of the “traditores” really baptized? In the 4th century, a group under the leadership of Bishop Donatus leveled such a charge and denied the ordination and authority of a Bishop who didn’t meet their new standard. This small North Africa sect inserted a division in a way that many modern Christians seem to employ regularly: priesthood by piety.

Against the Donatist idea of the priesthood by piety, St. Augustine drew a distinction between the visible and the eschatological church, not as two churches but rather as two moments in one and the same church. His position was that here on earth the church is holy, but not all its members are holy; it is the Body of Christ, but still having wheat and tares. Instead of deriving the piety of the Church from the level of  virtue of its individual members, he maintained that the piety of the Church is based entirely on the holy nature of its Head, Jesus Christ.

In it is this framework that we can trust nothing more than the authority and hierarchy of the Church. In the balance of authority between the Overseers, Presbyters, Deacons of the universal Church against the Councils and Creeds in light of the Holy Writ, there is the surest form of appeals we can hope for on Earth. Every just sphere of authority whether it be civil or familial follows the church’s example in this hierarchical process of appeals. Our faith is then put into the received faith and order of Christ and his Apostles and not the trust of mere men. Modern individualism imbibes all the dangers of Donatism by refusing either the authority of Ancient Christianity and the hierarchy of its living church.

St. Augustine Snake Bible What the Priesthood of All Believers is NOT

The Priesthood is His Priesthood

The Priesthood of All Believers is to be primarily understood in relation to worship. The Reformation wrestled some very important aspects of worship back from Rome. The first is the participation in worship, much of the medieval mass is done at the altar by a particular priest at the exclusion of the congregation. Even singing and the recitation of scripture was taken over by lectors and choirs. The reformers gave the music, singing, and scripture responses back to the church and returned congressional participation to the liturgy. The priesthood must be more than simply participation for it to be a true priesthood, it must have initiation and rites attached to its purpose. Like the Aaronic line, we are brought into the priesthood through a rite of baptism. Through baptism one is granted the authority to come to the Lord’s table and commune with Christ. This idea of eating the “sacrifice” should in itself remind us of the priestly language of the Old Testament. We are made partakers of the Sacrament by the nature of our priesthood. Thus, the nature of the “priesthood of all believers” is primarily sacramental.

By partaking of the sacramental body of Jesus Christ, we are exercising the true meaning of our priesthood. By eating his body together, we become part of the one body of the Church with Christ as its head. The sacramental meal in the Eucharist is the ultimate rejection of the individual as we all partake of one body together and in subordination to the hierarchy as our pastor acts as Christ feeding us the body of Christ. As we all partake of the one loaf, we become one body, one priesthood of all believers.<>siteаудит а онлайн

Read more

On June 9, 2014 By In Theology

Pneumatology in Baptism, Part III, The Baptism of Moses

by Guest Writer, Joshua Torrey

Read Part I & II

The Baptism of Moses

After addressing the clear union of water and Spirit in the story of Noah and Peter’s teaching, some might conclude that the matter of baptism is settled. But there are more Old Testament references to be incorporated to validate and expand the doctrine of this interpretation. Through the seed of deliverance in Noah came the great Patriarch Abraham and the Scriptures tell us that through Abraham God began to build a people to provide a Savior and Blessing, found in Jesus Christ, for the entire world. The remainder of the Old Testament is filled with “how to recognize Him when He gets here” type of material.

One of these important Old Testament reminders and pointers to Christ comes with the story of Moses. He like Noah is a savior. But this time he saves all of Abraham’s family (seed) from the land of Egypt. The early portions of the book of Exodus set the stage for this salvation of Israel,

8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. – Exodus 1:8

23 During those many days the king of Egypt died, and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25 God saw the people of Israel—and God knew. – Exodus 2:23-25

The contrast between these two passages is important. Pharaoh’s lack of knowledge led to persecution and trials for Abraham’s seed. This Pharaoh ceased to “know” the blessings of God through the faithful deliverance of Joseph (a subject matter all its own). As a result the people of Israel were forced into slavery and their lives were made miserable. Despite Pharaoh’s rejection God chose to bless Israel. Pharaoh responded by taking things to the highest level: He attempts to kill the covenant children of Israel (Exo 1:15-22). The importance of this event and its relationship with children will be fully developed later but this event does cast a looming shadow on the tenth and final plagues sent by God. For now it is against this death of Israelite children that the great arm of the Lord is revealed and He does this through “knowing” His people. As seen with Noah, this means that God is acting in favor and mercy towards His covenant people. And so through the faithfulness of two Levites (Exo 2:1) God brought forth a deliverer. And once again He used an ark (H8293),

2 The woman conceived and bore a son, and when she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him three months. 3 When she could hide him no longer, she took for him a basket made of bulrushes and daubed it with bitumen and pitch. She put the child in it and placed it among the reeds by the river bank. – Exodus 2:3

Before addressing the reintroduction of God’s saving basket/ark, it is interesting to note that Moses upon birth is declared “good” (H2896). This is the reason given in the Scriptures for the saving of Moses and it is an element of the story that gets repeated in the New Testament (Acts 7:20; Heb 11:23). Since good is rarely used in the Hebrew concerning people (Genesis 24:1; 26:7; 1 Sam 9:2; 16:12 among the exceptions) the description surely stands out. In two cases it is associated with women found at wells (Gen 24:1; 26:7) and in two others it is the kings of Israel (1 Sam 9:2; 16:12). In every case the individual is clearly being marked out to bring deliverance (the kings) or new life (the Godly wives of the patriarchs) to God’s promised seed. Moses stands in this tradition and the Scriptures mark him out. And it is this marker that explains the actions of his mother.

The English translation hides the symbolism of the Hebrew word tebah (H8293). Moses’ mother truly built “an ark made of bulrushes” to deliver her son. The parallels to Noah are fairly obvious. Pharaoh has declared that all Hebrews shall be “cast into the Nile” (Exo 1:22) to die by water. Moses too is cast into the waters that are meant for death but the Lord delivers him through an ark. This is done not only for the deliverance of Moses but to bring salvation to the people of Israel. One can speculate if Paul’s concept of being “buried with him [Christ Jesus] by baptism into death” (Rom 6:4) is influenced by this out-of-death typology for baptism.

The very name Moses means “to be drawn out.” It stems from a Hebrew verb used only in David’s baptism/deliverance from Saul (2 Sam 22:16-20; Psa 18:15-19). In Moses’ example, God brings forth “new land” from the waters of death. Moses’ rise up out of the water once again reminds us of the baptism of Jesus Christ (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:9). Through baptism, Moses is now capable of saving His people and providing new life. Even more graphically, the ark carrying Moses is delivered from “the reeds” (Exo 2:3). This is the same Hebrew word to describe the baptism of Israel and the conquest of Pharaoh (Exo 15:4). Moses is lifted up from the very death that consumes the armies of Pharaoh (we’ll see more of this is the next section).

The Holy Spirit has no direct link to this story and the symbolism found in Noah is obvious. Sinfulness and death abounds. God has once again “remembered” His covenant people and had godly people build an ark. God has used this ark to perform a baptism of deliverance and instituted a man to deliver His people. As Moses is tightly linked to Noah so also he is to Jesus Christ. In fact the example of Moses brings into focus the particulars concerning Jesus’ baptism under John. Moses, like Christ, was baptized before His ministry began and both spent a full time (40 years/40 days) in the wilderness. Jesus Himself was saved from the arm of an evil king (Matt 2:13-15). He was even delivered to and from Egypt like Moses.

But how does this apply to the baptism practiced by the church? As already seen, Moses’ baptism prepares him to lead Israel through one large baptism to save all of the people. This story points forward to Jesus Christ and the church. Jesus would participate in a baptism in order to start a ministry that would lead to a baptism for God’s people. He would be baptized in John’s “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3) and then send His disciples out proclaiming “repentance and forgiveness of sins” (Luke 24:47). We know that Christ’s baptism was water and Spirit. Now it is to be seen how Moses’ baptism in the Red Sea is also a union of water and baptism.<>поддержка а цены украинарейтинг ключевых слов google

Read more

On June 4, 2014 By In Theology

Pneumatology in Baptism, Part II, Noah’s Baptism

by Guest Writer, Joshua Torrey

Read Part I

Noah’s Baptism

The story of Noah is well known to us. We know how it starts (sinful man leads to rain drops) and how it ends (wine drops Noah). But lodged in the middle are a few fascinating events that link Noah with the original Adam and the last Adam. These events affirm the typology of baptism in the Old Testament as one that is a union of Spirit and water.

The Narrative

The primary link occurs mid-flood and is the crucial bridge between the original creation and Noah’s “new creation,”

1 But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. – Genesis 8:1-5

There is a lot here so I’ll start with the Spirit focused part. When this passage is read in Hebrew the inclusion of the Holy Spirit is more evident. Genesis 8:1 reads “God made a spirit blow over the earth.”  Translated in English the inclusion of “a” before the word spirit or wind is a misnomer that can confuse readers. Broken down the sentence reads “God (noun) passed over (verb) spirit (direct object) the earth (indirect object).” But the grammatical argument is solely part of the link. The greater argument is the general context surrounding Noah’s deliverance.

Destruction of sinful flesh has occurred through the flood. The world is once again “formless” and once again it is covered in water. Genesis 1:2 is played out once again as God’s Spirit moves across the water and brings to fruition life-bearing land. The waters are brought together once again in the heavens and under the earth and slowly the great mountains of the earth show themselves. And it is on this mountain that the ark rests. The baptism of Jesus Christ has already been connected to new creation and so here too Jesus is the realization of this “new land.” He is represented by the mountain that reveals itself because of the hovering of the Holy Spirit.

New creation has appeared. Noah is a re-casting of Adam and he is bestowed with a new creation. Already this story is highlighting the Holy Spirit and water. Once again both in union point to the creation account and to the work of Jesus Christ. Event surrounding the flood interconnect with the baptism of Jesus. The first is the timing of the parting of the heavens,

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark, 14 they and every beast, according to its kind, and all the livestock according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, according to its kind, and every bird, according to its kind, every winged creature. 15 They went into the ark with Noah, two and two of all flesh in which there was the breath of life. – Genesis 7:11-15

The opening of the heavens only occurs once the full number of animals and people are within the ark. It is at the conclusion of their inclusion that the Lord Himself closes the door to the ark (Gen 7:16). So also Luke’s description of Christ’s baptism comes at the inclusion of “all the people” (Luke 3:21). The heavens open up at the baptism of Jesus Christ and the Lord speaks. The Trinitarian involvement does not stop there. The typology of Noah’s sending out of the dove is also a pertinent link to this story’s link to the baptism of Jesus,

8 Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. 10 He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. 11 And the dove came back to him in the evening, and behold, in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth. 12 Then he waited another seven days and sent forth the dove, and she did not return to him anymore. – Genesis 8:8-12

An argument from this passage may border on allegorical for many. But the dove of Christ’s baptism makes sense of the gospel writers’ tie to the Old Testament baptismal stories. This tie could be to the general idea of peace that is associated with doves but I believe the easier link to make is with this story of Noah. For through Christ, new life is granted to His church and to us. The seven days between flights and the total number of three flights are surely symbolic of Christ’s work but they do not build up or diminish the two-fold link found in Noah’s flood to the first Adam and last Adam.

Covenant Framework

Having drawn a relationship between creation, Noah and Christ’s baptism, this section concludes with an application to New Testament hermeneutics. But before that we must address the covenant framework contained in the simple idea “God remembered” (Gen 8:1). From a grammatical perspective, this is a powerful word in the book of Genesis and Exodus. It is used in respect to covenants (Gen 9:15-16; Exo 2:24; 6:5) but it is also used for deliverance from trials (Gen 19:29; 30:22). In the story of Noah both of these concepts are pertinent and permissible understandings of God’s remembrance. The world is being judged and God’s “remembrance” delivers Noah and his family through the work of the Holy Spirit. Outside of the story of Noah, no other place in the Old Testament combines these concepts more clearly than the prelude to the exodus from Egypt,

23 During those many days the king of Egypt died, and the people of Israel groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. 25 God saw the people of Israel—and God knew. – Exodus 2:23-25

Everything pertinent to this word “remember” (H2142) is contained here. There is a need for deliverance and there is a remembrance of a covenant. Our God is omniscient and does not actually forget so it should be clear that this word is drawing together a pertinent truth focused on the covenant action of God. These are actions focused toward His covenant people for deliverance. Thus God’s “remembrance” is another way to say that He has decided to save His people.

This concept stands at the start of our important passage with Noah. God has remembered His covenant man with his covenant family. And God has decided to move in His Spirit to save His covenant people through the emergence of new land and new life. All of this is tied together in a way very similar to the exodus. There is salvation through the Holy Spirit and water. There is then salvation in baptism. It is in all of this that we interpret Peter’s link Noah and baptism,

20 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. 21 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 – 1 Peter 3:20-21

It is the overriding concepts of salvation from trials contained in this epistle that drives Peter to this story of deliverance found in Noah. Baptism, which was portrayed in the flood and realized in Christ, points to the type deliverance and new creation Peter is using to assure those who are suffering. Through this typology his audience would be aware of the faithful being saved from the filth of the world. Even with the original story of Noah is embedded the Jewish concept of 40 days for purification. This is Peter’s conclusion that water from God washes away the sinfulness of the world. But Peter has to make sure that the church doesn’t fall into the mistake of presuming its only water. As the story of Noah has shown it was the deliverance found of in the union Spirit water. The story of Noah was water and Holy Spirit moving to revealing new creation (Gen 8:1) and so it is with Peter. Baptism saves but not as just water. Baptism truly saves because of its inherent relationship to the Holy Spirit in applying to us the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Peter cannot be read to make a separation of water and Spirit. The water was necessary for the flooding of the world. It’s the entire basis for the typology to the narrative of Noah. But the Spirit was necessary for the deliverance of ark.

Water and Spirit remain distinct from each other but they are not separated from each other. Baptism is Spirit and water.<>mobile online gameцены на рекламу в новосибирске

Read more

On June 2, 2014 By In Theology

Pneumatology in Baptism, Part I

by Guest Writer, Joshua Torrey

Note: Here is an introduction to baptism focusing on the role of the Spirit in this sacrament.

The New Testament actually says very little about baptism. Not counting allusions to the practice of baptism, the number shrinks even more dramatically. The lack of any clear exposition on the practice of baptism is even more discouraging. What are we to make the Biblical “instruction about washings” (Heb 6:2) that apparently is an “elementary doctrine?” Simple questions have plagued the church and split its theologians since the beginning. No question though is more important than “what does the word baptism mean?” Well that might seem silly but it is an important question.

Does “baptism” in the New Testament refer to a literal and physical washing with water? Or is it speaking to a type of “baptism of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5)? Do distinctions exist between these two views? And how pertinent are they to one’s theology of baptism? With all great questions the answer is both yes and no. With respect to the existence of distinctions the answer is yes. But there is also a qualified no.

Why the yes then? Well, the answer is yes because John the baptizer makes a clear distinction between these two (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16). This cannot be argued and the time of John the baptizer through the book of Acts displays the outworking of this distinction. But does this mean that the distinction made so clear by John the Baptizer is taught in the rest of the Scriptures? Asked another way, is John’s baptism the normal working procedure? Or does John’s “baptism of water” stand out among the backdrop of Biblical baptism that unifies water and Spirit?

In an effort to provide a thorough Biblical view on baptism this chapter must provide a qualified “no” to the distinction between water and Spirit found in the baptism of John. It is my opinion that when John’s “baptism of water” is studied and placed in the history of the Scriptures its distinctions between water and Spirit stand out as abnormal. The Scriptures then communicate a theology of baptism that answers “no” to great distinctions. This chapter will argue that no distinction exists between “water baptism” and “Spirit baptism” in the fully developed baptism of the New Testament epistles.

As would be expected, this view will have a significant bearing on our perception and practice of Christian baptism. So we must strive to be convinced by the full breadth of Scripture on this issue. Since “all Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16) all Old Testament references to baptism must be forcefully considered and investigated. Subsequently, since the few mentions of baptism in the epistles of the Apostles point to the Old Testament these references, and their constituents, must be evaluated for symbols and typology. In this regard, our evaluation of the Old Testament will have to expand. We must find the interpretation of the Old Testament that allows us to say with Paul that these Scriptures were “written down for our instruction” (1 Cor 10:11). This entails the images and symbols found in the Old Testament be allowed to speak on the issue of baptism when interpreting the New Testament.

This chapter will proceed to look at many, though not all, of the Old Testament texts that should be incorporated to produce a Biblical teaching on baptism. Instead of the traditional word study approach, the historical narratives will present a picture of baptism that shows a holy union between water and Spirit in baptism. Each step in the Old Testament revelation will show that the Apostles carried over covenantal and salvific themes into Christian baptism precisely because of this paradigmatic union of water and Spirit in baptism.

The Creation Baptism

Creation is the event. No matter one’s interpretation of the first chapters in Genesis there is near universal agreement that this event is paradigmatic for the rest of the Scriptures. Thus it isn’t surprising that many Biblical doctrines are related to or contained in these early chapters. Without degrading the historical validity of the Genesis account, all agree that it is full of symbols and images that have reverberations throughout the rest of the Scriptures. Some of these symbols and signs are clearer than others.

John re-writes Genesis 1:1 to introduce the eternal logos (John 1:1). Paul returns to “let there be light” to proclaim the new creation found in the light of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6). Paul even returns us to the garden to see that the church is Christ’s bride: there is a new Adam and a new Eve (Eph 5:31-32). Just because all the symbols are not this clear does not permit ignoring the smaller links. Since the topic of inspection is baptism and the Holy Spirit, it makes sense to highlight some insights from the Holy Spirit’s role in creation,

2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. – Genesis 1:2, 10

These are epic events. And there are things to be noticed on the surface of the verses. First, the Holy Spirit’s introduction is post-deceleration. Genesis 1:1 has already occurred. God has already created the “in the beginning” and “the heavens and the earth.” It is at some time later that the Holy Spirit is “hovering” (H7363). This Hebrew word can implying both negative and positive emotion (Deut 32:11; Jer 23:9). The imagery in Jeremiah of a hovering/cherishing mother seems most relevant to this text given the birthing of creation that is about to take place.

Second, the Spirit is hovering over the waters. Water and the Holy Spirit are seen together. This point cannot be emphasized enough. Paradigmatically the two are introduced in God’s revelation together. In the effort of forming creation they are obviously distinct. The Holy Spirit remains the Hoverer. And water remains the thing hovered upon. But they are found in relationship together. They remain distinguishable from one another but in relation to each other.

Third is the effect the Holy Spirit has on the water in creation. Though the Holy Spirit disappears from the Biblical text, it seems safe to say that His “hovering” didn’t cease the moment God spoke light into existence (Gen 1:3). The next time these waters are mentioned in the Scriptures, they are brought together to allow dry land to appear. This is the dry land that allows the first examples life in creation to appear (Gen 1:11-13). This imagery in particular is important for all subsequent Old Testament baptisms. Though there will be many Old Testament references that point back to this for the moment we’ll focus on its impact on the New Testament via the baptism of Jesus Christ.

The baptism of Jesus is a re-telling or re-casting of the creation event. There are multiple reasons to be persuaded of this. First, this is the beginning of Christ’s ministry. This is not re-creation in the normal sense but in the declaratory sense. When Jesus hears His Father speak the echoes of creation come to mind. “This is my beloved Son” (Matt 3:17) is not unlike the spoken word of God. Even the minority rendering of Luke 3:22 which reads “This is my beloved Son; today I have begotten You” points to a type of creation decree of the part God. Since the Psalmist records this (Psa 2:7) and the apostles interpret in in multiple ways (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5), it is not a statement of factual creation (the Eternal Son has always existed with the Father). But the Lord’s decree declares something new in creation via the baptism of Jesus Christ.

The second image that tied this baptism to creation is the Holy Spirit descending upon Christ. This event is quite consistent with His hovering over the waters. It is even alluded to in advance by the prophet Isaiah (Isa 11:1). In the Synoptics, the Holy Spirit is portrayed as a dove descending upon Jesus (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22). Though the importance of the dove imagery will be discussed in the next section, it is the abiding of the Spirit that is important. To see how the Holy Spirit is “hovering” the difference in John’s depiction must be analyzed,

32 And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” – John 1:32-34

For John the baptizer and John the disciple it is the reality that the Holy Spirit “remains” that proves the authenticity of Jesus Christ. The addition of this concept is important in this context. This Greek word menō (G3306) is paramount to understanding the writings of John. Throughout his gospel and first epistle the word is used at a staggering amount as a sign of true believers and followers of Jesus Christ. Before all of this though, the word is used to validate Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit remained with Jesus Christ throughout the rest of His ministry. The Holy Spirit directed Christ and drove Him in His ministry. It is this hovering and cherishing of the eternal Son that reminds us of creation. Ultimately it is this same Holy Spirit that will again be present to raise Christ up, this time from the dead (Rom 8:11), and proclaim the conquering of death. This resurrection of the death ties together this second image and the final third image.

Consistent with these images from Genesis, this third and final image ties the baptism of Jesus back to creation even more strongly. It is the appearing of new land suitable for life from out of the midst of the water. This is the reason that Matthew and Mark tell that the Holy Spirit and Father’s declaration as Christ “came up out of the water” (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:9). As shall be seen with other Old Testament texts, this element is perhaps the crucial concept to understanding the apostle’s teaching on baptism. This symbol of new life is particularly valuable to understand the salvation and deliverance in baptism. But for now simple recognition will do that in this baptism, performed by John, the new land/life is Jesus Christ.

This concept might sound awkward at first. The language requires more than one glance. But Jesus Christ is the “new man” that believers are to put on (Eph 4:24). Paul links this “putting on” of the new man to baptism (Gal 3:27)! Jesus Christ is also the “man of heaven” that combats the fall man of the first creation (1 Cor 15:46-49). These statements make sense of Jesus Christ rising out of the water is a faithful re-telling of creation. Jesus Christ in His baptism begins all “new creation” imagery. Christ’s baptism point forward to His death (Mark 10:38-39; Rom 6:1-5). God has begun to make all things new (Rev 21:5). This explains why in the resurrection Paul can speak the way he does about “anyone [who] is in Christ…” (2 Cor 5:17). For when we participate in Him in baptism and death we participate in “new creation.”

Jesus’ baptism under John accomplished this. Or put another way, John’s baptism when accompanied by the Holy Spirit accomplished this. Baptism of water and Spirit as described in Genesis 1 accomplishes this.

Excursion of Luke’s Placement on Baptism

Though the content of this excursion would flow significantly in the midst of the previous section. However the brief focus on the gospel of Luke is presented best on its own. Luke is purposeful in his placement of Jesus’ baptism. It all starts in the third chapter of his gospel. A historical setting is given for Jesus Christ to enter into. Like the Old Testament prophets before Him, the word of the Lord is about to come to Jesus Christ. It is after the full number of baptisms (more on this in the next section) that Jesus Christ presents Himself for baptism. There is a proclamation from God and the descent of the dove. And then Luke places his genealogy.

This would seem an awkward place to put the genealogy. Matthew’s genealogy begins his gospel (Matt 1). This was much like the start of 1 Chronicles. But Luke includes his after baptism. Matthew’s genealogy only goes to Abraham (Matt 1:2). Luke’s goes all the way back to Adam and God (Luke 3:38). Luke’s placement of baptism and genealogy points to the creation of Genesis 1 and the genealogy in Genesis 2:4. Luke’s decision intentionally links Jesus Christ’s baptism to the original creation.

Along with this, Luke remarks in passing that Jesus was around thirty years old. This age is historically significant. It links to the beginning of Joseph’s service to Pharaoh (Gen 41:46), the starting age of the priests (Num 4) and the age David became king (2 Sam 5:4). Something new is starting in the ministry of Jesus Christ. For Luke that ministry is related to the genealogy of creation. It stretches back to Adam and God. Jesus is beginning to be the new Adam reigning and serving before God. Paul’s theology of the second Adam seems to have controlled much of Luke thinking in this regard. And for Luke, the event that begins all of this is Christian baptism.

Joshua Torrey blogs here.<>новые идеи для малого бизнеса для турфирмы

Read more

On April 3, 2014 By In Scribblings

Abraham Kuyper: On Baptism

We are Christians. Thus what distinguishes us, is not that we believe in God, for Melchizedek too did this, but what marks us is our holy Baptism; and that Baptism is administered unto us in Christ’s name, that as His purchased ones we should confess the Triune God. Christ, and He alone, makes separation between us and those who are not Christians. And Christ makes division between them and us, but not as Mahomet distinguished between Mussulmen [Muslims] and those who are called “unbelievers.” Hence it is not because in Him we honor the founder of our religion, nor yet because we hold ourselves to His institutions and make His doctrine our own; but because a mystical, mysterious tie binds us to Christ and unites us with Him in one body.

—Abraham Kuyper, His Decease at Jerusalem<>продвижение ов ссылками

Read more

On February 10, 2014 By In Theology, Worship

Paedocommunion: Calvin Misunderstood “Discerning the Body”

by Luke A Welch

CALVIN IS FLAT WRONG BECAUSE HE MISSED THE CONTEXT
Calvin fears that, in paedocommunion, tender children will poison themselves by being intellectually incapable of having a formed mental opinion about the presence of Christ in the elements. Paul is actually just saying that we can’t use the unity meal to despise the church by ignoring the weaker or lesser members while we eat. But Calvin misses all the context (see my post containing a quote of Calvin’s treatment in the Institutes).

 

dives_lazarus_Bonifacio VERONESE

Dives and Lazarus – Bonifacio Veronese

 

If Calvin is right about the meaning of 1 Cor 11, then children have no business at the table, but this is contextually impossible in a section that repeatedly tells us that all the baptized are also unified in the eating of the meal. Calvin has missed tying the phrases in question (“discerning the body,: and “eating in an unworthy manner”) to their immediate context, and to the context of the surrounding chapters. If you have time to wade through a few reasonably simple arguments, I beg you to stick around through the end of this. I believe this post, and the future post on self-examination, to be able to remove the obstacle of 1 Cor 11 from giving all covenant members their due invitations to the meal of the Lord. So we start here: (more…)

Read more

On January 8, 2014 By In Theology

Finally Discussing Paedocommunion for Real

By Luke Welch

At Kuyperian, it would be fair to peg us as proponents of including all the baptized in the Lord’s Supper. In earlier months, I kept writing as if I were going to be discussing the topic, but I kept falling short and only talking about baptism. So I have been dying for a chance to finally enter into the discussion of that blessed fourteen letter word: paedocommunion.

And here we are. I will start now. And today’s post will be relatively short: a summary of longer, future arguments.

Church doors

 

LOCUS CLASSICUS
1 Corinthians is the place the battle must be won or lost, though many other passages matter to the discussion. For today’s listeners, 1 Cor 11 is the roadblock. In soon-to-come posts the following will be spelled out. For now a summary of my series of arguments.

THESIS
1 Corinthians 10-13 teaches paedocommunion implicitly, and does not exclude children from the Lord’s table.

A – BODY means THE CHURCH
1 Corinthians 10-13 is a section intensely focused on the unity of the church; the controlling metaphor for the section is “one body made of many members (body parts).” We should expect “body” in this section to be a reference to the church, unless in some instance it is clearly a reference to something else.

B – IF YOU ARE WASHED, YOU EAT
There is a one to one correspondence between those who are baptized and those who are in the body, and then also between those who commune and those who are in the body. All the baptized commune. There is no non-communing member of the church.

C – PAEDOCOMMUNION PRECEDENCE
In this section, Paul explains the Eucharist by telling story after story illustrated by feasts that included children.

D – THE “WORTHINESS-TEST” IS NOT NEW IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Those same feasts also required that participants be worthy and examine themselves. All the while, they included children.

E – THE WARNINGS ARE NOT TO CHILDREN
The major problems being addressed are high-handed sins: idolatry, flagrant immorality, and hypocritical use of the unity meal to treat the poor as second class citizens in the kingdom.

F – PAUL WANTS REPENTANT EATERS, NOT HARD HEARTED ABSTAINERS
No positive command is given as a prerequisite for entrance to the meal. Mostly we mistake corporate or liturgical actions as individual tests of worthiness.
—

SINCE YOU ARE ITCHING FOR HOMEWORK

See if you can identify what I mean before I post longer explanations!

—

UPDATE: Part 2 of this discussion can be found here:

Paedocommunion – One of the Most Un-Well Reasoned Things Calvin Ever Said

—

Luke Welch has a master’s degree from Covenant Seminary and preaches regularly in a conservative Anglican church in Maryland. He blogs about Bible structure at SUBTEXT. Follow him on Twitter: @lukeawelch<>neobrutраскрутка а 1с

Read more