Credo vs. paedobaptism...
Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness." How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised?
Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. (Romans 4:9-12)
One reader commented under another post: "Another interesting argument I came across recently from John Piper: When the New Testament church debated in Acts 15 whether circumcision should still be required of believers as part of becoming a Christian, it is astonishing that not once in that entire debate did anyone say anything about baptism standing in the place of circumcision. If baptism is the simple replacement of circumcision as a sign of the new covenant, and thus valid for children as well as for adults, as circumcision was, surely this would have been the time to develop the argument and so show that circumcision was no longer necessary. But it is not even mentioned."
My response: Weak argument although I'll take John Piper over John MacArthur any day when it comes to arguments against paedobaptism...
A point similar to his above can be made about the entire Epistle to the Galatians. Why no simple statement, direct and to the point, that baptism has replaced circumcision? Isn't that the perfect way to shut down the Judaizers?Well actually, no. The issue wasn't the sacraments but justification. Either the Jerusalem Council or the Apostle Paul would have compounded the problem if they'd argued baptism has replaced circumcision when they were busy opposing the righteousness of the law supplanting the righteousness of the Lamb of God.
I'm not interested in arguing credobaptism vs. paedobaptism here on Baylyblog. The arguments have been made voluminously for centuries now, and we'll add little original to the discussion. Not so with sexuality and the Image of God in man. These are the doctrines of today's demons. These form the breach in the wall where we must focus our defense.
This is not to say Sacramentology and Ecclesiology and Soteriology don't need preaching and teaching and a vigorous defense. I hit these constantly in my preaching ministry. When I preached at the community Reformation Sunday afternoon service for the Christian Reformed Churches of Lynden, Washington, recently, I preached on justification and the Roman Catholic error of infusion. I explained how imputation is the Biblical doctrine and infinitely different and superior to infusion.
But on this blog, we're seeking to call men to join us in the breach. It's an idea David and I bat around that shepherds should be found at the chasm where their sheep are perishing.
So I'm unlikely to engage in arguments over whether or not infant baptism is the command of Scripture here on Baylyblog. If readers want to engage it, feel free. But be sweet because, if you're not, I'll take a swipe at you.
Dear ones.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (18)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Daniel Meyer on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Sue McKeown on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Fr. Bill on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- K. Bartholomew on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
Comments
I think Doug Wilson does this question some justice. He points out in 'To a Thousand Generations' that both Peter and Paul thought that circumcision was still valid for Jews, even after 'the' council that was held in Jerusalem (see Acts 21:18-25 and Wilson's discussion of it in chapter six). In a very real sense, baptism is not technically a replacement of circumcision. Rather, both circumcision and baptism are signs of spiritual reality: a new creation in Christ.
On the one hand, faithful Jewish Christians were circumcising their infants; indicating that new life was necessary. On the other hand, all Jews and Gentiles were commanded to be baptized; pointing to the same reality.
Gentiles were not required to circumcise their infants, but given the similarity (and church history), we assume that both believing Jews and Gentiles baptized their infants (not to mention their dead).
"A point similar to his above can be made about the entire Epistle to the Galatians."
Technically, we do have something very close to an argument from baptism in Galatians. At the climax of arguing against Gentile circumcision, Paul says, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
I think the truth is that baptism does not so much replace circumcision as it swallows up circumcision. If you are baptized into Christ, you have put on Christ, and so you are Abraham's seed and an heir according to promise. That makes circumcision redundant - if you are in Christ, and so circumcised in him (Col. 2:11ff).
As far as the Jerusalem Council, it might help to notice that the issue was not circumcision simply, but all that would come along with it. The Judaizers were saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses" (15:5, and cf Gal. 5:3). Circumcision is not a thing it itself - it brings along with it the whole Mosaic economy. To say, "Oh well baptism has replaced circumcision, so you don't need to be circumcised" would not get at the much larger issue of whether Gentiles had to become Jews in the fullblown Mosaic complex.
Not a full answer, but something to note.
Had James in the council or Paul in Galatians made that argument, the result would be Campbell-ites, not just credo-baptists. And neither we paedos nor they want that.
I would be interested in reading your sermon. Is it available online? (The transcript, I mean). The thing I don't understand about imputation vs. infusion is how either one is proved from scripture. It seems to me that both sides prove their position from scripture. Thanks.
Here's a good place to start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78g87h9J5M
Love,
By whose authority is this disagreement resolved?
Daniel (or was it Tim??) wrote regarding Piper’s argument:
“A point similar to his above can be made about the entire Epistle to the Galatians. Why no simple statement, direct and to the point, that baptism has replaced circumcision? Isn't that the perfect way to shut down the Judaizers? Well actually, no. The issue wasn't the sacraments but justification.”
True enough, but that’s not the argument that either Piper or MacArthur make.
Instead, both men recognize what pretty much everybody else does, that baptism and circumcision are what are called “initiatory rites.” Circumcision was the God-ordained initiatory rite into the Old Covenant family, while water baptism is the God-ordained initiatory rite in the New Covenant family. Piper’s point that replacement is never mentioned remains since his actual argument hasn’t yet been answered.
You also wrote:
“Either the Jerusalem Council or the Apostle Paul would have compounded the problem if they'd argued baptism has replaced circumcision when they were busy opposing the righteousness of the law supplanting the righteousness of the Lamb of God.”
Exactly! Claiming baptism replaced circumcision would have provided a New Covenant twist for the “salvation by works” gang to hang an argument on – and that is one of Piper’s arguments. You have seen it!
Now take it to the next logical step. The fact that neither the “salvation by works” gang (Judaizers) nor the Jerusalem Council even broached baptism as a replacement shows that it wasn’t anyone’s theological position as well. Were it true that baptism replaced circumcision then it would have either been dealt with in the proceedings, or in the encyclical letter sent out to the churches.
Comment for Daniel: You wrote: “Technically, we do have something very close to an argument from baptism in Galatians. At the climax of arguing against Gentile circumcision, Paul says, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."”
I’d like to offer to you that Gal. 3:27 makes infant baptism (IB) impossible, unless one believes in irreversible baptismal regeneration. Gal. 3:27 says that “as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” The interpreter can either go one of two ways with that last phrase, “put on Christ” if he is dead set on IB. Either he should believe all water baptized persons, including infants, have by virtue of that baptism “put on Christ” and are saved (i.e., they are justified and going to heaven), or the meaning of “put on Christ” must be reduced from what it means in passages like Rom. 13:14 and even similar passages like Eph. 4:24 or Col. 3:10. Such reduction would mean “putting on Christ” means something less than possessing Jesus Christ and His full salvation. But that is simply unfair to the text, since in the Galatians passage all those who are of Christ are full sons and heirs of God, i.e., those who permanently possesses full and total salvation.
This renders Galatians 3:27 as a proof text against infant baptism, unless you want to believe infant are fully and entirely the sons and heirs of God forever after they are baptized.
To Allan: - I'd offer myself but I'm a bit biased.
>>This renders Galatians 3:27 as a proof text against infant baptism, unless you want to believe infant are fully and entirely the sons and heirs of God forever after they are baptized.
Nope. Your argument assumes that all who confess Christ prior to credo-baptism are actually regenerate and are saved. But we all know people who've been baptised in adulthood after confessing Christ who have become apostate. That's the weak point of the credo-baptist error, they assume that all who are baptised as adults are actually regenerate even though they in reality know this to be false.
Or to put it very simply both paedo-baptists and credo=baptists baptise people who are going to hell.
This is just as much a problem for you. Do you think every single adult baptized has "put on Christ" unto eternal salvation?
The proof texts for baptising our infants are clear and unambiguous. The argument from the covenant is a secondary argument, taking second place to the scripture proof. The promise (of forgiveness through baptism in the name of Jesus Christ) is for you and your children.
The proof texts for the efficacy of baptism are plain and unambiguous too. Baptism is for the remission of sins. Be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.
Finding passages of scripture that seem to imply an argument against infant baptism can only work if the plain texts are ignored.
Good point Ted Bigelow,
I had a nagging sense which I couldn't articulate why I felt Tim's answer was less than persuasive.
If the Judaizers believed baptism had replaced circumcision, they would never have insisted upon circumcising the Gentiles, yet they did, thus they *cannot* have believed baptism had replaced circumcision (just like credobaptists don't believe). How could such a prominent group within the early church have persisted with such an aberrant (according to paedobaptists) belief?
I guess that makes us Baptists heirs of the Judaizers! Hectic!
But no, neither did the Jerusalem Council use this additional argument against baptising Gentiles. It is not at all obvious that it would have 'compounded' the problem.
First, it is clear (from the paedobaptist view) that the Judaizers did not understand that baptism had replaced circumcision. Thus the Jerusalem Council would have had to deal with this "error", as well as the salvation by works error. But not a word there is.
Second, it seems like an excellent additional argument to thwart the Judaizers. It is quite easy to make the distinction that *as well* as correcting the Judaizers for thinking baptism does not replace circumcision, they were *also* correcting them for teaching salvation by works.
Mr Bigelow, your a genius.
David Gray,
>>Your argument assumes that all who confess Christ prior to credo-baptism are actually regenerate and are saved. But we all know people who've been baptised in adulthood after confessing Christ who have become apostate. That's the weak point of the credo-baptist error, they assume that all who are baptised as adults are actually regenerate even though they in reality know this to be false.
Thanks for offering this counter-argument, I was wondering from the previous post what paedobaptists do with those types of verses.
However, your observation does not present a plausible interpretation of that verse for paedobaptists.
Also, I think credobaptists would make the qualification that Paul is speaking assuming one's *profession* is true, as the NT regularly does when it addresses people as "believers" and "saints" etc. It is impossible to speak with certainty whether someone is regenerate or not. Paul, like the other NT writers, is simply writing as though the people's professions were true.
Do you think Paul would deny this qualification? - and say 'No, I mean't even the unregenerate who were baptised are saved, I am a hearty baptismal regenerationist!'.
>>However, your observation does not present a plausible interpretation of that verse for paedobaptists.
Says who?
>>Also, I think credobaptists would make the qualification that Paul is speaking assuming one's *profession* is true, as the NT regularly does when it addresses people as "believers" and "saints" etc. It is impossible to speak with certainty whether someone is regenerate or not. Paul, like the other NT writers, is simply writing as though the people's professions were true.
Which is why the credobaptist position is incoherent.
Both paedo-baptists and credo-baptists baptize people who are going to hell. Neither has read the names written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the foundation of the world.
>>Do you think Paul would deny this qualification?
Paul, I believe, would say he is addressing the visible church and makes a judgment of charity towards all its members, regardless of age, until they demonstrate otherwise, regardless of age. If they indicate otherwise then we discover why we have excommunication if discipline proves insufficient. This is true for the Christian baptised at birth as well as the Christian baptised at age 60.
Sorry. After saying I didn't want to engage the debate here, I wrote a long comment engaging the debate. Since then I've decided--again--not to engage the debate, here. Thus I pulled my comment. If you want to read it, just send me an e-mail and I'll forward it to you privately.
I'm sorry for this double-mindedness and the inconvenience it likely caused some of you.
Love,
Personally, I think that we would do well to remember that the root word is a common word--and perhaps we've done ourselves a disservice to transliterate it instead of to translate it. Kinda like "diakonos."
To David Gray,
"Your argument assumes that all who confess Christ prior to credo-baptism are actually regenerate and are saved."
Not at all, my brother. I myself have baptized adults who have walked away from the faith. It is your argument that assumes Gal. 3:17 is speaking of water baptism, while I teach it is the spiritual baptism into the body of Christ.
Hi Daniel,
I do for every adult (and child) who has been spiritually baptized by Christ (Mat. 3:11).
Blessings.
Brother - may I have it?
David Gray,
I see what your saying, but I think the qualification I suggest is much more likely to be the one Paul was working with rather than yours, for the following reasons:
1)
We already see many examples of Paul referring to the people in his churches as 'believers' based only on their outward profession (some were undoubtedly unregenerate). Thus the underlying principle behind my suggested qualification has very good precedent. I'm not aware that yours does. Where else does Paul speak of unregenerate infants as being saved?
2)
Given my suggested qualification, the verse is true - all of them *have* put on Christ. But given your qualification, the verse is still not true, since many of the unregenerate infants have not actually put on Christ (unless you are willing to redefine 'put on Christ'.) You may say that the verse need not be read so 'woodenly' - Paul is just speaking 'charitably' and did not intend to mean that unregenerate infants had necessarily put on Christ. But this seems to me like special pleading, and unnecessary in the light of the more reasonable qualification baptists take.
Perhaps you think that other evidence in scripture is so strong that it *demands* such a qualification. I am open to that possibility, but from what I have studied so far I cannot for the life of me see what it is. What is the strongest argument for the paedobaptist position in your opinion, and the verses that butress it?
Add new comment