faith for faith

Upon the post on Why I am a Reformed Baptist and not a Presbyterian, the question was raised, viz. “If we as Reformed Baptists, because of our understanding of the covenants and Covenant Theology, do not baptize infants, when then is the covenant sign of baptism rightly administered?” An excellent question, I might add, and I promise you that if you were to gather together a group of Baptists and ask them that same question, the result could be likened to that of UFC fight. Believe me, I have seen it before.

To appreciate the differences of opinion within Baptist circles on the proper time to administer the sign of baptism, you would have to understand the diversity within those who are labeled Baptists. To put it succinctly, imagine it this way: If you were to throw all of the Methodist denominations and all of the Presbyterian denominations into a single denomination and labeled it Paedobaptists and were to force them to work together and to throw money into a single pot, you would begin to see a bit of the diversity that exists among those who call themselves Baptists. Anyone who believes in believer’s baptism is a Baptist, be he a Calvinist or an Arminian, Reformed or Dispensational, an advocate of an elder-ruled church government or of congregation-ruled, alcohol connoisseur or teetotaler, etc., and it is for this reason that nobody cares to go to the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention unless it is known beforehand that something like Calvinism or alcohol is going to be discussed, and then members flock to it by the droves. It is sort of like looking at a wreck; you know that you shouldn’t, but you just can’t help yourself.

Read more…

Therefore, since our baptism into the death of Christ has crucified our old and fleshly man so that we would be set free from our slavery to sin, the apostle Paul exhorts the church to live in a way that is consistent with this reality. He gives this exhortation to the church, not because men who have been baptized into Christ are able to overpower the work of the Spirit of God, but because natural men have and always will find their way into the ranks of the fold of God. We know this is true because of the apostle’s later declarations in his discourse, and we see it clearly elsewhere in the promise of the surety of God’s work in the elect. The apostle writes, “I am confident of this very thing, that he who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Ph. 1:6 NASB). For when God begins a work in a soul, he finishes it (cf. Rm. 8:29, 30).

Therefore the apostle gives this command to the church, “Let not sin therefore reign in you mortal bodies to make you obey its passions” (v. 6:12). In other words, do not submit yourself to the slavery of sin and let sin be your Lord so that you follow after the fleshly passions of your body. As those who have been baptized into the death of Jesus Christ, we are cleansed not only from the condemnation of our wicked deeds, but we are released from the slavemaster who commands them of us so that we can live our lives in such as way that we do not submit to the passions of our flesh. For now, Christ has redeemed our flesh so that which was once use for wickedness can now be used for the sake of righteousness.

Read more…

Continued from previous post: “Therefore, Ezekiel declares, as the apostle Paul declares, that baptism results in the obedience of God’s people. How? Because God places in his people a new heart and a new spirit, and he puts his Spirit in us so that we will ‘walk in [his] statutes and be careful to obey [his] rules.’ Therefore, man’s inability to fulfill the obedience of faith is remedied by God’s ability, for it is God who works in his people to bring them to obedience through Jesus Christ. The question that remains then is, ‘How is this accomplished?’”

This obedience which God accomplishes in his people comes about first through the emancipation from sin that baptism affords. Paul addresses this truth thoroughly in the sixth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. However, before we look at that text, I would like to explain how the apostle structures his argument. Yes, baptism is the apostle’s topic in Romans 6-8:17, however he does not come at the topic directly as though he were writing an essay on baptism, but he does it in response to certain objectionable questions, each question raised by a prior claim of his. The reason he structures his discourse in this way, I believe, is because he is preparing the church for the false teachers who will inevitably spring up among them proclaiming destructive heresies. He expresses this concern at the end of his epistle, writing, “I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them” (Rm. 16:17). Therefore, the apostle structures his discourse on baptism in such a way that the church will have a defense against those who bring in a false gospel.

Read more…

No man can work his way to God, for, “No one does good, not even one,” and no one can will his way to God, for, “No one understands, no one seeks for God.” It is for this reason that the apostle writes later in the Epistle to the Romans, “So then, [salvation] depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy” (v. 9:16), and why he quotes the prophet Isaiah later in that same chapter concerning Israel, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah” (v. 9:29).

The Good News is that God has not left us to ourselves. For Paul declares in Romans 5 that that same Offspring that preserved the life and the holiness of ancient Israel has come into the world as the Second Adam–the second head of the human race–and where the first Adam failed, the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, succeeded. Where the first Adam brought judgment into the world, the Second Adam–Jesus Christ brought justification into the world. Where the first Adam brought the reign of death, the Second Adam–Jesus Christ brought the reign of righteousness unto eternal life. Where the first Adam was disobedient, the Second Adam–Jesus Christ was obedient. Where the first Adam brought the condemnation of the law, the Second Adam–Jesus Christ brought the abundance of grace.

Read more…

“Baptism is the most important event in the life of a child of God.” If one were to declare thus in a typical American Baptist church, that person would almost immediately be labeled a heretic or at least be charged with misunderstanding the Word of God. “Baptism is merely an outward picture of an inward reality,” they would answer. “Baptism does not save a soul.” To which I would respond, “A symbol of what?” To which they would reply, “Of dying with Christ and being raised with him.” “Which is what?” I would ask. To which I would expect an “I do not know,” or a “Being born again,” or an “Accepting of Jesus Christ as your personal Savior.”

The sad irony for most of us who call ourselves Baptists is that we bear baptism in our denominational title, yet we by and large have no clue what baptism is. In this way, we are much like the Circumcision party of whom the apostle Paul writes in Galatians 5 in that we, like them, bear the symbol of God’s covenant in our title, and, we, like them, understand the symbol of the covenant with great precision, and yet we do not understand the reality behind the symbol. We, like the Circumcision party, are zealously meticulous about practicing the symbol correctly, giving lectures and preaching sermons on why baptism by immersion is the only acceptable mode of baptism, all the while neglecting to teach upon the reality of baptism. We will harp upon the mode of the symbol to such detail so as to say that a baptizer cannot hold the nose of the one being baptized because dead people do not hold their noses, yet we neglect to teach that baptism is matter of the heart performed by the Spirit of God not by the letter of the law.

Read more…

What is baptism? Having grown up a Baptist, I have been taught and have held the typical Baptist view that baptism is merely a symbol and an ordinance, administered rightly by immersion and done as an “outward expression of an inward reality.” And in my many years as a Baptist, I have heard countless preachers and seminary professors give a thousand explanations and arguments concerning the mode of the “outward expression” of baptism from Scripture and from Church history, but I have yet to hear one sermon or lecture on the inward reality that the outward expression represents. For this reason, I am convinced that we who call ourselves Baptists have focused so much on the proper mode and administration of baptism that we have lost what baptism truly is. In this way we are much like the Jews of old who properly administered circumcision on the eighth day of a child’s life (even if that eighth day fell on the Sabbath), who yet forgot and neglected the reality that that practice represented, namely the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit of God to love God and to obey his law (cf. Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 44:7; Acts 7:51; Rm. 2:29).

And because of our focus on the physical ordinance of baptism and our neglect of the reality of baptism, we as Baptists are terribly confused by such declarations as that of the apostle Peter, who wrote, “Baptism now saves you” (1Pet. 3:21). For we have so ritualized and despiritualized the practice of baptism that we have become unbiblical in our understanding of it despite our denomination’s title. And instead of doing as we ought and running to the Scriptures to discover what true baptism is, we do as many have done with other doctrines by forming our doctrines and then explaining away passages that do not fit our doctrinal understanding rather than explaining them.

Read more…

John Piper caused quite a stir among Baptists a few years ago when he declared his intentions to make it possible for non-Baptist persons (viz. those who come from other orthodox denominations that practice infant baptism rather than believer’s baptism) to join his church without being baptized as an adult by immersion. I, at that time along with the majority of Baptists, openly ridiculed Piper for what I said was his “pansy stance on Baptism” and his apparent capitulation of doctrine for the sake of church membership. I, however (never to be one to put my foot in my mouth) since that time have reversed my former position and have found myself, for the most part, agreeing with the stance that Piper has made in his church. Though I am sure that I will receive much flak for siding with Piper on this issue, I am convinced that it is the best stance that Baptists can take for the sake of the health of the Body and for its testimony of Christ to the world.

Though I find myself agreeing with Piper on his stance on baptism and church membership, it is not because I have wavered in what I believe is biblical concerning baptism (see Why I am a Baptist). I have, however, since concluded that the issue is not one on the validity of believer’s baptism over other teachings on baptism, but it is one concerning the doctrine of the Church and how the Church is to be gathered together and comprised. The question that must be raised is not, “Is believer’s baptism biblical?” but it is, “Should fellowship be severed because of one’s stance on baptism?” Should we as Baptists deny membership to one who is clearly in Christ and desires membership in a Baptist church but disagrees on the nature of the doctrine of baptism?

Read more…

If you, like me, have grown up a Baptist and have enjoyed the terrible precision with which the ordinance of baptism has been carried out by Baptists, here is for you a bit of food for thought. Ponder for a moment upon that which you have heard from most Baptists regarding baptism: it must be done by immersion, it must be done by a legitimate Baptist church and pastor, it must be done without one holding one’s nose for that would taint the symbolism of death (no joke, I heard that one from a professor last week), etc. Now ponder upon that which you have heard concerning the other ordinance given by our Lord–communion. How is it practiced? Is it practiced with the same precision that baptism is practiced with? Do we commune with each other and the Lord around a real table or as a meal (for it is called the Lord’s Table and the Lord’s Supper)? Do we with our hands break the bread as we quote Christ’s words, “This is my body which is broken for you”? Do we drink with the broken bread the wine which is designed to call to remembrance the power that is in Christ’s blood and which is to lift our thoughts to the new wine that shall be served at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb? No, we do not. We with our precision on one ordinance and our neglect of the other show ourselves to be ignorant and careless in the least and Pharisees and hypocrites at the most. Just a thought.