MENU

baptism
Tag Archive

On December 20, 2016 By In Theology, Worship

10 Questions Preachers Should Ask Before Sunday Morning

I have been a pastor for almost a decade. I spend between 12-15 hours each week thinking, researching, and writing before I deliver the first words in my Sunday sermon.a The process of writing my sermon goes through a lengthy journey each week. I contemplate several questions from Monday to Friday which force me to edit and re-edit my manuscript. There is no perfect sermon, but a sermon that goes through revisions and asks import questions has a much better chance of communicating with clarity than the self-assured preacher who engages the sermonic task with nothing more than academic lenses.

I have compiled a list of ten questions I ask myself each week at some point or another.

Question #1: Is this language clear? When you write a manuscript ( as I do) you have an opportunity to carefully consider the language you use. I make a habit of reading my sermon out loud which leads me to realize that certain phrases do not convey the idea clearly. A well-written sermon does not necessarily mean a well-delivered sermon. Reading my sermons out loud causes me to re-write and look for other ways to explain a concept or application more clearly.

Question #2: Is there a need to use high theological language in this sermon? Seminary graduates are often tempted to use the best of their training in the wrong environment. People are not listening to you to hear your theological acumen. I am well aware that some in the congregation would be entirely comfortable with words like perichoresis and Arianism. I am not opposed to using high theological discourse. Words like atonement, justification, sanctification are biblical and need to be defined. But extra-biblical terms and ideologies should be employed sparingly. Much of this can be dealt in a Sunday School class or other environments. High theological language needs to be used with great care, and I think it needs to be avoided as much as possible in the Sunday sermon.

Question #3: Can I make this sermon even shorter? As I read my sermons each week, I find that I can cut a paragraph or two easily, or depending on how long you preach, perhaps an entire page. This is an important lesson for new preachers: not everything needs to be said. Shorter sermons–which I strongly advocateb–force you to say what’s important and keep some of your research in the footnotes where it belongs. Preachers need to learn what to prioritize in a sermon so as not to unload unnecessary information on their parishioners. (more…)

  1. Thankful for great interactions before this article was published. It helped sharpen my points  (back)
  2. By this I mean sermons no longer than 30 minutes  (back)

Read more

On August 8, 2015 By In Scribblings

John Calvin on the Sacraments

John_Calvin_by_Holbein1. After God has once received us into his family, it is not that he may regard us in the light of servants, but of sons, performing the part of a kind and anxious parent, and providing for our maintenance during the whole course of our lives. And, not contented with this, he has been pleased by a pledge to assure us of his continued liberality. To this end, he has given another sacrament to his Church by the hand of his only-begotten Son—viz. a spiritual feast, at which Christ testifies that he himself is living bread (John 6:51), on which our souls feed, for a true and blessed immortality… First, then, the signs are bread and wine, which represent the invisible food which we receive from the body and blood of Christ. For as God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, so we have said that he performs the office of a provident parent, in continually supplying the food by which he may sustain and preserve us in the life to which he has begotten us by his word. Moreover, Christ is the only food of our soul, and, therefore, our heavenly Father invites us to him, that, refreshed by communion with him, we may ever and anon gather new vigour until we reach the heavenly immortality. But as this mystery of the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature, he exhibits its figure and image in visible signs adapted to our capacity, nay, by giving, as it were, earnests and badges, he makes it as certain to us as if it were seen by the eye; the familiarity of the similitude giving it access to minds however dull, and showing that souls are fed by Christ just as the corporeal life is sustained by bread and wine. We now, therefore, understand the end which this mystical benediction has in view—viz. to assure us that the body of Christ was once sacrificed for us, so that we may now eat it, and, eating, feel within ourselves the efficacy of that one sacrifice,—that his blood was once shed for us so as to be our perpetual drink. This is the force of the promise which is added, “Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you” (Mt. 26:26, &c.). The body which was once offered for our salvation we are enjoined to take and eat, that, while we see ourselves made partakers of it, we may safely conclude that the virtue of that death will be efficacious in us. Hence he terms the cup the covenant in his blood. For the covenant which he once sanctioned by his blood he in a manner renews, or rather continues, in so far as regards the confirmation of our faith, as often as he stretches forth his sacred blood as drink to us.

…
10. The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood. But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive—viz. that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space. That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude. For this reason the apostle said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ”? (1 Cor. 10:16.) There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified. I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.

11. I hold then (as has always been received in the Church, and is still taught by those who feel aright), that the sacred mystery of the Supper consists of two things—the corporeal signs, which, presented to the eye, represent invisible things in a manner adapted to our weak capacity, and the spiritual truth, which is at once figured and exhibited by the signs. When attempting familiarly to explain its nature, I am accustomed to set down three things—the thing meant, the matter which depends on it, and the virtue or efficacy consequent upon both. The thing meant consists in the promises which are in a manner included in the sign. By the matter, or substance, I mean Christ, with his death and resurrection. By the effect, I understand redemption, justification, sanctification, eternal life, and all other benefits which Christ bestows upon us. Moreover, though all these things have respect to faith, I leave no room for the cavil, that when I say Christ is conceived by faith, I mean that he is only conceived by the intellect and imagination. He is offered by the promises, not that we may stop short at the sight or mere knowledge of him, but that we may enjoy true communion with him. And, indeed, I see not how any one can expect to have redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in his death, without trusting first of all to true communion with Christ himself. Those blessings could not reach us, did not Christ previously make himself ours. I say then, that in the mystery of the Supper, by the symbols of bread and wine, Christ, his body and his blood, are truly exhibited to us, that in them he fulfilled all obedience, in order to procure righteousness for us— first that we might become one body with him; and, secondly, that being made partakers of his substance, we might feel the result of this fact in the participation of all his blessings.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 17, §1 & 10-11 (All the stuff in between is really good too and I would encourage you to read it.)

Read more

On March 18, 2015 By In Books, Politics

New Publication from Kuyperian Press!

Infant Baptism - You and Your Household_smfront

Kuyperian Press is proud to announce the forthcoming publication of Dr. Gregg Strawbridge’s booklet on infant baptism. The Kindle edition will be available in the next coming days in preparation for his debate with Dr. James R. White on the topic on the 23rd of March.

 

Read more

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