Pyromaniacs: Porn and paper pastors

This is a phenomenal post by Dan Phillips. Theologically zeroed and tightly-grouped with long-range practical accuracy. Check it out: Pyromaniacs: Porn and paper pastors

Apologetics Training

A must read for every budding theologian and apologist.

Some Thoughts on

A friend recently asked me for my thoughts on baptism, particularly as it pertains to the controversy within certain Protestant circles over paedobaptism (baptizing believers and infants of believing parents) vs. credobaptism (baptizing believers only). Briefly, several years ago I transitioned from a traditional Covenant Theology/paedobaptism view to a New Covenant Theology/credobaptist view, largely through an on-going attempt to subject my own hermeneutical principles to Scripture. (This is the criticism which is often volleyed back-and-forth between dispensationalists and covenant theologians, namely, that one says the other's system of interpretation contains unbiblical presuppositions which lead to forced and incorrect interpretations of the text at times. Since I often like to attempt to seek some unity within controversy, I tend to agree with them both. *smile*)

That being said, there is no boldly explicit Scripture passage which states "Baptize infants" or "Baptize only believers," etc. Thus, the controversy. One's conclusion on the matter generally rests on conclusions one has drawn elsewhere on more explicit and clear matters of revelation, such as the progression of revelation, the nature of covenants (particularly the New Covenant), the apostacy warning passages of the New Testament, household baptisms, John's baptisms, etc., etc. Frankly, I think a compelling biblical case can be made for both positions, granting certain assumptions in each case. However, I'd like to give a few of the reasons why I have settled on a credobaptist position. Feel free to use the comments section to ask questions, post counter-arguments or poke holes in my arguments. I would gladly affirm the Bible's teaching in this matter (as in all others), whatever that proves to be.

All of that being said by way of introduction, here's some thoughts pertaining to baptism:

It seems that the debate hinges quite heavily on one's understanding of the relationship between the sign/seal of the Old Covenant (circumcision) and that of the New (baptism). This is often said to be intimately related to the amount of continuity or discontinuity one sees among the biblical covenants themselves (classically, Covenant Theology adhering to a continuous view, Dispensationalism a discontinuous view).

It would also appear that a pivotal text of Scripture is Col. 2:11-12 and context, since this is the one NT text which creates an explicit link between circumcision and baptism.

The paedobaptist sees baptism portrayed in the NT as a parallel or a continuation of the earlier covenant sign of circumcision. If baptism is the parallel or continuation of circumcision, we ought to baptize the children of believing parents, just as Abraham circumcised both Isaac and Ishmael.

Meanwhile, the credobaptist tends to see baptism as the NT sign of the "anti-type," for which OT circumcision is typological. If circumcision is a "type," given to those physically descended from Abraham, then the physical sign of the "anti-type" should only be given to spiritual descendants of Abraham, after they have been spiritually "born again" into the New Covenant.

(Note: Typology is a form of revelation whereby an object, person, law, ritual, etc. is used to reveal a more significant spiritual reality in a tangible manner. Example: The OT sacrifical atonement system was a type intended to reveal in principle and prophetically point to the eventual perfect sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ.)

This is, in my opinion, a reasonable framing of the discussion, using the best argument from both sides.

The important question then is, What is the relationship between baptism and circumcision? Or, more specifically, are baptism and circumcision related by parallel or typology?

As mentioned before, it seems that the pivotal text in this regard
is found in Col. 2:
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

In Col. 2 Paul is giving insight into what God has done for us historically, as well as what He has done in us through Christ's redemption. He uses two images to depict what God has done in us: circumcision and resurrection. With regard to circumcision he says, (vs. 11) "in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." This is a circumcision performed "without hands," a spiritual circumcision, in which it is not the foreskin which is cut away, but "the body of the flesh." "By the circumcision of Christ," we have died to the sinful rebellious nature, been "buried with Him in baptism," and have been resurrected with Him to new life through faith in the God who raises the dead. (Forgetting for a moment the current debate, aren't these fantastic portrayals of all that is ours in Christ?)

Okay, this is the crucial juncture of the discussion. One's interpretation here largely influences one's position with regard to baptism. Notice, first, that this is a spiritual circumcision performed without hands. Paul is referring to a spiritual NT counterpart to the physical OT ritual. Baptism is then linked to that spiritual counterpart in vs. 12. What is the NT counterpart to the OT rite of circumcision? It is NOT the rite of baptism. The NT counterpart to OT circumcision is the spiritual circumcision of Christ cutting away the old, sinful "body of the flesh." Baptism, then, is the external expression of this spiritual act of Christ. The "type" is circumcision; the "anti-type" is regeneration, for which baptism is the sign. (I will forego any discussion of the error of "baptismal regeneration" at this point, since we are discussing Protestant views of baptism. The confusion on the Roman Catholic's part is somewhat understandable, but it has to be recognized that the sign (baptism) is not identical with the thing signified (regeneration).)

Notice what verse 11 stresses about the new work of Christ herein: it is a circumcision "without hands." Water baptism is, of course, a ritual done "with hands." If we simply say that this NT ordinance of baptism done with hands corresponds to the OT ritual of circumcision done with hands, then we miss the most important truth: something new is happening, in the creation of the people of God called the "church of Christ." They are being created by God through a "circumcision without hands." They are being raised from the dead by God. Baptism is a sign of that resurrection, not a repetition of the OT sign. There is a New sign of the covenant because the covenant people are being constituted in a New way: by spiritual birth, not physical birth.

All of the OT types are Christocentric. They find their fulfillment in the NT person and/or work of Jesus Christ, who is the "guarantee of a better covenant, founded on better promises." (Heb. 7:22, 8:6)

As John Calvin puts it in his Institutes, "For what is more vain or absurd than for man to offer a loathsome stench from the fat of cattle in order to reconcile themselves to God? Or to have recourse to the sprinkling of water and blood to cleanse away their filth? In short, the whole cultus of the law, taken literally and not as shadows and figures corresponding to the truth, will be utterly ridiculous." (2.7.1)

This interpretation also moves my view outside of the "continuity vs. discontinuity" arguments, since I agree regarding the continuity between the Old and New Covenants, I simply argue for a different kind of continuity than the classical Covenant Theologian: typological continuity which is Christocentric, rather than parallel continuity which is centered on the Doctrine of the Covenants.

I would reject the Seven Dispensations framework of classical Dispensationalism, while also rejecting the One Covenant with Multiple Administrations framework of classical Covenant Theology, finding much more in common with the Baptistic Covenant Theologians of yesteryear (such as the framers of the 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith) or the contemporary New Covenant Theologians. (Also, for more info presented at a recent NCT think-tank see here.)

Briefly, I think Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians make the same mistake: seeking a physical fulfillment for OT prophecies, types, figures, laws and shadows in what are spiritual realities in Christ. The Dispensationalist and the Covenant Theologian begin with very different premises, but both come to the conclusion that a group of physical descendants must be the fulfillment of certain OT promises to ancient Israel. The Dispensationlist makes a sharp distinction between the Church and Israel, declaring that national, ethnic Israel must fulfill the promises given to them under the Old Covenant (through a re-nationalization in 1948 and so on). The Covenant Theologian declares that the physical children of believers today must fulfill the promises given to Abraham's physical children (national, ethnic Israel) by being baptized into the New Covenant. As I said, both seek physical fulfillment for what are spiritual realities.

I'm tempted at this point to go off on a rabbit trail regarding hermeneutics, presuppositions, the analogy of faith, the nature of the New Covenant, historical and eternal election, and progressive revelation, but I'll hold off on that, for now. I'm trying to keep myself to talking directly about baptism.

To round out the exegetical argument above, I'll add three points and leave it at that.

1.) The baptism of households in the NT seems to me to be less central and more peripheral, though some would disagree. Gregg Strawbridge's arguments for paedobaptism largely rest on his conclusions regarding the household baptisms as paradigmatic for the New Covenant. However, I think both sides can give reasonable explanations for this within their own frameworks, without bending the Scripture. From the Baptist perspective, if we take the historical example of Cornelius' household in Acts 10 as an exemplar for the other household baptisms mentioned in the NT there is no problem for the credobaptist since Cornelius "feared God with all his household" (vs. 2). At the end of the chapter the Holy Spirit fell on "all who heard the word" and Peter baptizes them all. When Paul says he baptized the household of Stephanus in Corinth it makes a certain amount of exegetical sense to allow the in-depth historical account of the first household baptism in Acts 10 to exert an influence over the understanding of the "household language" (interpreting the less detailed passages in light of the more clear ones). This, of course, doesn't settle it, but as I said above I think the household baptism point is moot, since both sides can adequately explain it.

(Note: Also, I think it's a mistake to assume that because infants are not baptized that family solidarity is destroyed, or even weakened, since the truly central thing to be passed from parents to children is the faith once for all entrusted to the saints. This is a common false assumption within the paedobaptist camp. Either "infant baptism and family solidarity" or "believer's baptism and individualistic chaos" is a false dilemma to the biblically faithful Baptists who seeks to glorify Christ in raising their children. I think the Jews in Acts 2 would link themselves with their family, but that link is to be made through a message of repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And it's obvious from the calling of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 that the nature of the NC was unclear to many Jews.)

2.) The Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. If physical baptism is the New Testament counterpart of Old Testament physical circumcision in the direct 1:1 correspondence way which is given in the paedobaptist position then what was the point of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? If physical baptism is the direct counterpart of physical circumcision, signifying the same things to the same people, then why all of the controversy over whether or not it was necessary for Gentile believers to be circumcised? The point would be made moot by the Covenant Theologian's understanding of baptism. Simply explain that physical baptism is the New Covenant reiteration of physical circumcision and, voila, problem solved. Everybody’s happy. But it was not that simple, was it? At this point the paedobaptists must admit that their view of baptism and circumcision is different in some key ways from that of the 1st century Apostles, who are being guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

3.) The danger of “more severe punishment” to those who “treat as unholy the covenant.” (Heb. 10:29) This one, I think, is a bit more practical, but a bit less compelling. I would be extremely cautious about baptizing my infant children into the covenant, in an effort at preventing the possibility of my decision on his/her behalf causing my child to receive greater punishment one day. If the exhortation is to “repent and be baptized,” then I will await their repentance before granting their baptism. May the Lord bless all of our children with His Holy Spirit wrought, persevering faith.

Thoughts?

Some Thoughts on "The Truth"

I'm taking a brief excursus from the current series on the Problem of Evil to put down some thoughts that I had while I was working last week, pressure-washing out the backs of some garbage trucks (if you know of anyone interested in hiring a theologian/philosopher/apologist, please email me. *smile*).

While everyone has opinions regarding what is or isn't "true", and there are many different perspectives on "the truth", there appear to be only two categories in which we can place the various theories: (1) correspondence theories and (2) coherence theories.

Broadly, a correspondence theory of truth holds that a statement is true if it accurately describes or reflects certain events, identities, relationships, states, etc. If the statement corresponds with reality, then it's true.

Coherence theories on the other hand, hold that a statement is true based on whether or not it is logically compatible with other true statements.

Both theories appear to have their strengths and weaknesses, but without really getting caught up in the details, it appears that more people today adhere most fundamentally to correspondence theories of truth (though historically we can watch the tide between the two positions "ebb and flow" somewhat). And this is rather uncontroversial. Either something is what it is, or it isn't.

Allow me to pause for a brief thought before moving ahead here. It would appear that it is the very nature of truth, in either theory, to be very narrowly exclusive. For if "A is A", then it is not B or Z or 3. There is a potentially infinite number of false statements that can be made about A in this single regard, but only one which is true: A is A. That's it.

Now consider the multiplicty of viewpoints regarding religion or politics or law or philosophy or ethics, etc. For any question, there is a correct answer and there are potentially infinite incorrect answers. The odds of your view of anything being correct are practically one in "infinity". If two people disagree, it is common to assume that one is right and the other wrong. However, from the standpoint of pure probability, it appears to be most likely that, in fact, both would be wrong. This ought to give us pause for thought regarding our level of certainty about any of our beliefs, opinions, arguments or viewpoints. It ought also to cause us to deal much more generously with those with whom we disagree. We may indeed see something about their perspective which they do not; however, they may also see our blind spots as well.

And while the starkly exclusive nature of truth ought to lead us to greater humility, our failures do not make truth false. A remains A, despite our misconceptions.

With that in mind, I'd like to draw on the earlier discussion of theories of truth, applied to a concrete situation. Few theories hold a more unimpeachable status in the contemporary consciousness than Darwinism. We are told that the Darwinistic view of history is an irrefutable scientific fact. "Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun, but the full implications of Darwin's revolution have yet to be widely realized." (Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene) The fact of Darwinism is then said to establish atheism as the most viable theological perspective. "The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism." (Dawkins, The New Humanist, vol. 107, no. 2)

Let's consider the statement "Darwinism is true." This statement assumes a correspondence theory of truth; that a Darwinistic representation of the history of life corresponds accurately with the real events of the past. Philosophical problems for the atheist arise immediately. On this theory, the earth is said to be approximately 4.55 billion years old (give or take a billion), while the human species has existed for approximately 100,000 years. Now, a correspondence theory of truth requires that a statement corresponds with reality in order for it to be true. Statements are, of course, a function of the mind. However, the human mind as we know it didn't exist until at least 100,000 years ago. So, how could "Darwinism is true" be a true statement 2 billion years ago if there was no mind for reality to correspond with? (Incidentally, a coherence theory of truth fairs no better in this respect, since it is an almost exclusively mental view of truth.)

Some will say that I'm just playing word games here. "It's true now, from our vantage point, with respect to the past," they will say, or something to that effect. But how can something be true now that was false then? Seeking to ground the existence of truth in the existence of the human mind will not rescue the theory either; it will simply make truth false ("truth" would then be variable, dependent and relative, and therefore not really "true" in any meaningful sense of the term).

The answer to the problem is equally as simple in reality as it is unsavory to the atheist. Darwinism would be true with respect to God's mind, not human minds. Indeed, truth cannot be dependent upon the human mind for its existence. In order for the statement "the universe began" to be true (and it must be or we are left in unresolvable logical contradictions, such as an infinite temporal regress), it must correspond between the beginning of the universe and a supra-temporal mind, the mind of an omniscient God.

The real "fact" is that even Directed Panspermia makes more sense than atheism from a Darwinistic perspective. (Apart from the sci-fi trappings of the theory, it is functionally indiscernible from historical forms of Deism.) Indeed, the statement "Darwinism is true" presupposes an Intelligent Design theory of some kind, at the absolute least; and I would be willing to argue that a robust biblical theism gives the best philosophical and scientific basis for the "origin of the species."

Uh-oh. Gotta get back to pressure-washing garbage trucks. Thoughts?

Non Sola Scriptura: The Blackaby View of God's Will — 1 & 2

Pyromaniacs: Non Sola Scriptura:the Blackaby view of God's will — 1

Pyromaniacs: Non Sola Scriptura:the Blackaby view of God's will — 2

American Revolution

Bob Basso, who posts videos under the name "funbobbasso" on YouTube, has created videos in which he portrays Thomas Paine, author of the "Common Sense" pamphlet that made the case for independence during the American Revolution.





Thoughts?